Mishra & Ali
Indian and Western commentators—about Indian democracy, but
none of it can explain a figure such as Modi and why India is more
violent today than it was under British rule. To examine these par-
ticular experiences is also to begin to learn what kind of politics and
economy work best for our complex societies. It is to move away from
neo-imperialist visions of Asia, according to which its countries are
forever competing in a race to Western-style modernity. Along with
U.S. libertarian fantasists, many liberals in India welcomed Modi, seeing
him as an economic modernizer and taking for granted the resilience
of democracy. For many he was proof of India’s democratic revolution.
His record of instigating violence against minorities was either ignored
or denied. Anyone aware of his background—for example, his lifelong
membership in Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, an organization inspired
by European fascists—knew what he would do in power: try to forge
a Hindu nation by demonizing minorities and left-leaning dissenters.
I keep saying this: it is our own ignorance, or denial, of the tragically
entwined history of capitalist expansion and democracy that makes us
expect benign outcomes from them.
wa: Speaking of Indian democracy, you have written that “the formal
and proceduralist features of democracy—elections—have superseded
their substantive aspect: strong, accountable, and fair-minded institu-
tions and officials.” How can Indians engage the democratic process
in a meaningful manner? If this is not possible, then is democracy the
best solution for achieving political equality in India?
pm: The answer to the many problems, inadequacies, and dangers of
democracy should never be less democracy. It is true that in many
parts of the world, ordinary citizens feel disenfranchised by alli-
ances between national politicians and global businessmen. Liberal