Modi’s Populism

Modi’s Populism

Politics of Populism

PSCI 3161

Section 1

Asst. Prof. Dr. Avdi Smajljaj

Prepared by :

1) Mohd Ammar Zikry bin Mohd Senu (1819997)

2) Huzayl bin Mohammad Noor Sia (1813887)

3) Mu’adz bin Abd Rasyid (1813795)

4) Mohamad Izzuddin bin Haji Jahari (1720065)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction – Populism: A Brief Definition

Before we even start to discuss Modi’s populism, there is a quite fundamental issue that we have to make clear first. It is the concept of Populism itself. The term Populism had been widely used in the lately 20 century. It can be seen from a lot of various parties over time using the word “populism” without properly defining what the actual meaning or definition of  Populism is. There are plenty of interview sessions where journalists use the word Populism, and there are a lot of articles and news mentioned populism yet still we do not properly know accurately what is Populism. So, it is important to begin the discussion with properly defining populism and put it in the right context to avoid any confusion and misinterpreting the term and putting it in the wrong context.

According to Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, it is mentioned that there are few approaches in understanding Populism, which is Laclauan approach, socio economic approach and Ideational approach. In this essay. Firstly, we will critically focus on those approaches to Populism and then identify what is the best definition and concept that we want to apply to further the discussion of this essay on Modis populism. Laclauan approach is the concept of populism that had been built by Argentinian political theorist, Ernesto Laclau and his wife Chantal Mouffe. In this concept of populism, they proposed that “populism is considered not only as the essence of politics, but also as an emancipatory force” (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017).

Next, the other approach in defining populism is the Socio-economic approach. Socio-economic approach focused on discussing populism in the Latin American context of 1980s and 1990s. Economists such as Rudiger Dornbusch and Jeffrey Sachs argued that populism in this context can be understood as a type of irresponsible economic policy. “Characterized by a first period of massive spending financed by foreign debt and followed by a second period marked by hyperinflation and the implementation of harsh economic adjustments” (Mudde.& Kaltwasser, 2017).

Consequently, the final approach is the Ideational approach of Populism. In this concept of Populism, it proposed that populism is the thin centred ideology where it can flirt with other ideologies such as Nationalism like what currently happened in the United State of America or even liberalism. This approach  argues that there are three main core concepts in understanding populism which are the concept of “the people”, “the elites” and “general will” or some Ideantial approaches thinkers call “Manichean and moral cosmology” . “populism is a thin-centered ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic camps, “the pure people” versus “the corrupt elite,” and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the people.”(Mudde, Kaltwasser, 2017).

The first core concept of populism in the Ideantial approach, which is “the people” can be understood in three meaning which is people of sovereign, the common people and the nation. The people of sovereign are the people in the current context of a modern nation-state where people are subjected to the sovereign state and there is the concept of citizenship. Furthermore, the concept of common people is referring explicitly or implicitly to a broader class concept that combines socioeconomic status with specific cultural traditions and popular values. And lastly the concept of the nation, it often and usually refers to the national community. For example in this essay we are discussing Modi’s populism, hence it is the people of India.

Moreover, the second core concept in Ideantial approach of populism is “the elites”. In understanding the concept of “the elites”, it should be noted that it is bound to morality as it refers to the “corrupt elites”. The elites can simply be understood as the group of people who corruptly works in opposing the “general will” of people. It can be put in various contexts either economic elites, political elites or cultural elites. According to Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, the elites usually refers to the group who are in the position that holds power, it can be in various institutions and sectors as have been mentioned before.

Lastly, the third core concept of populism according to Ideantial approach is the “general will”. The general will is the popular concept proposed by the political thinker which is Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In this context, the populist leader always make use of general will concept to highlight how corrupt elites had been corrupting the general will and frames that it is oppressing the people, and ofcourse in that situation, the populist leader claims that they are representing the people to restore the idea of “general will” (Mudde, Kaltwasser, 2017).

