what’s more dangerous than chinese communism? — indian nationalism
I’ve become more content with the realization that while we may recognize certain classically liberal ideals to represent fundamental, universal human values, the Western obsession with democracy blindsides us to the objectives that governments theoretically and realistically are expected to serve. Keeping this in mind, I’ve softened my conditioned antipathy towards Chinese communist rule. While I don’t necessarily agree with the CCP’s history of censorship and authoritarian rule, what I can appreciate about its regime is how the party has shown itself to be remarkably effective at creating a more prosperous society for its people. The means by which these improved outcomes are delivered have not been as repressive as Westerners would like to imagine. By focusing on the improvement of primary and secondary education, relaxing old, draconian measures on business, and importing ideas and technologies from the rest of the world, the Chinese bureaucracy has proven its commitment to serving the wellbeing of its people. In this sense, I feel Western critics have been overly harsh in denouncing Chinese tactics and have failed to give credit where credit is due. Part of these anti-China sentiments also come from unfounded Cold War fears, political populism in the West, and a historical misunderstanding of the creation of the modern Chinese state. The fact is that Chinese citizens have much more freedom than is readily apparent. Furthermore, Chinese bureaucrats are evaluated on performance and as such are expected to dedicate their lives to the wellbeing and improvement of their citzenries. This isn’t to say that there aren’t still human right concerns throughout China, most notably regarding the Uighur detention centers and the suppression of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong. Nor should America ignore China’s deft progress in technological advancements, as these advancements could be and have been used in ways that encroach upon privacy concerns abroad.
From an ideological perspective, however, if the West had to be concerned about a worrisome political regime in the East, it should certainly pay more attention to the problematic nature of Indian politics today. I suspect the noted lack of concern towards the brash, demagogue-driven state of Indian politics can be partially explained by the similar state of affairs in the United States under President Trump (as well under his counterpart, Boris Johnson on the other side of the Atlantic). Strident religious fervor under the guise of national pride, reflected by the sectarian Hindutva movement, threatens to subvert the democratic, constitutionally rooted future India had chosen for itself in 1947. Through a series of blatant constitutional violations and de facto religious biases displayed by India’s Supreme Court, the state has distanced itself from the tolerant, secular ideals it was founded upon. Nationalistic critics tend to attribute these ideals to Western colonizers, a critique that inappropriately conflates exploitative imperialist tendencies with what many, including the late Indian philosopher Rabindranath Tagore, consider to be universally derived humanistic values. Religious bigotry towards Muslims, exemplified through the swift takeover of Jammu and Kashmir by faulty legal means, loosens the pluralistic and democratic fabric that was used to thread the nation together following centuries of British colonialism. What is even more concerning is that Hindu nationalists are using the imperialistic actions of Muslim rulers from centuries ago as justification for the demolition of historically and culturally rich Islamic sites of worship today. In no modern society should generations today be punished for the actions of their forebears. And finally, to bring this argument back to my main point, besides the suppression of marginalized voices, the Indian political system has not significantly improved the standard of living for its people which is increasingly seen as the metric of performance for contemporary governments. Sure, India’s economy has gone through several transformative phases, but when compared to its neighbor to the east, India underperforms when it comes to providing opportunities for upward mobility for its most impoverished citizens.
Why should India be of greater concern to Western democracies than China? I see a few key reasons. For one, unlike China, India was explicitly founded on democratic and humanistic grounds. The irreverence towards upholding these ideals is troublesome because it delegitimizes rule of law and weakens the case for democracy. If a democracy is able to devolve into a state whereby populist urges are ever so often capable of drowning out established, liberal values, then who’s to say that democracy is any better than any other form of governance? We currently strive for democracy, not because it’s perfect, but because it’s proven to be the form of governance that has guaranteed to its people certain ‘inalienable rights’ and is similarly subject to a host of checks and balances. Yet threats to democracy in India as well as in the United States may demonstrate that democracy may only be the ideal form of governance in theory. Another reason the devolution of Indian politics is disconcerting is because the growing share of die-hard nationalists could very well bully Indian politicians into imposing protective policies that may appear beneficial to the Indian common person, but in reality would exact a huge toll on societal welfare. Economic growth in India has been extraordinarily dismal over the past few decades. Short spurts of rapid growth have been cushioned by longer periods of economic stagnation. Allowing populists to dictate economic policy would be a huge mistake as we’d almost certainly see the passage of costly, short-sighted policies which would inevitably be tailored towards gaining short-term popular support at the expense of long-term societal investment. These policies could make trade with India more difficult for Western nations and generate losses for both.
Some concluding remarks— I am pro-democracy and identify as a classic liberal. I truly believe democracy is the least pernicious system of governance available to us and has many redeeming qualities that when actualized allow democracy to serve the interests of populations that may not always see eye-to-eye. At the same time, I recognize that subjecting other forms of government to absurd levels of scrutiny and interfering with their politics is not the role of any democratic government, barring egregious and inhumane treatment of any subpopulation.
From a practical lens, it’s understandable why the West has chosen to focus on China when thinking about national security and economic competitiveness. There is no doubt that China poses a real threat to the U.S. in the years to come: but hostile, defensive politicians that blame China for fundamentally economic woes that are as much China’s fault as are the tendencies for water to flow downstream by the laws of gravity, risk deepening a rift that could optimistically be closed through strategic alliances and mutually favorable terms of trade. The U.S. must come to terms that China may never be a democracy. Rather than supporting democracy where it can be found, I fear that the West’s obsession with castigating China for its supposedly oppressive political culture detracts from real threats to democracy, as in India, which if allowed to persist could weaken faith in what much of the world believes to be the least destructive form of governance.
