Amid Modi's escalating anti-Muslim rhetoric, why is the world so quiet?

In 2002, when Narendra Modi was serving as Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat, he presided over a pogrom that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Muslims in India. His incendiary rhetoric back then included inciting Hindus to seek revenge for the death of 59 pilgrims in Godhra after their train, the Sabarmati Express, caught fire. Muslims were blamed without proof for the incident.

Numerous scholars, academics, politicians and intellectuals in 2002 considered Modi to be complicit in one of the worst periods of rioting in India's history, and the international community reacted swiftly.

The United States, the United Kingdom and several European countries imposed a de facto travel ban on Modi, whose US visa was revoked in 2005 for violating religious freedoms at home.

The firestorm from the riots also went straight to the US Congress, where a resolution was passed by both Democratic representative John Conyers and Republican Joseph Pitts, condemning Modi for inciting religious violence.

Now, more than 20 years later, Modi is the Prime Minister of India. The travel ban is far behind him, and he is hoping to be re-elected for a third term.

Voting is already underway, but amid concerns about low turnout and negative sentiment, Modi has been upping his anti-Muslim rhetoric in hopes of energising his right-wing Hindu base and securing re-election. However, his words have set a dangerous precedent for peace and tranquillity in the country.

Unlike in 2002, the world is silent. This complacent reaction indicates that realpolitik and neo-realism are guiding the foreign policies of sovereign states towards India, with little regard for human rights.

Incendiary remarks

At a recent campaign rally in the state of Rajasthan, Modi accused his Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) main rival, the Congress Party, of distributing the wealth of the Hindu majority to Muslims or those "who have more children."

Amid raucous applause and cheering from the crowd, Modi further stated that upon winning the elections, the Congress Party will distribute wealth to "infiltrators." This comment drew sharp rebukes from the president of the Congress Party, Mallikarjun Kharge and spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi, who both considered Modi's remarks to be deeply objectionable hate speech.

With remarks such as these, Modi is violating the Election Commission of India's code of conduct, which forbids candidates from appealing to caste or communal feelings to secure votes. He has also violated India's People’s Representative Act of 1951, which criminalises anti-minority propaganda.

Such incendiary and illegal rhetoric should be a cause of concern for the international community and pressure must be exerted on India to change course.

Yet that has not been the case. Why? Let's take a look at current realities.

The same United States who once banned Modi from entering the country now has no appetite to take action against him due to Washington's own geopolitical leanings. Alienating India contrasts with the US goal of supporting New Delhi as a regional counterweight to China in the Asia Pacific.

Meanwhile the United Kingdom, which also banned Modi in 2002, has also been notably silent. In fact, the 2024 elections are coinciding with the Overseas Friends of the UK organising "Run for Modi" events, aimed at mustering up support for his Hindutva ideology.

Such events are taking place in the absence of condemnation of Modi's anti-Muslim rhetoric from 10 Downing Street.

The European Parliament in its 2024 briefing titled "India ahead of the 2024 elections" made references to human rights abuses by the Modi regime, but stopped short of urging countries to take action.

Much of this silence can be attributed to realpolitik given that in March, four European countries, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein signed a free trade pact with India, which aims to draw investments worth $100 billion in the next 15 years.

Similarly, while the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation slammed Modi for opening a temple on a disputed site in Ayodhya in January with many of its members condemning the BJP for the demolition of the Babri Mosque in 1992, it has been notably silent on incendiary remarks Modi has made against Indian Muslims during campaigning.

In fact, the most trenchant criticism of Modi has been domestic and that too comes from an embattled opposition.

This is extremely discouraging especially as organisations such as Freedom House have pointed at the Modi-led BJP's polarising policies towards Muslims.

It states that the BJP government's discriminatory and divisive policies led to increased violence against minorities and created a pervasive environment of fear. Freedom House further points out that in 2024, the BJP government increasingly used state institutions to target political opponents and Muslims.

Are Modi and the BJP now way too relevant for the international community to not take any action? Is India’s economic clout, large market and population too important to ignore as Muslims continue to suffer under his reign? Based on the reaction of countries so far, this does seem to be the case.

Yet the international community should also remember that Modi's demonisation of Muslims and indifference to their plight in 2002 is what allowed Hindu far-right groups to massacre them with impunity.

Swift action was taken against him back then, but such action needs to take place again in 2024, as the same rhetoric is on display again. Modi's incitement with impunity could easily result in more communal riots and greater suffering for the Muslim community which is already living in fear.

To avert this, the international community must act now.