Right-Wing Populism in India and Its Challenge to IR

First, and foremost, in order for us to understand how right-wing populism in India poses challenges to the field of International Relations (IR), we must dissect the dichotomy of the essential meaning of what ‘right-wing populism’ actually meant. Greven (2016) in ‘The rise of right-wing populism in Europe and the United States’ mentioned that “Right-wing populism adds a second antagonism of  ‘us versus them’ to this constellation as well as a specific style of political communication.” Initially, given the meaning of the individuals as socially homogeneous, right-wing populists compare its character and common interests, which are viewed as dependent on the presence of mind, with the personality and interests of common minorities, for example, transients, which are preferred by the (corrupt) elites. Also, right-wing populists deliberately and strategically often use cynicism in their political narratives.

As discussed in previous section of this paper, we have chosen to adopt the ideationary approach to inspect BJP’s right-wing populism, rather than just taking a gander on the pioneer and on his style – the prevalent method of dealing with the breakdown of populism in western popular governments (Stanley, 2008; Mudde, 2017). It is because BJP is nothing but an independent party, such as Alberto Fujimori in Peru or Thaksin Shinawatra in Thailand, which has gone as vessels of selection to a authoritarian leader and whose life expectancy has obviously been associated with the organizer and family ‘s political vocations (Kefford & McDonnell, 2018; Levitsky & Cameron, 2003; Kosuke & Phongpaichit, 2009) .Or perhaps, the BJP is a systematic party rooted in Indian culture and the largest ideological party in the world in terms of number of participants.

Even though the writing on populism has largely overlooked it, the BJP could perhaps undoubtedly be viewed as a right-wing populist party. Initially, it is populist since human anti-extremism and against elitism are pivotal standards in its belief system, mainly since it came to control in 2014; it is also considered as a right wing because it is a nativist as it conceptualizes “the people,” “the elites” and “the other.” It could well be regarded as a dictator as fundamental opportunities for people who communicate “anti-national” which can be reduced by its types. In all cases, it presents several highlights which are regularly recognized as one side: the liberalism which can be understood as an emphasis on a major redistribution of assets and on the significance of its socio-financial agenda and its universal assessment, in particular the qualities behind its international strategy and its duty to develop equity worldwide.

While the indigenous drivers and ramifications of populism have been concentrated broadly, research on populism and foreign relations – and considerably more so on populism and IR – is still in its earliest stages. Among a couple of exceptional cases are works that emphasize populist parties in alliance governments, for example, by Verbeek and Zaslove (2015). Besides, a few pieces of research, for example, by Verbeek and Zaslove (2017) tended to the connection among populism and international strategy in a progressively precise way, yet with an unmistakable Western predisposition (as cited in Kaltwasser et al. (eds), 2017, pp. 384–405; Rosal Balfour et al., 2016); or an accentuation on the characters of ‘furious’ populist rulers (Drezner, 2017).

Now, in the following paragraph, we will be discussing how this right-wing populism has affected the field of International Relations (IR). As Wojczewski (2019) has put it, the worldwide ascent of right-wing populism represents a test to IR grant, since populist classes. For example, “the individuals” and “the elites,” or the character governmental issues supporting both populism and nationalism, don’t promptly fit into setting up IR classifications. Specifically, the focal point of standard IR concepts, for example, neorealism, neoliberal institutionalism, and constructivism on fundamental or essential components and the treatment of the state pretty much confound the study of right-wing populism. Therefore, these speculations likewise make it hard to recognize populist and nationalism highlights of right-wing, populist parties.

As there are variations of theories of IR, we will be taking a gander at how the poststructuralist sees building the contentions of how India right-wing populism will be a test to IR. Wojczewski (2019) has mentioned that poststructuralist IR renders dangerous the polarity among “foreign” and “domestic” on which most IR concentrates on (Indian) foreign policy strategies. Rather than underestimating, for instance, India’s character, as do most realist and liberal examinations, or concentrating how the way of life as an ideational system impacts on Indian international strategy.

