Why Narendra Modi called Indians Muslim infiltrators

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, his domestic power assured and his Hindu vision deeply rooted, has set his sights in recent years on the role of global statesman, riding India's economic and diplomatic rise. In doing so, he distanced himself from his party's core work of polarizing India's diverse population along religious lines for his own electoral gain.

His silence provided tacit support as vigilante groups continued to target non-Hindu minority groups and members of his party routinely used hateful and racist language, even in Parliament, against the largest of these groups, the 200 million Indian Muslims. While the pot remains boiling, Mr. Modi's subtle whistles referencing Muslim clothing or burial sites could go a long way nationally while providing enough denial to ensure red carpets remain rolled out at the foreign to the man who leads the world's largest democracy.

This is exactly what pushed the prime minister to break with this calculated pattern in a fiery campaign speech on Sunday, when he referred to Muslims by name as infiltrators with more children The question of who would get India's wealth if its opponents took power has been hotly debated. Analysts say this could be a sign of concern that his position with voters is not as strong as previously thought. Or it could simply be a reflexive expression of the kind of divisive religious ideology that has fueled his politics all along.

But this audacity made clear that Mr. Modi sees few checks on his enormous power. In the country, watchdog institutions have largely bowed to the will of its Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP. Abroad, partners are increasingly turning a blind eye to what Mr. Modi is doing in India as they see the country as a democratic counterweight to China.

Modi is one of the most capable and experienced politicians in the world, said Daniel Markey, senior adviser to the South Asia program at the U.S. Institute of Peace. He would not have made these comments if he did not believe he could get away with it.

Mr. Modi may have been trying to demonstrate this impunity, Mr. Markey said, to intimidate the BJP's political opponents and to show them and their supporters how little they can do in answer.

The Prime Minister considers himself the builder of a new and modern India, moving towards development and international respect. But he also wants to leave a legacy distinctly different from that of the leaders who founded the country as a secular republic after British colonial rule.

Before joining its political wing, he spent more than a decade as a cultural foot soldier of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or RSS, a right-wing organization founded in 1925 with the mission of making India a Hindu state. The group considered it a betrayal that an independent India agreed to a partition that created Pakistan as a separate nation for Muslims, embraced secularism and gave all citizens equal rights. One former member went so far as to assassinate Mohandas K. Gandhi in outrage.

During his decade in national power, Mr Modi has been very effective in pushing forward some of the central agenda points of the Hindu right. It abolished the semi-autonomy of the Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir. He enacted a citizenship law widely seen as detrimental to Muslims. And he helped build a large temple dedicated to the Hindu deity Ram on land long disputed between Hindus and Muslims.

The violent destruction in 1992 of the mosque on this land, which Hindu groups believe had been built on the grounds of a previous temple, was at the heart of the national Hindu self-assertion movement that ultimately brought Mr. Modi in power more than two decades later.

More profoundly, Mr. Modi has shown that the broader goals of a Hindu state can largely be achieved within the confines of the Indian constitution by co-opting the institutions meant to protect equality.

His party officials can refute any complaint in this direction. How could Mr. Modi discriminate against anyone, they say, if all Indian citizens benefit equally from his government's robust social offerings of toilets, roofs and monthly rations?

Analysts say the argument is telling because it shows how Mr. Modi has redefined democratic power not as leadership within checks and balances, but as the broad generosity of a strongman, even as he has redefined the citizenship in practice to make it clear that there is a second class.

Secularism, the idea that no religion will be favored over another, has been largely co-opted to mean that no religion will be allowed to deny Hindus their dominance as the country's majority, its critics say. Mr. Modi's officials, who wear their religion on their sleeves and publicly mix prayer and politics, suppress public expressions of other religions, seeing them as a violation of India's secularism.

While right-wing officials encourage conversion to Hinduism, which they describe as a return to one's homeland, they have introduced laws in many of the states they govern that criminalize conversion from Hinduism. Encouraged by these leaders, Hindu extremists lynched Muslim men accused of transporting cows or beef and hounded them on charges of love jihad or luring Hindu women. The vigilantes frequently burst into churches and accosted priests who they believed were engaging in proselytizing or converting.

What they have done is create a permissive environment that encourages hatred and promotes hatred, said Harsh Mander, a former civil servant who now advocates for social harmony.

Referring to Mr. Modis' speech on Sunday, he added: This open recourse to this type of hate speech will only embolden the hardest Hindu right in society.

Tom Vadakkan, BJP spokesperson, said the prime minister's comments on Muslims had been misinterpreted. Mr. Modi, Mr. Vadakkan said, was referring to intruders or illegal migrants who, according to the party, are being used by the political opposition to redefine demographics.

Privately, Western diplomats in New Delhi make little secret of their unease with some of Mr. Modi's actions as a democratic ally, from targeting minorities to suppressing opposition and dissent. But they recognize that it is exploiting a particularly open period in the global order, with many of their own capitals providing a less positive example than in the past, and with a particular focus on China and trade deals.

Mr. Markey, the Washington-based analyst, said the U.S. government was holding back from publicly expressing concerns for several reasons beyond its national interest in having India serve as an economic and geopolitical counterweight to the China.

The United States, he added, realizes the growing limits of its public criticism when it comes to changing the behavior of partner countries. This has been demonstrated most recently by the repeated instances in which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ignored President Biden's demands that the Israeli military change its conduct in the Gaza war.

Criticism of Mr. Modi, Mr. Markey added, could also backfire on American politicians who do not want to interfere with Indian diaspora groups.

But Mr. Modi may not remain immune as he pursues closer partnerships with the United States in areas such as joint weapons manufacturing, high-technology transfer and intelligence sharing.

My sense is that Washington's growing discomfort with Modi's domestic policies is gradually lowering the ceiling on potential U.S. cooperation with India, Mr. Markey said. The question is to what extent Washington is willing to trust India. Will India be treated as an ally in all but name, or as a partner more like Vietnam or Saudi Arabia?

Hari Kumar reports contributed.