In the month since Nupur Sharma, a former
spokeswoman for India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), offended Muslims
around the world with disparaging comments about the Prophet Mohammed, India’s
diplomats have been doing damage control – with limited success.
اضافة اعلان
After 18 Islamic
countries, along with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Gulf
Cooperation Council (GCC), condemned Sharma’s remarks, the BJP dismissed her
comments as that of “fringe elements”, failing to explain how a ruling party’s
official spokeswoman might represent a minority view.
Given the Indian
government’s defense, certain questions need probing, such as: Why have these
diplomatic protests broken out now, rather than during previous instances of
Islamophobia in India? And how will the BJP temper its responses to future hate
speech?
The answers may say
as much about the future of India’s democracy and the place of Indian Muslims
within it as they do about its place in the evolving world order.
In the near-term,
the BJP is likely to speak in a more conciliatory, tolerant voice. This is no
small step. In recent years, BJP politicians and their affiliates have played
to the Hindu nationalist ecosystem by failing to condemn and even encouraging
attacks on Muslims. Shelving the anti-Islamic rhetoric is long overdue, though
whether that will translate into more tolerant policies is a different question
entirely.
A key reason the
BJP will tread lightly is because there is too much at stake if they do not. As
of March 2022, India’s trade with GCC states was $150 billion, of which India’s
imports were worth $111 billion. Additionally, the GCC is home to more than 8
million Indian workers who send an estimated $26 billion in annual remittances
to India.
While the diplomatic crisis between India and the Muslim world will pass, left in its wake will be subtle, yet important changes in the global world order, where ethno-national states converge on a far less liberal view of universal human rights.
India has also
pursued closer strategic ties with countries in the Middle East, from trade pacts
and investment deals to joint military exercises.
Besides China,
India is one of the few countries that has managed to maintain strong political
and economic ties with all GCC members.
Typically, Islamic
nations have been silent on India’s internal matters. The country’s BJP-led
government has, since coming to power in 2014, pursued a series of policies
detrimental to the rights of Indian Muslims – such as changes to citizenship
laws, the erosion of Muslims’ personal freedoms, and efforts to criminalize
inter-religious marriage. And yet, these affronts against India’s 204 million
Muslims have barely drawn a peep of protest from the Islamic world.
What makes this
moment different, however, is that the BJP spokesperson’s insults were directed
at the entire religion and those who practice it – both inside and outside the
country.
Going forward, the
BJP will need to decide if it will dial-down its Hindu-nationalist sentiment
or, conversely, use this moment to further fuel the trope that Indian Muslims bear
transnational loyalties, as evidenced by the lineup of Muslim countries that
have expressed anger. Opting for the latter approach would represent a further
corrosion of India’s constitution that, on paper at least, promises equal
rights to all its citizens.
Eventually, the
diplomatic crisis will blow over. Criticizing India does not carry the same
salience within Islamic countries as does questioning religious tolerance in
Europe or the US. India, like China, is still considered part of the anti-colonial
global south. India has a rich history of Indo-Islamic culture, which is
considered by Islamic countries to be an extension of their own cultural
firmaments. All of this will ensure that barring any new outbursts, countries
protesting Sharma’s quip will continue ignoring what happens inside India.
GCC leaders might
even extend a clamp down on anti-India protests led by Indian expatriates in
their own countries, as Kuwait did last week.
Furthermore, even
ideological regimes like the one in Tehran have been forced to backtrack on
recent statements, while the government of Bangladesh has demurred. Iran’s
signing of a 25-year strategic cooperation agreement with China, despite
Beijing’s treatment of the Uyghurs, is a glaring example of how very few countries
are willing to let human and religious freedoms precipitate a serious breakdown
in diplomatic ties.
The unfortunate
truth is that when India and its friends in the Islamic world move past this
crisis, as they undoubtedly will, the result will be an arrangement not
dissimilar to one that Moscow and Beijing would favor. China and Russia have
long championed non-interference in countries’ internal affairs over the West’s
espousal of individual freedoms. That outcome will be the real sign of the
direction the world order is evolving in.
The US and some
European countries have been haphazard in standing up for liberal democratic
values, particularly when it comes to Israel. India is a hedge power in a world
experiencing great geopolitical flux. While the diplomatic crisis between India
and the Muslim world will pass, left in its wake will be subtle, yet important
changes in the global world order, where ethno-national states converge on a
far less liberal view of universal human rights.
The writer is a political analyst who focuses on the Middle
East and South Asia. He also consults on socio-economic development for
government and private-sector entities.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