As do most constructivist examines, a poststructuralist approach gives a reconceptualization of international strategy as a verbose practice, which comprises and imitates the state by differentiating “innards” to “external” and “Oneself” from the “Other.” Hence, the international strategy is where the state in whose name it works is (re)produced, and diverse political powers look to accept the job of the agent of the individuals. This permits us, from one perspective, to comprehend the Hindu patriot directly as a rambling undertaking that tries to hegemonize a specific portrayal of Indian personality and connect the authenticity of the Indian state to the portrayal of the Hindu individuals. Then again, it empowers us to consider the job of personality without essentializing India

Second, by causing the rambling development of aggregate subjectivities, for example, “the individuals” or “the country” through various methods of hostile Othering, poststructuralism focuses on the significant connection among character and security. This permits us, for example, to get why, in opposition to the suppositions of authenticity’s objectivist and realist comprehension of security, the Hindu jingoist talk is so focused on Pakistan instead of the more dominant China. By building Pakistan as the undermining, forceful, and brutal Islamic Other, the Hindu nationalist talk can speak to India as Hindu country and imitate the idea of a serene and acculturated, yet also powerless and pardoning, Hindu Self that must create military quality and attachment to defy the Other. Modi’s enemy of Muslim position is most firmly connected with threatening vibe versus Pakistan – the nation that was made as a country for previous British India’s Muslims. Modi’s non-populist antecedents, from the secularist Indian National Congress, yet also from the Hindu-patriot BJP, had since the mid-2000s sought after an overwhelmingly moderate methodology towards Pakistan.

The scheme of Modi thus initially constituted as “inquisitive blend of belief system and practicality” (Ganguly, 2015). However, after two years, Modi started to take on a more and more “robust” and progressively expressed anti-Pakistan approach. This incorporated the principal open statement by an Indian parliamentary assembly that the domain activists that Pakistan restricted in 2016 had “carefully negative marks” executed. This was accompanied locally by the marking of people who communicated positive perspectives as ‘anti-State’ about Pakistan. The Indian Air Force entered the region of Pakistan to shell what is alleged to be a rebel camp by the Indian Government in a militant psychological assault in the middle of 2019, for the first time since 1971. The hyperbole in the nationalist political campaign of Modi in 2019, which exposed the link between local activation and foreign policy, was a significant factor (the congress for Pakistan growth, Narendra Modi says, 2019).

History and the Rise of Populism in India

The Republic of India gained independence in 1947 after almost a century the country fell under the British administration. But only in 1950, India was able to have full democratic freedom after the Constitution of India finished convened. India had faced a long resistance to end the British rule in the continent. Mahatma Gandhi, one of the leaders for the Indian independence movement led a successful nonviolent resistance and became phenomenal around India as well as the whole world. He became the voice of Indian and led the Indian National Congress or often called as Congress, the most influential anti-colonialist movement to oppose the British Empire. The Congress advocated liberal social-democratic and was considered as center-left in Indian politics. The first Prime Minister of India was Jawaharlal Nehru from Congress who got the endorsement from Gandhi as Gandhi did not assume any position in the government, after they won a majority of seats in the assembly. After five terms of domination by Congress in India, during the second term of the leadership of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, they lost control over the national government for the first time after being defeated by the Janata Party (JNP) in the 1977 General Election (Subramaniam, 2007). Only for a short moment, they came back into power 3 years later in the 1980 General Election.

1970s – 1980s

Populism in India started to emerge during Indira Gandhi’s reign with her left-wing approach during the 1971 General Election campaign. The sentiment of the people at that time was in need of social equality and solution to the economic problems. She started the populist approach by introducing many anti-poverty programs and the slogan “Garibi Hatao” or “Remove Poverty” has been campaigned to secure the people’s votes. Not only that, she also led India to defeat Pakistan in the Indo-Pakistani War in 1971 which made her very popular and there was even a proclamation in 1974 that “India is Indira, Indira is India”. Her populist approach was adopted by many political leaders to win the people vote. But, her decision to replace many existing party leaders as well as the oppression towards the oppositions so that she can concentrate the power in her own hand had caused a big political crisis which resulted in the loss in the 1977 General Election (Subramaniam, 2007). However, the Janata Party that ruled the country lost in the next general election due to the internal conflict in the government and incompetency to solve the economic and social problems. The Janata Party consists of many ideologies. Several left, centre and right parties including a Hindu nationalist party, Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS) merged together to oppose the Congress in the election. Thus, after winning the election it is naturally difficult for the party to maintain the stability and harmony within these contradicting ideologies. The confrontation and violence between Hindu and Muslim had worsen the relationship which led to the withdrawal of former BJS leaders from Janata Party and triggered the 1980 General Election. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a right wing party was formed by the former BJS leaders which focused on Hindutva ideology, a belief  or idea to redefine India as a Hindu country.

