Global consciousness has been privy to the “threats of communism” for the past few decades. That has now been replaced by Islamic fundamentalism as the more dominant ideological scares of world politics. However, if you asked a layman in South Asia what neoliberalism was most wouldn’t be able to even define it.



Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public institutions, and the rise of dangerous right-wing populists like Narendra Modi.



Whereas there is immense debate, amongst Indians and Pakistanis alike, about Pakistan’s unconventional political system, the role of its Armed forces in dictating foreign policy, it’s insistence on using non-state actors to pursue its interests, there is seldom that kind of a critique bestowed upon India and it’s policies.



Perhaps it is the pervasiveness of neoliberalism that we seldom even recognize it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin’s theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power. Propagated by a transatlantic network of academics, businessmen, journalists, activists, and bankrolled through well funded think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute, neoliberalism had a very specific goal: Deregulation of economies around the world, forcing open national markets to trade and capital, and for demanding that governments shrink themselves.



When India ushered in neoliberal economic reforms during the early 1990s, the promise was job creation, inclusive growth, and prosperity for all. One of the biggest potential markets in the world was now open for business, reducing taxes and tariffs and allowing the acquisition of public assets via privatization as well as instituting policy frameworks that work to the advantage of foreign corporations. India reaped the benefits of the major influx of cash flow, the unbounded freedoms that it brought, and most importantly a perception of legitimacy afforded to it by the purveyors of this ideology.



But what has neoliberalism economics really done for Indians? Some 25 years later, what we see is almost 400,000 farmers committing suicide, one of the greatest levels of inequality out of all ‘emerging’ economies, a trend towards jobless ‘growth’, and accelerated and massive illegal outflow of wealth by the rich. Beneath the veneer of a “rising superpower” is the ugly truth of what unabated neoliberal policies do, they become a self-serving racket that breeds inhumane inequality and only benefits the select few crony capitalists at the top.



The neoliberal model of development has moreover arguably seen the poverty alleviation rate in India remain around the same as it was back in pre-independent India, while the ratio between the top and bottom ten percent of the population has doubled since 1991. This is all by design as neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations, it redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling and hence whatever “the market” decides is what is ultimately just.

This can be succinctly characterized by the absolute degradation of the Indian media, where the flag bearers of the fourth pillar of democracy are themselves part of a system which favors the corporate-politico nexus. It is blatantly obvious which media houses are the mouthpiece of which faction and all parties are participating in a race to the bottom in pursuit of ratings and ad revenue. To hell with journalistic standards, profits dictate everything, even if it as the cost of losing all legitimacy. This might be to the detriment of the collective nation but a compromised media is an integral tool to implement policies that only favor a specific subset of society.

“Only a crisis, actual or perceived, produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around,” Milton Friedman, the godfather of neoliberalism, understood the utility of crisis. And so do its modern purveyors, hence the peddling of a constant state of hysteria and shock, politicking on the fear of a caricatured evil “other”.

Although it’s latest premier came onto the national scene off the back of his pro-business economic policies as the chief minister Gujrat, India’s westernmost state, it was his messaging and PR capabilities that made his base rally around him in an emphatic fashion. Banned from the United States, before assuming Prime Ministership, for tacitly supporting riots in which thousands of Muslims were killed by Hindu extremists; Narendra Modi tapped into the base fear that the majority Indian Hindus have of Muslims. He played the politics of divide and conquer, making sure to never show remorse over the deaths of the innocent civilians under his watch and repeatedly signaling to his base how he was tough on the threat of this perceived “other”.

However since forming the government, his messaging has seamlessly shifted from the fear of Muslims to the fear of Pakistan, as both are often synonymous in India. You see as only right-wing Hindus ascribe to this dislike of Muslims, however, all of India can be sold on the idea of the all-encompassing threat that is Pakistan. It is a very politically expedient tool for running the country for someone like Narendra Modi. Colloquially known for rubbing shoulders with India’s corporate elite like the Ambani brothers, India’s new robber barons who have aspirations of monopolizing many Indian industries especially telecommunications. Modi needs a viable threat that the masses can rally around to maintain his “man of the people” image, as he does the bidding of the corporate class he is propped up by.

And he has used this political tool at opportune times, right before a big election, to create shock and furor to divert his constituents’ attention from the effects of his policies. The most significant example of this was his demonetization initiative that came on the eve of a key state election. Sold under the guise of eliminating ‘black money’ in the market, it was supposed to fight against corruption, fake notes, and terrorism. In an address to the nation, he stated that “Terrorism is a frightening threat. So many have lost their lives because of it. But have you ever thought about how these terrorists get their money? Enemies from across the border run their operations using fake currency notes.” However, in actuality, the whole thing was a sequestration of ordinary people’s money. Indian banks have been facing a liquidity crisis as the rupee weakens and major conglomerates miss payment obligations, however, the Reserve Bank of India could ill afford to increase liquidity in fears of igniting inflation. So to go around all this he instead concocted this scheme of calling back existing money in circulation in the shape of eliminating the biggest two denominations of Indian currency and reintroducing them with a new design. 80% of Indians who don’t have access to banks withered away in ATM lines as they exchanged their now worthless notes to “fight terrorism”. The majority rural and poor population that relies on a cash-based society to buy food and medicine suffered the brunt of this heist. And a year later studies showed that the whole fiasco managed to achieve none of its goals, as 99.3% of the currency was returned to the banks resulting in the elimination of no supposed “black money”. The banks will now lend out the money confiscated from the poor, several times the amount by fractional reserve banking so crony capitalists can be subsidized by the lower and middle class.

