Narendra Modi is not the only democratically elected ruler to be accused of undemocratic practices. Similar allegations are being levelled against presidents and prime ministers from Beijing to Moscow and Tel-Aviv to even London. At the same time a survey by the British think-tank Onward claims “a sea change towards a new era in which the politics of security and belonging are becoming more important” than freedom.
The anti-liberalisation forces are unlikely to make much impact in Jammu and Kashmir although the near-total communications blackout makes it difficult to grasp what exactly is going on. The easing of restrictions on the eve of last week’s Eid al-Adha festival did not suggest a permanent relaxation. Tensions will continue and it would be imprudent to imagine that agents provocateurs from across the border will not continue to fish in the troubled waters of Kashmiri Muslim discontent with even greater zeal than before. Whether incited from abroad or a spontaneous indigenous upsurge, or a mix of the two, the Kashmiri problem is here to stay. So is the challenge of Hongkong which has been in ferment since June. The stormy protests there – which China now dubs “terrorism” -- provoked by the bumbling actions of Beijing’s protégé, Carrie Lam, have prompted the most severe challenge against Li Jinping since he came to power in 2012.
But as in Jammu and Kashmir, underlying the immediate provocation is a deeper and more fundamental political discontent that has much to do with history and identity. Many Hongkongers remain unreconciled with their rights and duties since Britain returned the colony to China in 1997. Their expectations from the promised one-country-two-systems dispensation have not been fulfilled and China has gradually tightened the reins of control.
As Western fears mounted that turmoil in one of the world’s major financial centres could lead to bloodshed with international repercussions, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman bluntly told the British foreign secretary to keep out of the matter. “The UK has no sovereignty, jurisdiction or right of supervision over Hongkong” was the bleak retort by Hua Chunying from Beijing when Dominic Raab urged Ms Lam about the need for “meaningful political dialogue, and a fully independent investigation into recent events as a way to build trust” in the former British colony.
If difficulties in Kashmir and Hongkong reflect the present position, problems in the Israeli occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip may indicate the shape of things to come after the abolition of Article 35A takes effect in Kashmir. The revocation of Article 370 is more of symbolic than substantive interest because the autonomy it signified was long ago destroyed through a series of backdoor measures enacted with the connivance of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed whom the Centre imposed on Kashmiris after arbitrarily sacking Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah. It can create a situation like that on the West Bank where thanks to Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, three million Palestinians have to suffer some 600,000 Israeli settlers who occupy about 60 per cent of the territory and are protected by the Israeli army.
Last month Mr Netanyahu’s government sanctioned the construction of 6,000 new homes for Jewish settlers and a mere 700 for Palestinians. While the United Nations has condemned these settlements as violating international law, human rights groups denounce them as a “land grab”. The same process can be repeated in the newly-created (more appropriately, demoted from full statehood plus) Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
Without the protection of Article 35A, it will be open to settlers from all over India. Not only can the pundits who were so cruelly driven out go back now but they can be followed by people from elsewhere in India who need jobs or houses or land. Such an invasion is bound to cause grassroots friction in Jammu and Kashmir, something that is not possible in the West Bank whose indigenous residents live in the glare of Israeli searchlights, their every movement watched by Israeli tanks and soldiers.
Meanwhile in Moscow, Vladimir Putin’s ratings slumped to their lowest level since 2001 as about 60,000 demonstrators demanded that pro-democracy candidates – which means the Kremlin’s critics – should be registered to take part in next month’s city parliament elections. The official reason for rejecting these candidates is that they had used forged signatures. But beyond procedural reasons, the protests, which are backed by more than one-third of Muscovites, reflect widespread discontent with Mr Putin who has just completed 20 years in power as prime minister and president.
According to opinion polls, 43 per cent of Russians would vote for him in another presidential election, marking the lowest rating since early in his first term in office. The government is concerned that the protests could spread from Moscow (where only 13 per cent of voters support Mr Putin’s ruling United Russia party) across the Russian countryside where poverty and the high level of corruption fuel discontent. This is the biggest challenge Mr Putin has faced since 2011-2012 when more than 100,000 people rallied in Moscow over allegations of fraud in parliamentary elections. The protests were eventually crushed. That may happen again.
If so, few tears may be shed among those British voters in the 25 to 34 age group who, according to Onward, believe democracy is a bad way of running a country. While Britons of every age group, ethnicity and social backgrounds say they would “rather live in a society that focuses on giving people more security” than one that “focuses on giving people more freedom”, 66 per cent of them favour “strong leaders who do not have to bother with parliament”. The polling also reveals a sharp rejection of liberal democratic principles, especially among young people, with 65 per cent of respondents favouring security, compared to 35 per cent who chose society based on freedom.
Democracy is under siege around the world, even in countries that are formally wedded to the parliamentary system and whose prime ministers are nominally bound by the collective decisions of their cabinets and are also nominally answerable to elected legislatures. Senior British civil servants are reportedly discussing plans to use the little-known Civil Contingencies Act, passed in 2004 to give ministers draconian powers to impose curfew, redirect food supplies and even change the law without consulting parliament in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
The House of Commons speaker, John Bercow, bravely announced on Tuesday that he would oppose the abolition of parliament “with every bone in his body.” But as Nigel Farage, leader of the Brexit Party, reminds listeners, “For a civilised democracy to work, you need the losers’ consent”. India highlights how little goodwill and cooperation exist between the treasury and opposition benches.
The writer is the author of several books and a regular media columnist.
