Korybko To Bloomberg’s Rebecca Choong Wilkins: Modi Isn’t Responsible For Manipur’s Unrest

Under no circumstances will India fold in the face of foreign pressure on issues of national security importance and sovereignty. Those like Wilkins who claim otherwise either don’t properly understand this country or have an agenda in misleading their audience about the way in which it nowadays formulates policy.

Bloomberg’s Rebecca Choong Wilkins shared some thoughts about Manipur’s unrest in a short article about “Holding Modi to Account Over India’s Violence” that was included in her outlet’s newsletter on Tuesday. As could be surmised from its title, she blames the Indian premier for the unrest in his country’s Northeastern state, but the present piece will debunk her false narrative. Before doing so, however, the reader is encouraged to review the following analyses to bring themselves up to speed on this subject:

* “The European Parliament Damaged The Bloc’s Relations With India By Meddling In Manipur”

* “The Indian National Congress Is Despicable For Politicizing The Violence In Manipur”

* “Korybko To The Shillong Times’ Patricia Mukhim: Don’t Blame The BJP For Manipur’s Unrest”

* “The Indian Opposition Wants To Force PM Modi Into A Narrative Dilemma On Manipur”

In brief, bad actors from both the Meitei and Kuki minority communities exploited a contentious court ruling in spring that granted the former equivalent “affirmative action” rights as the latter to carry out preplanned violence against the other. Liberal-Globalists in India and the West subsequently exploited this unrest to smear Prime Minister Modi as part of the opposition’s election campaign ahead of next year’s national polls. Wilkins’ article essentially serves to advance this agenda.

She began by declaring that “Narendra Modi has become a master at skirting blame anytime a crisis hits India. This week the opposition will try again to hold the prime minister to account — likely with the same result.” This is misleading, however, since the opposition always blames him anytime something goes wrong. He’s therefore already been held to account in the court of public opinion, but his party won the 2019 elections in a landslide, which shows that most don’t agree with this narrative.

Wilkins then wrote that “Modi, who’s already in campaign mode as he seeks to extend a decade in power next year, faces a confidence vote in parliament. The question isn’t whether he’ll win — that’s a given — but whether his opponents can make him squirm and gain ground in the polls.” Her reference to his decade-long rule is a dog whistle implying that he’s a dictator, which his critics regularly accuse him of being, but this accusation is discredited by the fact that India is the world’s largest democracy.

The next part of her article misleadingly claimed that “The main topic will be the government’s handling of deadly ethnic violence in India’s northeastern state of Manipur, which is controlled by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party. Conflict between Christian Kukis and the Hindu Meiteis has left more than 150 people dead and displaced 50,000 people since May.” While the opposition is indisputably politicizing the Manipur unrest, they’ll also bring up a host of other contentious issues during the upcoming vote.

Furthermore, her reminder that the ruling party runs the state hints that it bears responsibility for the preplanned violence carried out by non-state actors there, which isn’t true. It was indeed an intelligence shortcoming that the security services weren’t able to prevent those bad actors’ plans, but that’s not local, regional, or national politicians’ fault. Additionally, Wilkins’ reference to those two communities’ faiths suggests that this is a religious dispute when it’s actually over land rights.

She also misled her audience when writing that “Modi’s first public comment hinting at the conflict focused on the safety of women after a grotesque video surfaced of two women being paraded naked and allegedly raped in Manipur. He didn’t make any reference to ongoing ethnic violence.” The impression that they’re left with is that he’s avoiding this issue for inexplicable reasons, though his motivation is to not have his words twisted by bad actors for provoking another round of unrest.

It's irrelevant whether one agrees or disagrees with his approach since the point is that he prefers erring on the side of caution instead of speaking out for political reasons like the opposition is. Wilkins’ audience wasn’t made aware of this though because she wanted to make them think that he’s uncompassionate. She then continued her spin by writing that “The parliamentary vote may change that: Essentially, it’s a bid to force Modi to address a topic he’s spent months studiously avoiding.”

“More broadly, the opposition wants to use this moment to shine a spotlight on Modi’s Hindu-focused nationalism, which has turned the South Asian nation into a more intolerant place for many minorities — primarily Muslims.” Taking her cues from the opposition, she’s bringing up prior criticisms of him that are irrelevant to Manipur’s unrest but which imbue her audience with the false impression that he and the ruling party are somehow responsible for what just happened due to their alleged bigotry.

About that, while every movement in the world has a few bad apples within their ranks, it’s dishonest to claim that they reflect the sentiments of all those who they associate with. By doing so, Wilkins wants the reader to assume that the Hindu Meiteis went on a killing spree against the Christian Kuki with a wink and a nod from the BJP, which is a blatantly false depiction of the Manipur unrest. The only reason why she’d spin the situation in that way is because her agenda is to defame Prime Minister Modi.

That’s why she followed up the previously cited passage by writing that “Even as he presses ahead with a daily stream of social media posts and high-profile visits, the prime minister has managed to create distance from the fallout of certain divisive policies.” This reinforces the narrative that she earlier introduced when suggesting that there’s no reason why he’s thus far remained silent about the Manipur unrest, the criticism of which was already responded to above.

The last part of Wilkins’ article predicts that “Modi may find the issue comes back to haunt him next month when he plays host to Group of 20 leaders, including US President Joe Biden. For Modi, who is adept at controlling the narrative within India, that outside pressure may make the violence impossible to ignore.” While it can’t be ruled out that some of his guests will ask him about this situation, those who do so would be disrespecting his hospitality by exploiting their trip to meddle in India’s internal affairs.

Prime Minister Modi and his government won’t tolerate that, however, so any of his peers who consider doing this should think twice lest they worsen bilateral ties just for the sake of a soundbite. Under no circumstances will India fold in the face of foreign pressure on issues of national security importance and sovereignty. Those like Wilkins who claim otherwise either don’t properly understand this country or have an agenda in misleading their audience about the way in which it nowadays formulates policy.

Past administrations might have buckled on these sensitive issues, but Modi’s never will, which is why liberal-globalists despise it since they know that it’s impossible to shape India in their ideological image under the BJP’s rule. For that reason, they’re ramping up their information warfare campaign far ahead of next year’s elections since they hope to manipulate enough voters into backing the opposition, who are expected to comply with most foreign demands that are made of them if they ever return to power.