1980s-2000s

This is the duration where lots of new parties emerged after the successful populist approach by the Congress. They started to form parties that represented each segment and ideologies of the people in India like the Socialists and the Dravidianists. For example, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) which refers to the ‘majority community’. They focused on helping the marginalized society like lower-caste groups and religious minorities such as Muslim and Sikh in India. They were seen fighting for a greater political representation and material well being for these communities as they hold a strong emphasis on social justice and equality. As a result, many policies were introduced and changed which gave benefit to the middle and lower class by the expansion of quota in education and government employment (Subramaniam, 2007), The party rose very quickly in Indian politics. They managed to capture Uttar Pradesh, the most populous state in the world and had become their stronghold for a few terms.

Next, the religious and ethnic tensions were also intensified during these periods. It started with the assasination of Indira Gandhi by her own Sikh bodyguards in 1984. This was because of the clashes between Indian forces and Khalistan militants during the insurgency in Punjab which later led to anti-Sikh riots in Delhi. Not only that, in 1991, the Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, who was Indira’s son as well as her successor was also assassinated by a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), due to India’s involvement in Sri Lankan conflicts. India was rocked once again during 1992 Bombay riots, between Muslim and Hindu due to the demolition of Babri Mosque by Hindu extremists. These series of incidents had changed India’s domestic political landscape. People started becoming more extreme and racist then began to align themselves with ethnicities and religions. This situation had made the right wing and nationalist parties gain more popularity like BJP. Their agenda of Hindutva and Hindu nation attracted many Hindus as they covered around 80% of the total population in India. Moreover, poor performance and growing corruption in the government led by the Congress had cost them losing to the BJP in the 1996 General Election. In the 1999 General Election, BJP and its coalition, National Democratic Alliance (NDA) once again won the election with a solid majority compared to the previous election (Calleja, 2020).

2000s-2020s

The BJP won the election by promoting anti-Muslim agenda, rejecting secularism and advocating Hindutva ideology (Ammasari, 2019). Under their administration until 2004, they managed to fulfill some of Hindutva’s agenda like implementing a hinduisation in the education system although they failed to deliver the promise in the issue of Ram Temple.. In the 2004 General Election, the BJP had been seen to distance themselves from Hindutva policy during the election campaign which was said as the factor of their loss in the election. Although many analysts predicted otherwise. In the 2009 General Election, the BJP once again promised in their manifesto to construct Ram Temple at the site. However, they still failed to win the election. The BJP came back to the power after winning the 2014 and 2019 General Election with a sweeping win under the leadership of the current Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Modi who was a Chief Minister in Gujarat made his name as a charismatic leader in national politics. He identified himself as a hardline Hindu leader and advocated Hindu supremacy during his campaign. The BJP portrayed the Congress as ‘the elites’ and ‘anti-people’ as well as dominated by the Nehru/Gandhi family (Ammasari, 2019). It was opposite to the BJP which he claimed as a ‘people’s party’. They decribed the minorities like Muslim and immigrants as a threat to India and spread the fear which enable them to attract the populist votes from the Hindus. Under Modi’s leadership, the ties between the BJP and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the oldest Hindu nationalist organization, became closer. He promoted the Hindu religious conversion programs, a campaign againts Islamic jihadist and to a certain extent, celebration of the assasination of Mahatma Ghandi.

