MODI REX
Has ‘Modi’ become an unconquerable force in India’s political theater? Has the foundation of democratic values eroded, leaving power concentrated in a single individual? Just as the disillusioned masses of the ‘70s found their hero on the silver screen in Amitabh Bachchan, is Modi, forged in the crucible of the RSS, playing a similar role in this ‘Amrit Kaal’ of independence? Is Modi’s political journey—from ‘tea seller’ to ‘world guru’—merely a ride on a wave of emotions, or is there a solid ideology driving it? With these questions, we delve into the ‘Modi Era,’ where the opposition is breathless, institutions are weakened, and questioning is a sin. Is this invincibility permanent, or will its demise be etched in the pages of history?
The 1970s and 80s: An era when the public simmered with resentment over the unfulfilled promises of India's independence. After Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the nation's first Prime Minister, who had pledged to rebuild India, power transitioned to his daughter, Indira Gandhi, who then imposed a state of emergency. The enraged populace now harbored a deep discontent with the system. While this anger manifested in Jayaprakash Narayan's call for a Sampoorna Kranti,' a young actor was mirroring the people's fury on the silver screen. Before anyone knew it, that actor had stepped out of the silver screen and into the hearts of the Indian masses, and thus emerged the superstar, Amitabh Bachchan.
Similar circumstances have unfolded in the politics of the last two decades. A figure was being sculpted from within society. The duo crafting this figure wasn't Salim-Javed, but rather the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), and the hero they sought to plant in people's hearts was Narendra Modi. There was a difference between this hero and the silver screen's Amitabh Bachchan. Amitabh Bachchan only had to act, but this hero, Narendra Modi, had to not only act but also create the image of a charismatic leader, a provider of political solutions to all social problems, and an atmosphere against his opponents. And through his performance, he had to convey the message that only he could deliver them from this frightening environment. Behind this entire script, the Sangh Parivar was systematically playing its role. In the role written for Narendra Modi, it was clear that he had to perform in such a way that the entire political system appeared paralyzed, and that he alone was the only option as a hero to save every mechanism.
To cultivate this hero's image, the Sangh Parivar made every effort, especially using technology extensively to establish him as a bold leader among young voters. Since 2012, the Sangh Parivar began writing a political script with the 2014 general election in mind, presenting Narendra Modi as its hero. Before long, this hero had turned all the failures of the UPA-2 era into keys to his success, and amidst the despair and disappointment of 1.25 billion Indians, he emerged as a beacon of hope. In the 2014 general election, the entire country united to form a government with a full majority under the leadership of Narendra Modi.
And from there began the Modi Era. The old heroes of the BJP's struggles were confined to darkness alone... Murli Manohar Joshi was lost in waves of silence. Yashwant Sinha was constantly groping for a purpose to create a ruckus on a deserted road. MP Shatrughan Sinha was forced to openly reveal his villainy. The Congressmen or regional satraps did not have enough strength left to do anything other than struggle to regain power after losing it. Constitutional institutions were gradually shackled by the grip of the centralized governance system led by Narendra Modi. The extent of the changed circumstances became evident when four judges of the Supreme Court had to take to the streets to make their voices heard. The media slipped into the role of court musicians. Prime Minister Modi, who calls himself the prime servant, the nation's watchman, and the nation as his family, and claims to be a follower of Mahatma Gandhi, renamed Mahatma Gandhi's Gram Swaraj as Gram Suraj, but locked the intention of decentralization of power within seven locks. During Modi's rule, the situation became such that ministers and ministries were certainly visible, but power became centralized and confined to the PMO. It has become necessary to explore the reasons behind this happening.
In the 2019 elections, the country again placed Narendra Modi in power with even greater strength than before. Because no one else was visible on the horizon parallel to him. Then, in the 2024 elections, the BJP under Modi's leadership could not repeat its charisma and slipped below the majority mark, getting stuck at 240, but a government was formed again with the support of NDA allied parties.
