Narendra Modi

Is the Indian System Strong Enough to Survive Modi?

India, unlike America, lacks checks against the designs of a populist authoritarian.


Both my native country, India, and my adopted country, America, are liberal democracies that are right now in the thrall of right-wing populist demagogues—Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India's case and President Donald Trump in America's. Few would deny that between the two, Trump is the crazier one—a showboat with impulse control issues. Modi, by contrast, a humble tea stall owner once, is a veritable picture of discipline and restraint.

Yet Modi, who got re-elected by a landslide last month, is potentially more dangerous because Indian democracy lacks strong institutional checks on his illiberal ambitions. In America, however, multiple resistance points—courts, Congress, opposition both from outside and even within the GOP and states—have managed to thwart Trump's worst instincts.

For all of Trump's bluster and bravado, the fact is that beyond tax cuts, he hasn't accomplished much of his signature agenda. Even though his party controlled all three branches of government for the first two years, Obamacare stands—albeit considerably weakened—and his wall doesn't.

Where Trump has made his real mark is on trade and immigration. By abusing his authority under the National Security Act, he picked unnecessary trade wars. And on immigration, he's used the vast enforcement discretion that Congress has foolishly relinquished to crack down on immigrants far beyond what a majority of Americans support. And he has used administrative means to cut legal immigration even after Congress pointedly refused to do so.

Still, the courts have either watered down (the Muslim travel ban) or stalled (scrapping the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that hands temporary protected status to those who were brought to the country as kids) or outright stopped (defunding sanctuary cities) a good portion of his immigration agenda.

Although Trump has remade the GOP in his own image with remarkable speed—forcing it to abandon its long-standing commitment to entitlement reform, fiscal responsibility, and free trade to embrace profligacy and protectionism instead—there are still limits to how far he can push his party. Indeed, one reason he backed down from his latest threat to impose stiff tariffs on Mexico was to avoid an all-out revolt by incensed Republicans. Moreover, with the House falling into Democratic hands after the 2018 midterms, Trump's grandiose ambitions are pretty much on ice for now.

Contrast this with what Modi got away with in his first term.

One Sunday evening about three years ago, without notice or forewarning, he declared on national TV that close to 90 percent of the nation's currency was null and void, effective immediately, and would be replaced with new bills. The ostensive purpose of this so-called demonetization was to cure the scourge of "black money"—the illicit cash that rich Indians horde to avoid paying taxes. But the scheme badly backfired as India's wealthy classes managed to use their connections with corrupt bank officials to swap much of their black money while small businessmen and day laborers got wiped out.

In America, Trump could never have pulled off a stunt like this because he simply doesn't have the authority. And if he'd tried, he likely would have been impeached.

But Modi got the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), whose board members serve at the prime minister's pleasure, to rubber stamp his harebrained scheme hours before he announced it. How did he accomplish that?

When the parliament is not in session, Indian ministries (the equivalent of executive agencies) can issue ordinances that they have six months to get ratified by the parliament. Given that the Indian parliament is in session only about 60 days out of the year, this gives ministries lots of time to push all kinds of ordinances. Moreover, when a bill concerns matters of money, which the demonetization one did, they only need to get it ratified in the lower house or Lok Sabha (where Modi enjoyed a big majority when he pushed demonetization and an even bigger one now after the recent elections), and not the upper house (where he didn't).

This meant that once the RBI issued the demonetization order, the only possible pushback in parliament could come from members of Modi's own party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). But there was no chance of that—not only because the BJP is too cowed by Modi but also because an anti-defection law that India embraced in 1985 gave party bosses, who are in Modi's pocket, untold powers to thwart dissent and crush resistance.

The alleged purpose of the anti-defection bill was to boost government stability. In parliamentary systems, the party that wins the most seats in the lower house gets to pick the prime minister who forms the government. However, if the prime minister enjoys only a narrow majority, a few members can hold the threat of voting with the opposition to make unreasonable demands or, worse, switch sides and bring down the government, a genuine problem in India. The anti-defection law gives the party whip the power to strip the seats of members of parliament (MPs) who vote against the party on a bill or motion.

This obviously ruled out even the possibility of a successful no-confidence motion—the equivalent of impeachment—against Modi for foisting such a radical scheme on 1.3 billion people. But there was not even the hint of dissent in the BJP, although it can hardly be the case that not a single BJP MP had any qualms given the massive disruptions Modi's brain malarkey caused constituents. In fact, the BJP-controlled Lok Sabha meekly introduced and passed the bill ratifying the scheme in a few hours.