Hindu Nationalism and Populism

In discussing Hindu Nationalism, it has to be mentioned that the term of Hindu Nationalism is quite recent and new. What is Hindu Nationalism and what does it have to do with populism? According to Jonah Blank, the author of The Atlantic, he mentioned that Hindu Nationalism or also known as Hindutva is an identity and not  a theology term (Blank,2019). In Book entitled Hindutva: Exploring the Idea of Hindu Nationalism, written by Jyotirmaya Sharma, it is mentioned that Hindu Nationalism or  Hindutva can be understood as “Hindu-ness,” and it is an identity that was constructed in recent India post independence, and it can be seen in the latest general election .This concept of Nationalism (Hindutva) is proposed by The movement’s intellectual father, Veer Savarkar. He wrote a  foundational text a century ago, at the time, where Hindus were perceiving Hinduism as an identity more than just religion. It is mentioned that the term Hindu is merely a loanword. It refers to “the people who live across the Indus River.” Until the 20th century, most Hindus had never thought to redefine their identity in the context of modern nation-state (Sharma, 2003).

It was the colonial experience that created Hindutva.Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the Indian independence activist is the one who first proposed the idea of Hindutva.It is because, he felt that India been dominated for centuries by a relatively small number of Muslim Mughals and Christian British, and he questioned does it only monotheismis suits better in rulling. If so, what did that mean for a faith with more deities than days in the year?  During the phase of  instilling Hindutva, the Hindutva movement, much effort revolved around making Hinduism more like its rivals: building a single shared identity to unite everyone for whom India was, in Savarkar’s words, “his Fatherland as well as his Holy-land.” This definition conveniently roped in Sikhs , Buddhists , and Jains (Blank,2019).

Consequently, Modi’s Populism had a lot to do with the Hindu Nationalism or Hindutva. First we let us look at the ideology of Modi’s party that he represents during the latest general election of India. Bharatiya Janata Party or  Indian People’s Party (BJP) is one of the two major parties in India. According to Arun R. Swamy, in his article “Ideology, Organization and Electoral Strategy of Hindu Nationalism: What’s Religion Got to Do with It?” It mentioned that the main ideology of BJP is the “Integral humanism” that was first proposed by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. According to the party, Hindutva is cultural nationalism favouring Indian culture over westernisation, thus it extends to all Indians regardless of religion. However, scholars and political analysts have called their Hindutva ideology an attempt to redefine India and recast it as a Hindu country. The BJP has slightly moderated its stance after the NDA was formed in 1998, due to the presence of parties with a broader set of ideologies (Doshi, 2019).

          If we analyze critically, it can be seen how modi’s populism is associated with Hindutva. To prove the case, it is mentioned that Modi and his followers use the sentiment against Muslim comunity which they accuse muslims to impregnated Hindu’s women in order to ensure the balance population between muslim and Hindu. Next came the “cow protection” lynchings in BJP-controlled states such as Uttar Pradesh (UP): Gangs of Hindu men killed Muslims whom they falsely accused of eating beef. Cow slaughter has been banned in several Indian states by non-BJP governments, but it has never led to widespread attacks egged on by government officials. In 2017 Modi appointed the radical priest Yogi Adityanath as chief minister of UP, India’s largest state. Adityanath’s militancy makes Modi seem almost moderate and Adityanath openly covets his patron’s office. To top it all off, over the past half year, Modi has engaged in the most serious armed combat with Muslim-majority Pakistan in two decades. Pakistan prompted the action, but Modi’s changing his Twitter handle to Chowkidar (“Watchman”), and encouraging his supporters to do likewise, was purely his own choice (Blank,2019).

Populism and Modi’s Foreign Policy

As already mentioned above, populism is highly contextualized and variable depending on the situation of the state, leadership style of the authority and the political behavior of parties. Due to its thin-centered ideology, it is not easy to distinguish whether a leader is populist or not. There are a lot of prerequisites needed to be considered before we can presume that populism is being practiced in the political ground and that includes the context involved and the political climate in the state. The mode of foreign policy implemented by the government is one the major elements to check a populist behavior. Being a thin-centered ideology populism is, populist leaders usually flirt with thick ideology that has already built up strong such as anti-elitism and anti-pluralism. Müller (2016), explained that populist entails two necessary and jointly sufficient dimensions: anti-elitism and anti-pluralism. Therefore, we need to be constantly aware that populism needs such conceptualization to allow us to identify populist movements and one of the ways is by interpreting foreign policies enforced by the leader or the government. This paper shall discuss few foreign policies conducted by BJP’s Government or by Modi himself and how they relate to populism. In a period of almost four years in government (2014-18) is long enough to allow us to distinguish some patterns in foreign policy under Modi’s government (Plagemann & Destradi, 2019).

