Bharat Summit: India’s Fear of Dissent

There was something deeply ironic about the Bharat Summit that concluded in Hyderabad on Nov 14. A gathering intended to discuss democracy, social justice, climate change, gender equality, international cooperation and the future of the Global South became an occasion to question the very state of democracy in India.

The irony was not lost on anyone who followed the proceedings. While politicians, intellectuals, journalists, researchers and activists from different parts of the world assembled to discuss the challenges confronting humanity, the Indian government prevented 115 invited speakers from entering the country. One such speaker whose visa was cancelled “ten minutes before she was due to leave for the airport” was Helle Lyng, the journalist who had questioned Modi recently about the freedom of the press in India.

The Bharat Summit was organised by the Congress-led Telangana government. It brought together approximately 1,000 participants from India and 70 other countries. Its agenda included topics that matter much today.

We are living through a period when democracy is under pressure in several countries. Authoritarian tendencies are becoming increasingly visible. Political leaders are cultivating personality cults, institutions ae being weakened, dissent is being portrayed as disloyalty, and nationalism is used to silence uncomfortable questions.

Economic inequality is widening. Climate change is threatening the livelihoods of millions. Technological advancement is creating new forms of economic insecurity. The rights of workers in the gig economy, just to mention one example, have become an important question in countries where traditional employment structures are rapidly disappearing.

These problems cannot be adequately addressed within national boundaries. They require international conversations, the exchange of ideas and cooperation among countries.

The Bharat Summit offered an opportunity for precisely such conversations.

Its emphasis on the Global South was particularly significant. The countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America have historically occupied subordinate positions in the international economic and political order. Their interests have often been determined by powerful countries elsewhere. A platform that enables these nations to discuss common challenges and articulate their own priorities has considerable relevance.

India, with its history of anticolonial struggle, democratic institutions, cultural diversity and rising international influence, ought to be a natural leader in such an initiative.

There is another reason why the summit mattered. Democracy is not merely about elections, especially when elections are rigged as in India now. It is also about the freedom to disagree, the right to question authority, the protection of minorities and the ability of citizens to participate meaningfully in decisions affecting their lives.

A country that discusses democracy only in terms of electoral victories has a rather impoverished understanding of the concept.

The mystery of the 115 missing voices

The controversy surrounding the summit began when Shashi Tharoor revealed that 115 of the 315 foreign speakers cleared by the Ministry of External Affairs had either been refused entry into India or had their visas cancelled. Tharoor claimed that the action had been taken on the instructions of the Ministry of Home Affairs.

What is the Modi government afraid of?

The BJP criticised the summit, describing it as an attempt to provide a platform for anti-India narratives. Its leaders questioned the Congress’s motives for organising the event. But what exactly is an anti-India narrative?

Is criticism of government anti-India? Can citizens not question the Prime Minister? Is discussing press freedom, minority rights, social inequality or the state of democratic institutions an act of hostility towards the country?

Modi seems to be forgetting that the government is not India. BJP is not India. Modi is not India, even if he elevates himself to the galaxy of the overpopulated Indian pantheon.

There is something profoundly insecure about a political establishment that seems to regard international scrutiny as a threat to national prestige. If India is confident about its democratic achievements, why should it fear foreign journalists, researchers or activists discussing democracy on Indian soil?

The Bharat Summit was an opportunity for India to demonstrate that it could be a meeting ground for different political and intellectual traditions. Instead Modi’s India has proved to be a cowardly kingdom of petty minds.