Nor are Indian courts in any position to stop someone like Modi, even if they were so inclined, which they are increasingly not. In the demonetization case, their hands were more or less tied because the RBI has sweeping powers to write monetary policy. But even on non-monetary issues, the executive and legislative functions are too conjoined in India for effective judicial oversight. Unlike in England and America where there is a tradition of the parliament writing long and detailed laws precisely to hem in the discretion of the executive, Indian laws tend to be very short and imprecise, laying out some vague policy direction and letting the executive fill in the details as he or she sees fit. This means that there isn't a clear legislative intent that courts can refer to when a prime minister chooses to interpret a law in a self-serving way.

But even if the laws were clearer, the courts would still be reluctant to call out the prime minister or his agencies, notes State University of New York's Shruti Rajagopalan, a constitutional economist and a keen observer of the Indian judiciary. In contrast to America, where Supreme Court justices get lifetime appointments, in India they are required to retire by 65, after which they typically seek plum government jobs. Opining against a sitting prime minister isn't a smart career move.

But if governmental checks-and-balances on Modi are weak, external checks are weaker still.

Modi started trashing the Indian media as "paid news" when Trump was still hosting The Apprentice. He accuses the press of a liberal bias and serving the near-dead Congress Party and its politics of minority appeasement—"fake secularism" as he calls it. This has been a remarkably effective narrative that discredits the media, the opposition, liberalism, and secularism all at once.

Trump merely fantasizes about starting a government channel to counter "biased" CNN coverage. Modi has been there, done that. For the duration of the elections, the BJP launched—and private cable operators dutifully carried—the NaMo channel whose express purpose was to broadcast pro-Modi propaganda 24/7. This was a clear abuse of power for partisan ends, but India's election commission, fearful of Modi, refused to intervene despite howls of protest from the opposition. Indeed, so insulated is Modi from scrutiny that he maintains his Mr. Squeaky Clean image even though 116 out of the 303 BJP MPs elected this time have pending criminal cases against them, including shockingly a Hindu militant accused of involvement in an anti-Muslim terrorist attack that killed six people.

The only remaining check on Modi is the Rajya Sabha or the upper house where the opposition still has a slight edge. Modi has blamed it of obstructing his agenda, although the truth is that he hasn't even seriously tried to reach out because he lacks both the temperament and the skills to win over detractors and build consensus. However, it is widely expected that he'll conquer this last frontier, too, next year when many states that have become BJP strongholds in recent years will hold state assembly (legislative) elections.

The great hope of Modi is that he'll use his awesome powers to finally deliver much-needed but difficult pro-growth reforms that he promised when he was first elected. That is not outside the realm of possibility, but demonetization shows that Modi is also capable of great harm. If he chooses to advance his long-standing Hindu nationalist agenda, he has the power to do it.

It's already a foregone conclusion that he'll use his second term to push divisive issues such as weakening constitutional accommodations for the practices of religious minorities. The big question is whether he'll also push issues like constructing a temple on the site of a historic mosque that Hindu militants razed in 1992. The fact that he has done nothing to control the epidemic of lynchings by Hindu nationalists of Muslims suspected of consuming beef does not bode well. He talked about winning the trust of India's religious minorities during his inauguration speech. But rather than outlining steps to beef up (so to speak) their security, he redoubled his accusation against the "fake secularism" of the bloodied and maimed opposition. The BJP head, Amit Shah, also an avowed Hindu nationalist who is Modi's trusted lieutenant, had already included such controversial "reforms" in the BJP's election manifesto. And, ominously, Modi just made Shah his home minister—the equivalent of Department of Homeland Security secretary—the second most powerful position after his own.

Modi is a loaded gun. It is possible that he won't go off. But there is no institution left in India to disarm him for the next five years. India's opposition is decimated, internal party resistance neutralized, the legislative branch neutered, the courts compliant, and the media vanquished.

Trump is manifestly unfit for office. The capacity of America's institutions to resist and stop him is not inexhaustible—and the longer he stays, the weaker they'll get given that he is on a constant collision course with them. For now, however, Americans should be grateful that they are not at the mercy of one man.

This column originally appeared in The Week.

NEXT: Iran Will Exceed Nuclear Stockpile Limit in Response to U.S. Sanctions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Like every other parliamentary system that caveats its civil rights guarantees into smoke.

  2. The only thing more exhausting than Shikha’s articles on immigration are her articles on Indian politics.

    1. So you’re an American and Hindu nationalist?

      1. Government Almighty forbid this nightmare, but what if Der TrumpfenFurher and Modi the Mad combine forces to violently attack all Muslims everywhere, this kicking the endless cycle of violence into overdrive? Then we will NEVER get out of all of the many-many Stanstanstanstanstanstanstanstanstanstanistans!!!