One of the first traits of populism found in Modi’s foreign policy is during his General Election and as he stood up to become the Prime Minister of India. Modi is known to use foreign policy to aid him during the General Election, although it was not that apparent or shown in one of his manifestos. For example, Modi called upon China as he addressed a rally in Pasighat in Arunachal Pradesh, not very far from the international border, Modi said, “No power on earth can take away even an inch from India. Moreover, the present world does not accept an expansionist attitude. Times have changed, China should give up its expansionist attitude and adopt a developmental mindset.”. (The Indian Express, 2014). The speeches quoted beforehand were fueled with nativism and perhaps, intended to instill fear or anger in people. Populist leaders usually make emotional speeches by offensively involving a third party in the situation and thus, in this case the third party is China.  Moreover, illegal migrants issues particularly from Bangladesh were also offensively pointed out by Modi and his party. They stated that “the influx of Bangladeshi nationals who have illegally migrated into Assam pose a threat to the integrity and security of north-eastern region” (Madhav, 2014) and they emphasized strongly that illegal migrants might affect geographical borders and security in the region of Assam. These speeches were again emotionally driven to catch the attention of mass people and hence populism motivated, although, it did not seem to be wrong.

Another prominent trait of populism can also be seen in his leadership style and the way he builds up his relationship with other states leaders. Modi is known to have clean rapport by having a personal or national relationship among major leaders around the world including Donald Trump (William, 2020).  For instance, he invited all the other leaders of SAARC countries including Pakistan’s Nawaz Sharif and Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to his swearing in ceremony as prime minister (Bhatt, 2014). Another example is when he responded to the congratulatory on social media from most world leaders for his victory in the General Election and being the PM of India. As a result, his diplomatic action towards leaders in the ceremony caught global media attention positively although Modi used to get critics for his foreign policy before then. He also made trips to a number of different countries and attended summits such as BRICS and ASEAN after he won the election to further the goals of his policy which showed the importance of his presence implicitly. Hence, Modi’s relationship and behavior with leaders may also be evident for his populist style. Having positive perspectives all around the globe by leaders and international media will make him look more credible and appear stronger in the global arena or at least, by Indian citizens.

Secondly, another behavior of populism we can look for is conducted by Modi through his role in foreign economic policy making. One should acknowledge that populism is likely to go for bilateral trade and focus primarily towards mercantilism in a sense of prioritizing the welfare of the people first. This is because according to the concept of populism, bilateral trade is more conserved and safer compared to multilateralism as the later is much more of submissive policy towards certain rules and agreement.  Furthermore, it is important to note that populism is not in favour of globalization and rather goes for anti-pluralism. For instance, India’s improving economic ties with China. In June 2017, where India (together with Pakistan) gained full membership of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in June 2017, building on efforts made by the previous government with the intention to extend its economic reach northward, and this made India among the founding members of the Chinese-initiated Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, with the second largest vote share (Plagemann & Destradi, 2019). Here, we can see that under Modi’s governance, India’s bilateral relationship with China is strengthened than ever before, motivated through gaining global economic power, although he did not clearly manifest rejection towards multilateralism. Like many populists, Modi branded himself internationally as an economic reformer while portraying Indians as ‘savior’ and this allowed the darker parts of Modi’s history to be overlooked (Taylor, 2019).

Last but not least is Modi’s role as a foreign policy actor. Modi is known for conducting a centralized decision-making process when it comes to policy making as some described it as a key component of Modi’s tenure as a chief minister in Gujarat (Jaffrelot & Tillin, 2017). It is believed that Modi tends to make decisions personally on his own under the Prime Minister’s Office rather than through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, hence he responded to outcalls and agreement without taking consideration or consultation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ opinions. This happens occasionally to the effect that “the key levers of foreign policy choices are now located in the Prime Minister’s Office and not in the Ministry of External Affairs” (Ganguly, 2017). Therefore, populism is obvious in this case as there is a centralization of power in the Prime Minister’s Office and at the same time neglecting the purpose of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs when it comes to decision making related to foreign affairs. Also, Modi has made it a habit to greet foreign dignitaries personally upon arrival—a time-consuming affair but one that resonates with his personalistic leadership style (Plagemann & Destradi, 2019). This would make Modi look superior in the eyes of international media and the local people.

