Pahalgam Attack and the Impact of Populism on National Security

The Pahalgam terror attack sent waves of shock, anger and grief across India. The terrorists singled out individuals based on their religious identity with a clear motive to intensify communal divisions within the nation. However, their nefarious designs were undone by Kashmiris like Syed Adil Hussain Shah, the brave ponywallah, who was martyred while trying to fight the terrorists when he could have easily chosen to save himself. The other locals, as well, opened their hearts and homes in this hour of horror putting up a humane and united front. 

The opposition was quick to extend total support to the government, enabling it to speak in one voice and robustly pursue the security interests of our nation-state.

However, this united and humane response was, typically, absent within the mainstream media and the right-wing social media ecosystem. Immediately after the attack, the ecosystem whipped up anger and hatred and sought to blame everyone except those in power. Interestingly, the entire narrative was weaved around ‘revenge’ rather than ‘justice’.

This call for revenge effected a double deflection – first, it deflected the attention from the question of accountability; and second, it deflected the rightful anger of the people against terrorism to  common Kashmiris and Muslims at large, who, as a result, faced violence in many parts of the country.

Populism 101

This is not new – it is part of the populist playbook that the masters of this regime have employed for a decade and a half since their ascendance. To be sure, this is not the first time populism is being enacted in the theatre of Indian politics; however, this is definitely the first time that our national security has been completely subsumed within the larger populist discourse. While populism has served the interests of the ruling regime well, the question to be asked is: has it served the country’s security interests as effectively?

Populism is not an ideological discourse but a method of conducting politics. It has many variants depending on the socio-political contexts to which it responds and has been deployed by both left and right-wing ideological formations. However, the two foundational principles which are common to all populist projects are – anti-elitism and anti-institutionalism.

The fundamental political task of the populist is to mobilise the ‘people’ against the ‘elites’ who have captured political power and suppressed the expression of the ‘popular will’. The elites are defined depending on the ideological conviction of the regime; the right defines them in cultural terms while the left in economic terms. 

Populists attempt to bypass these institutions, under elite-capture, by three methods – first, by a personalisation of power;  second, by privileging performativity over policy; and finally, resolving any crisis of legitimacy by invoking the popular will and resorting to regular plebiscitary exercises rather than through the prevalent norms and mechanisms. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has subsumed the national security and foreign policy domains, hitherto operated through institutions, under the populist discourse by employing all three methods.

Towards a populist national security discourse

Ever since Modi has assumed office, he has stressed that top world leaders – like Trump – are his ‘personal’ friends; implying that his personal goodwill is enhancing Indian power; which is an obvious inversion of the truth. 

Another example of personalisation is a recent statement by home minister Amit Shah on the Pahalgam attack, which assures Indians that the government will avenge the terror attack as this is the ‘Narendra Modi’ government, indicating that previous governments were lax on terror. 

Secondly, Modi has foregrounded performativity in the discourse of national security in order to carefully cultivate the image of a strongman. This includes visits to border areas in military fatigues; the public utterances declaring ‘ghar mein ghus kar maarenge’ in rallies and the unprecedented decision to publicise surgical strikes, hitherto kept secret. 

Finally, in the aftermath of the Pulwama terror attack, Modi went all out and asked the electorate to vote for him as a way to pay tribute to the martyrs of the attack. This subjected the national security discourse to the realm of popular passions like never before.

Limits of populism

A sober assessment of the developments in the aftermath of the attack tells us that while populism has served the political interests of the ruling regime; it has failed to effectively secure our national security interests. This is reflected most clearly in the statement issued by Modi’s “friend”, Trump, who has sought to strike a fine balance between Indian and Pakistan  and called for de-escalation.

The fundamental shortcoming of the populist paradigm in securing national security interests is that while conflicts in the domestic realm can be resolved by invoking the popular will because the opponents are competing political outfits; the terrain of international politics is governed primarily by interests and popularity plays only a limited role as the opponents here are sovereign entities. 

A prime example of its ineffectiveness was on display in the recent elections in Canada. Although the humiliating rhetoric employed by President Trump against Canada allowed his base to ‘feel powerful’ vicariously; it handed an embattled Liberal Party an unlikely victory and compromised American interests by souring relations with a close ally. 

 The lesson is - what is good for the populist is not necessarily good for the country.

Time for a reset

The interests of the state are best pursued away from the gaze of the media, dispassionately and with a long-term view in mind. Populism, on the other hand, depends on performance, stokes emotions and aims to maximise the short term. Therefore, it is positively disastrous to mix populism with national security. 

Quite often, populists become victims of their own image; which narrows down the range of  options at their disposal. On the other hand, a measured tone and diplomatic  approach increases the room for political manoeuvring. The complete support of the opposition is a chance to reset the national security consensus; to make it more united and effective and not merely popular. 

Let us go back to the basics; and give a befitting reply to those responsible for this heinous act of terror. 

Anshul Trivedi is a member of the Congress Party. He tweets @anshultrivedi47.