    2. I think she’s saying India needs more illegal immigration and Taco trucks.

  3. Sounds like a good time to outsource our government to India.

  4. Has any country with so many people and resources ever been as irrelevant as India?

    1. Yes… A nation known as Tulpanistansatanistanisatanstanistanisatanistanistan! (Was actually far worse… All that they EVER exported was thread-shitting and childish insults!)

      1. Aw you’re upset that I puted your lame fucking sockpuppet.

        Cry more faggot.

        1. Yeah, ya puted all over yerself… Make my day, pute!

          (Learn how to write and type some day, incoherent pute!)

  5. Oh goody, another raving, rambling blather of nonsense from Shitma.

    Notice how, in an article primarily about India, she flings about throwaway lines about Trump like “he picked unnecessary trade wars” and “he’s used the vast enforcement discretion that Congress has foolishly relinquished to crack down on immigrants far beyond what a majority of Americans support”.

    Except, pray tell me Shitma, after several US Presidents attempted (supposedly) to negotiate with China to reduce the trade barriers they impose on US goods, what sort of lever, or pressure, do you suppose Trump would be able to use in his attempt to bring China to seriously negotiate on these topics? Or, in your esteemed estimation, is “free trade” perfectly acceptable as a one way street?

    Or, knowing that YOU live in Liberal-tania on the east and west costs, did you not know that Trump’s attempts to stop the volume of illegal immigration is WILDLY popular in the rest of the country? Or that even with the prevailing love of illegals on the coasts, that the majority of US citizens want illegal immigration stopped?
    Or, more likely, you know all that and are just a habitual liar.

    Yeah, it says a lot about Reason that Shitma is a “Senior Analyst”.

    1. “Notice how, in an article primarily about India, she flings about throwaway lines about Trump”

      There is a TDS minimum quota in every Reason article.

  6. Re-elected in a landslide.

    Still not tired of all the winning.

    1. “Even though his party controlled all three branches of government for the first two years,”

      The Globalist Uniparty controlled both houses in Trump’s first two years. Still do.

  7. So before Trump, the GOP was moving productively towards entitlement reform, fiscal restraint, and free trade? There were no RINOs sabotaging or opposing outright the above, it’s been Trump all along causing the past 30 years of GOP inaction? Where does she live, anyway? None are so blind as those who will not see.

    1. Trump’s evil spreads backward in time as well.

      Orange Man Bad!

  8. The 1985 anti-defection law was not “embraced” by India; it was imposed by an Indian National Congress government under hereditary Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. Who, if we’re worried about communal violence, presided over mob violence against Sikhs.

    Which is to say, India has no system of liberal democracy for Modi to threaten. Rather, Modi is just another illiberal Indian leader in a long tradition thereof. The only change is that he’s an illiberal Hindu capitalist who isn’t a Nehru-Gandhi, unlike the traditional system of having an illiberal atheist socialist Nehru-Gandhi dynast.

  9. Hopefully Modi utterly and permanently alters India’s government for the better. All religions are reprehensible, but there is nothing on Earth as vile or evil as Islam. Nothing. I support any group of people who resist or combat Islam. If there were a God I’d wish Mr. Modi Godspeed and good luck.

  10. One thing I will give Shikha is that she isn’t a total hypocrite… She wants to see her own native country destroyed as well as America!

    The fact is that nationalism is not a dirty word. All those Muslims should have left for Bangladesh or Pakistan when everything got split up after the British gave India up.

    I note that she doesn’t ever mention the metric FUCK TON of Muslim terrorist attacks in India ALL THE FUCKING TIME. She only shit talks the majority Hindu people when they get pissed and retaliate. Random murder isn’t a good thing, but it’s not to be unexpected given the tensions that the crazy Muslims (not all of them are mind you) make.

    Any which way, I support nationalism as a general principle… If people don’t like the way India is ran, they should move. I say the same about all the idiot progs in the USA who hate everything about this country and its culture.

  11. I think your fear is justified, but also mind that you ignore the faith of billions of Indians in Modi for how the functioning of their government has improved over the last 5-6 years. I keep coming across a variety of such anecdotes from so many people where their government actually helped them through policies. They need not be Muslims for that. I think India saw the first government that would go for fairness over fake secularism. Actually the way I think, Modi has diminished religion, religious differences as now the narrative is only growth and development. If you think growth, you develop. If you think religion, the religion develops. Most of the leaders lookout for re-election and enforce policies that can help them in the short term. Modi, on the other hand, took some tough measures for long term (as you say an American president would never dare to), and yes some foolish ones too, but you see how in the end everything turned out in his favor. What do you have to say about that? This is not some hack. Maybe this is what Indians want. Maybe Trump is what Americans really wanted once, and might want again. Do the people have better options? Specially, not Indians. Modi is the only good thing that happened to them since last 15 years.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.