Conclusion

The rise of populist leaders is apparent in the modern political arena and some argue that it can be a threat to democracy. Modi has been portrayed as a populist leader by some media such as The Washington Post in the west and also has been studied by few named scholars in this essay. Meanwhile this paper has discussed the history of India, the emergence of right-wing parties, Hindu nationalism and Modi’s foreign policy and how they can relate to populism.

It has always been a fear that Modi might manipulate the very legal statute of democracy and change Indian political landscape adversely. However, populism as mentioned earlier in this paper, is not an easy concept to hold a grasp and distinguish due to its thin-centered ideology. Therefore, deep and careful analysis of the leadership has to be taken off before one can presume a populist leader, and in this case Modi.

References

Albertazzi, D., & McDonnell, D. (2015). Populists in power. Routledge.

Akkerman, T., De Lange, S. L., & Rooduijn, M. (2016). Into the mainstream? A comparative analysis of the programmatic profiles of radical right-wing populist parties in Western Europe over time. In Radical Right-Wing Populist Parties in Western Europe (pp. 49-70). Routledge.

Ammasari, S. (2019). Contemporary Populism in India: Assessing the Bharatiya Janata Party’s Ideological Features. Institut Barcelona Estudis Internacionals. Retrieved from: https://www.ibei.org/ibei_studentpaper48_162065.pdf

Balfour, R., Emmanouilidis, J. A., Fieschi, C., Grabbe, H., Hill, C., Lochocki, T., … & Stratulat, C. (2016). Europe’s troublemakers. The populist challenge to foreign policy. European Policy Centre.

Bhatt, S. (May 2014). Modi’s invite to SAARC leaders: Diplomacy via symbolism. Rediff.com. Retrieved from: https://www.rediff.com/news/report/modis-invite-to-saarc-leaders-diplomacy-via-symbolism/20140523.htm

Blank, J. (2019) How Hinduism Became a Political Weapon in IndiaAs an ideology, Hindu nationalism is not even 100 years old—but it has dramatically reshaped politics in India, with Narendra Modi’s help. The Atlantic. Retrieved from: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/05/hindu-nationalism-narendra-modi-india-election/590053/

Canovan, M. (1981). Populism. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt P.

Calléja, L (2020). The Rise of Populism: a Threat to Civil Society? E-International Relations. Retrieved from: https://www.e-ir.info/2020/02/09/the-rise-of-populism-a- threat-to-civil-society/

Congress responsible for creation of Pakistan, says Narendra Modi. (2019). Retrieved 21 June 2020, from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/elections/lok-sabha/india/congress-responsible-for-creation-of-pakistan-says-narendra-modi/articleshow/68791722.cms

Doshi, v. (2019) A Look Inside the School Professionalizing India’s Nationalists : The Indian Institute of Democratic Leadership is training political hopefuls who align with the ruling BJP to be competent. The Atlantic. Retrieved from: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/05/india-school-hindu-nationalists/588127/

Drezner, D. W. (2017). The angry populist as foreign policy leader: Real change or just hot air. Fletcher F. World Aff., 41, 23.

Ganguly, S. (2015). Hindu nationalism and the foreign policy of India’s Bharatiya Janata Party. Transatlantic Academy Paper Series, 2, 1-15.

Ganguly S. (2017). “Has Modi Truly Changed India’s Foreign Policy?” The Washington Quarterly 40 (2): 131–43.

Gidron, N., & Bonikowski, B. (2013). Varieties of populism: Literature review and research agenda.

Greven, T. (2016). The rise of right-wing populism in Europe and the United States. A Comparative Perspective [La emergencia del populismo de derechas en Europa y Estados Unidos. Una perspectiva comparada]. Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Washington DC Office.

Hall, I. (2016). Multialignment and Indian foreign policy under Narendra Modi. The Round Table, 105(3), 271-286.

