Beef battles make IS fight hard for BJP

In a recent manifesto released by the Islamic State (IS), India and its Prime Minister Narendra Modi were singled out as targets, as the extremist group prepares to wage war in South Asia. More curiously, in its Internet-borne publications, the IS propagandists for the first time poked their nose into Indian domestic politics and elaborated on the religious confrontations in the sub-continent. Against the backdrop of the turmoil stirred up by terrorist attacks across the world, the mention of India and Modi set alarm bells ringing in New Delhi. While in the short run the fears of an imminent Paris-like attack may draw overwhelming attentions from India's security establishment, the radicalization of religious politics and the marginalization of the Muslim communities are the more fundamental challenges, which merit the decision-makers' political capital investment and careful social-economic readjustment in the long run. The IS seemed to adopt a steep learning curve in marketing itself to the local audience. It tailored fanatic rhetoric into more customized narratives featuring local themes. For example, the IS made an explicit reference to the case of the Dadri lynching, in which 50-year-old Mohammad Akhlaq was killed by a Hindu mob over suspicion of eating beef. Commenting on this episode, the IS accused Modi a "right-wing Hindu nationalist who worships weapons and wants a movement to kill cow eaters." In the wakes of the lynching, beef has been the epicenter of political mayhem. The IS then smartly portrayed itself as the patron who protects the grieved Indian Muslims from "(the) movement of Hindus …who kill Muslims who eat beef." The politically-charged situation further worsened as a multiple of senior officials from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its ideological ally Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, including Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar, Union Minister Mahesh Sharma and several others, made controversial comments over beef-eating. Although Amit Shah, president of BJP, has harshly criticized these inappropriate remarks, the BJP may find it hard to put a lid over the simmering cauldron of the Hindutva. Describing the killing merely as "unfortunate," Modi was also lambasted for not condemning the killing more vigorously or more promptly. The recent escalation of communal violence was in many ways related to the 2002 Gujarat riots. Modi argues for friendly accommodation of Muslims, but his alleged involvement in the riots was by no means forgotten, especially as many from his party as well as the Sangh Parivar still see the Gujarat tragedy as a sacred victory. When those from the ruling party and its allies celebrated the episode, the IS - together with many other extremist Islamic groups - simply employed the atrocities committed there to stir up hatred. For instance, footage of Muslims being abused and slaughtered in the 2002 riots was widely disseminated to co-opt frustrated young Muslims into the Mujahideen movement. Besides the unfortunate lynching and historical grievances, BJP's ideological and political stance exacerbates the social cleavage and renders the country vulnerable to external terrorist threats. In contrast to the Congress party or the Socialist party which only have a secular agenda, the BJP unequivocally embraces the idea of Hindu nationalism and practices Hindutva. While Modi may win legitimacy from outstanding performance and hence dilute saffron (the color of Hinduism) as his grounding color, other from the BJP - be it officials or the rank-and-file - still resort to the religious narrative, including the antagonism to Islam, to rally public support. It is actually hard for Modi and the BJP to even remain neutral in rampant communal strife, as doing so may alienate the most devoted Hindu followers who form the core of the party's political influences. Such political suicide is simply unbearable for any BJP decision-makers. Perhaps, the BJP's dilemma explains why Bollywood superstar Aamir Khan (who is a Muslim) suggested that when elected representatives fail to make strong statements in response to people taking the law into their own hand, then citizens "feel a sense of insecurity." If the government and statement fail to duly promote religious tolerance and protect their countrymen from persecution, desperate citizens may likely turn to the devils. In this sense, ironically, it was the unsatisfactory actions from the government that rendered the IS threats credible. The lethal threats made by the IS to India and Modi can be interpreted both literally and metaphorically. While terrorist strikes in the literal sense - a lone wolf attack or street shooting - can be dealt with definite security inputs, attacks in the metaphorical sense - the looming radicalization and mobilization of Indian Muslims toward extremism - will cost way more resources to put down. It is time for the Indian decision-makers to reexamine the IS threats through a more introspective lens.