India 2014: What to Expect

As the results of India's marathon election finally started to come out, revealing that the Bharatiya Janata Party is going to form a government with a strong majority, my facebook feed got flooded with reactions from Indians from across the country and beyond. These reactions could be broadly classified into two types. Those that represented a sense of jubilation, an intense hope, religious almost, that the new government will transform India into a paradise of development; and those that reflected a deep anguish and panic, a fear that India will see an unhindered rise of fanaticism, communal strife and massive repression. While the first saw in the new prime minister of India some sort of a messiah with the power and will to magically solve all the problems that the nation faces; the second perceived in him an Indian Hitler: a personification of pure evil whose only mission is to butcher minorities and threaten the so-called "idea of India", defined by tolerance and multiculturalism. Such a bipolar characterization of reactions was not particularly surprising, given that the key figure around whom the election was fought and won had for the last ten years been one of the most hotly debated politicians of the country, and opinions about him have since then been highly polarized.  Presumably, the future, however, would lie somewhere in between. We would neither see a gigantic leap in terms of development, nor would we witness concentration camps.   

Let us begin with the narrative of development. The prime ministerial candidate emphasized repeatedly on how "development" was his top priority. Interestingly, very little detail was furnished on how this development was going to happen. The aspirations and expectations of the electorate in this regard are based mainly on the much discussed Gujarat model of development. However, while the PR team of the BJP did a phenomenal job in pushing propaganda through various channels of media to establish the idea of a near perfect Gujarat, akin to a Rama-Rajya, all relevant statistical data indicate that Gujarat is a mediocre state in pretty much all the metrics of human development. As Jean Dreze pointed out in a recent article, "If Gujarat is a model, then the real toppers in development indicators, like Kerala and Tamil Nadu, must be supermodels". Indeed, in all social indicators, including poverty, education, healthcare, malnutrition Gujarat ranks somewhere in the middle among the Indian states. It is only a leading state in terms of economic indicators like GDP per capita, but the fact that it does poorly in these social indices in spite of being a (relatively) rich state, raises big questions about the inclusiveness of its growth. If such a model is followed and implemented in India, it is therefore naive to expect any real improvement in healthcare, education or extreme poverty. 

But while the expectations of development are naive, unreasonable and unfounded, so are the fears of a Nazi takeover in India. It is a fact that the BJP has its roots in the RSS, an organization whose founding fathers drew inspiration from Hitler, but then the BJP itself has done little in recent years to indicate that it has any sinister motives to implement Fascism in India. It is worth noting that throughout the election campaign,  the leadership spoke almost entirely of its desire of ensuring good governance, of reviving economic growth and creating jobs, and of curtailing inflation. Issues like the Ram temple featured in the election manifesto, but were given insignificant importance in the campaign narrative of the BJP. In fact, this was the first election where the core Hindutva issues were largely neglected by the BJP throughout the campaign. It is also interesting to observe that in earlier elections, where communal issues did take centrestage, the BJP failed to gain as many seats. Clearly, the massive victory, then, could not be attributed to a growing fanaticism among polarized voters but to issues which where key to this particular election. It would be very unlikely, then, for the BJP too indulge in fomenting communal sentiments at this stage, because A) they don't need to as far as their pre-election promises are concerned; and B) they don't want to antagonize a large chunk of voters who supported them on election issues but are opposed to their social conservatism and religious agenda. Finally, the probability of a full scale riot or genocide happening in India is close to zero. To encourage something of that sort would be suicidal for the prime ministerial candidate, who would not only embarrass himself on a massive level, but also justify all the censure showered upon him by his critics; and jeopardize his chances for a second term. In all likelihood, the state will throw in all its power to stop communal strife from snowballing into high casualty riots. 

To summarize, in terms of social indicators our country would maintain status quo. There would be no significant improvement in healthcare and education, although there might be a minor reduction in poverty as a result of economic growth. On the other hand, India will not become a Fascist country, or a Hindu state, and the state itself will not get directly involved in persecuting members of any vulnerable community.  Instead, here are some of the things that probably will take place in India, as a result of these elections.

Markets would open up more in India, foreign investment in various sectors would be encouraged, more SEZs would be created, and tax cuts and benefits would be gifted to big corporations. Forced land acquisition might become common. An improvement in ease of doing business would presumably boost the economic growth and create more jobs for the middle class. It would also fill the already deep pockets of our Ambanis and Adanis. The government would be made smaller, in terms of number and size of ministries and possibly in terms of overall investment in the public sector. Some of the existing welfare projects aimed at the poorest members of the society might be scrapped, and new ones would not be introduced. This would also reduce government level corruption and wastage of taxpayers' money to some extent. Some of the less powerful politicians of the previous government would be prosecuted on corruption charges.

India's foreign policy would become more assertive, and in some cases mildly aggressive. This would be a shift from the soft state that India has traditionally been perceived as, especially throughout the last decade or so.  There will be no war, but there might be increased skirmishes at the border and escalation of tension with Pakistan and China. On the other hand, stronger relations would be sought with countries in South East Asia, Japan, the US and Israel. Relationships with Iran may deteriorate. Strong anti-terrorism bills would be passed, targeting both Jihadi elements and Maoist insurgents.

Public funds would be spent on propagating Hindu nationalist ideology. This would be implemented through subtle changes in school curriculum by depicting Hindu glory; through promotion of Sanskrit, Indian astrology and Ayurveda, and through  more ostentatious displays of Hinduism in government activities. Funds would be earmarked for the protection of cattle. These influences, would mainly entail a softer version of Hindutva. The effects of a stronger version of the same would be felt as well, though not directly through government initiatives.

Groups that do not enjoy economic influence or political clout, or those who represent ideas that do not conform entirely to the doctrines of Hindu nationalism would be targeted and persecuted by fringe groups that adhere to a more extreme version of Hindutva. Target groups would range from religious minorities, homosexuals and Kashmiris, to the politically liberal. Vigilant groups and self-appointed moral police would feel encouraged, and incidents of rogues beating up people celebrating Valentine's day or women drinking alcohol would increase. Freedom of speech and freedom of press would both decline to some extent and critiques of the government or Hinduism would be attacked more severely and frequently; again not so much by the government itself but by fringe groups who would now enjoy some level of state protection.   These spurious attacks, however, would still generate further criticism from sections of the population, and at some point, the government would be forced to draw a line and put a check. Moreover, the BJP would be keen to not antagonize Muslims, knowing that the landslide victory would not have been possible without a considerable number of Muslims voting for them this time. 

All of these, needless to say, are mere speculations, and the truth will only become evident in five years' time. It can be guaranteed, however, that overall, India will continue to be the slow and sluggish elephant that it has been as far as change is concerned, since time immemorial; and neither would its problems go away, nor would its rich and diverse social fabric be destroyed.  Both India's problems, and the "Idea of India" are too deep-rooted to be obliterated by a single election.