This was successfully done by crafting a narrative, through the compromised media, of anyone being against this move as an “anti-national” or rather someone who supported Pakistan. This practice of labeling all detractors as being outsiders has seeped to every corner of Indian politics. The phenomenon has also swept the civil society, where lynch mobs are becoming increasingly common, and anyone who doesn’t tow the government’s official narratives is told to “go to Pakistan”.

Fanning the flames of such a historical and deep-rooted enmity might be seen as highly irresponsible by neutral onlookers but neoliberal economics biggest money maker is disaster capitalism. Wait for a crisis (or even, in some instances, as in Chile or Russia, help foment one), declare a moment of what is sometimes called “extraordinary politics”, suspend some or all democratic norms and then ram the corporate wishlist through as quickly as possible.

The recent flare of tensions on the Kashmir border between India and Pakistan is the result of just that. When a disgruntled youth born in Indian Administered Kashmir engaged in a suicide attack that killed 40 of the 700,000 troops stationed there under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. The jingoistic Indian press blamed Pakistan immediately laying claim that JeM, an outfit banned in Pakistan for trying to assassinate a previous Pakistani head of state, had taken credit for the attack. Ignoring the fact that the 22-year-old was radicalized after he was beaten up by the Indian Military forces in the region, and had acquired the explosives to build the bomb from a nearby construction site. In an effort to rally up his base once again before the 2019 general election Narendra Modi used this incident as an excuse to carry out airstrikes against supposed terrorist camps in Pakistan. Despite all independent sources claiming that these “strikes” only damaged some trees in Pakistani territory, it put Pakistan in a position to retaliate the breach of its airspace. In a show of strength Pakistan retaliated by invading Indian airspace, targeting some Military depots and shooting down an Indian MiG-21 that had followed Pakistani planes back into Pakistani airspace. Pakistan also captured the pilot of the downed plane, Wing Commander Abhinandan, however in a bid to de-escalate the Pakistani Prime Minister released the captor back to India immediately without any quid pro quo deal.

Despite this grandiose gesture by Pakistan, the Indian Prime Minister kept dialing up the rhetoric on the campaign trail claiming that the episode was just a pilot project and that the real attack was yet to happen. Subsequently adding that if India had acquired the superior Rafale Fighter Jets like his government had intended to before the deal was embroiled in a massive corruption scandal, this episode could have yielded “better results”. As one of the world’s largest importers of arms, 70% of its arms being foreign, and with a defense budget bigger than the entire national budget of Pakistan, the crony capitalists in India are enamored by the prospect of a domestic military-industrial complex. So when the deal of these jets worth $7 billion, which was conveniently awarded to a private defense contractor owned by Anil Ambani, was railroaded amid cries of foul play by the opposition party it was a real blow to Modi’s corporate interests.

It would be a stretch to say that this whole episode was political theatre to cajole the public into pushing through this Rafale deal, but India’s practice of procuring of an assortment of incompatible military tech through various contractors suggests that militaristic expediency takes a back seat to the prospect of ease of doing corruption when it comes to defense spending. It also doesn’t inspire confidence when the leader of the world’s second-largest country doesn’t hold a press conference at the brink of nuclear conflict but only mentions a botched weapons deal in the fall out the first aerial dogfight between two nuclear-armed states.

With the new leadership in Pakistan repeatedly making peace overtures to India, there is a real chance at resolving outstanding issues between the two countries. And with the Pakistani Supreme Court ousting it’s ex-prime minister after he was exposed for having kept ill-gotten wealth in offshore accounts with the release of the Panama Papers, being one of the only nations to do so, there seems to be a genuine course correction in the ideological outlook of Pakistan. Aligning itself full tilt with the Chinese model of economics, with a mix of a robust free-enterprise element coupled with the focus of poverty alleviation. Even at current standing, despite experiencing slower income growth than India, Pakistan has seen a larger number of people lifted out of extreme poverty. And the newly elected government is further implementing policies of special economic zones to shore up foreign capital while also introducing free healthcare for the lowest rungs of society to ensure that it’s going down a path of “inclusive prosperity”.

India, however, seems to be hypnotized by the initial allure of crony capitalism as the political monopoly established by its current government may appear to work very well to the benefit of the country and its people. But ultimately, in the long run, this will pave way for gradual demolition of all constitutional institutions and the constitutional safeguards provided to its citizens. With neoliberalism losing steam around the world as is, as populations become increasingly discontent with the rising inequality, it is time that India make a course correction as well. If there is to be peace in the region, it must reign in its elite class that profits off creating hysteria amongst it’s largely poor and disenfranchised society and ensure that it’s politicians are working for the common man not entirely compromised by special corporate interests.