Jaffrelot, Christophe, & Tillin L. (2017). “Populism in India.” In the Oxford Handbook on Populism, edited by Christóbal Rovira Kaltwasser et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 179–94.

Kaltwasser, C. R., Taggart, P. A., Espejo, P. O., & Ostiguy, P. (Eds.). (2017). The Oxford handbook of populism. Oxford University Press.

Kefford, G., & McDonnell, D. (2018). Inside the personal party: Leader-owners, light organizations and limited lifespans. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 20(2), 379-394.

Kosuke, M., & Phongpaichit, P. (2009). Populism in Asia.

Levitsky, S., & Cameron, M. A. (2003). Democracy without parties? Political parties and regime change in Fujimori’s Peru. Latin American Politics and Society, 45(3), 1-33.

Madhav, R. (May 2014). “Why Modi is right on the Bangladeshi migrants’ issue”. Rediff.com. Retrieved from: https://www.rediff.com/news/column/ls-election-why-modi-is-right-on-the-bangladeshi-migrants-issue/20140513.htm

Müller, J. (2016). What Is Populism?. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Pres.

Mudde, C. (2017). An ideational approach. The Oxford handbook of populism, 27.

Mudde, C. (2007). Populist radical right parties in Europe (Vol. 22, No. 8). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. R. (2017). Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.

Plagemann, J., & Destradi, S. (2019). Populism and foreign policy: The case of India. Foreign Policy Analysis, 15(2), 283-301.

Sharma, J. (2011). Hindutva. Adfo Books. 176-178

Stanley, B. (2008). The thin ideology of populism. Journal of political ideologies, 13(1), 95-110.

Subramaniam, N. (2007). Populism in India. Johns Hopkins University Press 27(1), 81-91, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/sais.2007.0019

Taylor, A. (2019). India’s Modi has been a bellwether for global populism. The Washington Post. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/05/23/indias-modi-has-been-bellwether-global-populism/

The Indian Express: “In Arunachal, Narendra Modi warns China”.  (2014). The Indian Express. Retrieved from: https://indianexpress.com/photos/picture-gallery-others/in-arunachal-narendra-modi-warns-china/

Verbeek, B., & Zaslove, A. (2015). The impact of populist radical right parties on foreign policy: the Northern League as a junior coalition partner in the Berlusconi Governments. European Political Science Review: EPSR, 7(4), 525.

Verbeek, B., & Zaslove, A. (2017). Populism and foreign policy. The Oxford handbook of populism, 384-405.

Wojczewski, T. (2019). Populism, Hindu nationalism, and foreign policy in India: The politics of representing “the people”. International Studies Review.

William J.B. (February 2020). The U.S.-India Relationship Is Bigger Than Trump and Modi. The Atlantic. Retrieved from: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/modi-and-trumps-effect-us-india-partnership/606949/

KULLIYYAH OF ISLAMIC REVEALED KNOWLEDGE AND HUMAN SCIENCES

1. Academic Integrity Form (for ADEP CAM tools)

I, (student name and matric #), hereby declare that the work submitted below for the (state the title and percentage of ADEP CAM tasks) of (Course code, course title and setion #) represents my individual effort.

For this CAM task, I make the following truthful statements:

• I pledge on my honor that I have not given or received any unauthorized assistance in completing this assignment/quiz/test and this work is my own.
• I pledge that I respect copyrighted and/or licensed material (whether it be directly quoted or paraphrased) by citing print or electronic sources as appropriate.
• I accept responsibility for my role in ensuring the integrity of the work submitted by the group in which I participated.
• I understand it is the student’s responsibility to get clarification from the instructor if there are academic integrity questions concerning homework, quizzes, or any course assignment.
• Should my work is found to be a plagiarized work, I understand that such act is considered a form of academic dishonesty and it may be penalized to the full extent allowed by the International Islamic University Students’ Discipline Rules 2004, including receiving a failing grade for the course.
• I recognize that I am responsible for understanding the provisions of the International Islamic University Students’ Discipline Rules 2004 as they relate to this academic exercise.

Signed:                             Date:  30/6/2020