In this third term, it is now essential to assess whether defeating the BJP, or in simpler terms, Modi, through democratic means, through elections, has become virtually impossible. There is no nationally recognized leader in the opposition apart from Rahul Gandhi, and even if Rahul were to achieve something noteworthy, Congress does not seem inclined to allow it. Thus, the opposition and its prominent faces who could become Prime Minister are absent. But who after Modi? This question might be asked somewhat prematurely, but it is more prudent to begin difficult tasks ahead of time. This cover story has many shades, in which we will discuss the invincible Modi, the continuous Modi. We will also assess the politics of the future in contrast to the current politics of the country, and the pace at which India, under Modi's leadership, is moving towards its vision of becoming a world guru on a global scale.
Recently, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat advised people to 'retire' after the age of 75. This statement was then seen as pressure on Narendra Modi to retire from politics after completing 75 years of age next month, i.e., on September 17, 2025, although Bhagwat clarified his statement, saying that it should not be linked to the speculations being made regarding Modi. However, in politics, speculations, hints, and actions are taken in the style of 'eyes somewhere else, target somewhere else,' and their hundred percent implication is politics. The dramatic manner in which Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned from his post on the very first day of the Parliament's monsoon session is also being viewed somewhat through the same lens, as he also completed 75 years of age this year, and he cited health reasons for his resignation. Anyway, after all this, it has become clear that this matter of 75 years has remained only in political headlines and statements, but it is certainly something to be said a little prematurely, but it is more prudent to start difficult tasks ahead of time. The BJP under the leadership of Narendra Modi will continue to win elections and form governments in the center and most of the states as long as he himself wishes to do so. In fact, in today's Indian politics, it has become almost impossible to defeat the BJP through democratic means—through elections. There is no face in the opposition other than Rahul Gandhi who can become a real claimant for the post of Prime Minister at the national level. And even if Rahul has the ability to do something remarkable, the inactivity of the Congress does not seem to provide him with that opportunity.
So, the question is not just who will defeat the BJP—but also whether it can be defeated at all? Has the BJP's grip on the Election Commission, the media, the judiciary, and all the constitutional institutions become so strong that the mandate has now become not a natural democratic expression but a 'sponsored and managed' event?
Prime Minister Narendra Modi's politics is not based on any permanent ideals, but it rides on constantly changing emotions—sometimes 'tea seller,' sometimes 'watchman,' sometimes 'world guru,' and sometimes 'development man.' And behind this constantly changing personality, the most disciplined mechanism that stands is his foreign policy. The biggest thing is that apart from politics, his personality is that of a Hindu nationalist leader, who has been meticulously crafted by the RSS in its laboratory. According to many senior political analysts, Narendra Modi is the ideal political face of the dreams of Hedgewar and Guru Golwalkar, cooked in the ideology of the Sangh, and perhaps it is the result of the penance of not 100 but at least 90 years of the Sangh Parivar's ideological journey. Notably, this year the Sangh will celebrate the 100th year of its establishment, i.e., the centenary year.
The biggest contribution of the Modi government's foreign policy has been that it has made diplomacy television-friendly. Now foreign policy is no longer a dialogue process behind closed doors, but has become a live-streaming-worthy event. Every foreign tour of Modi is like a victory campaign of a hero—Narendra Modi walking hand in hand with Xi Jinping on the Sabarmati Riverfront, Obama on a swing, Namaste with Trump in Motera, inauguration of the temple in Abu Dhabi—everything is presented in such a grand manner that the common citizen sitting in the country has also started seeing foreign policy as an 'event.'
But behind this glitz, has India's diplomatic stature really increased? From the border dispute with China to the lack of dialogue with Pakistan, India's ambiguity in the Russia-Ukraine war, or the instability of relations with the Gulf countries—the Modi government's foreign policy has faced serious questions on all fronts. India's participation in BRICS, G20, or Quad has been there, but has India's voice been decisively heard on these platforms? Or have we just remained a decoration of the stage?
The Modi government's foreign policy seems to be afflicted with a particular kind of self-obsession. It has taken the form of a one-sided dialogue in which it has been assumed that what India is saying is the final word. India's 'silent policy' on the Ukraine war is a glaring example of this. In order to maintain good relations with the West, Russia was neither openly supported nor opposed—and as a result, India has been viewed with suspicion from both sides."
China has dealt the biggest blow to India's diplomatic image. From Doklam to Galwan, and then the expansion of infrastructure in the regions of Arunachal—every time, China put India under strategic pressure, and the Modi government either remained silent or reacted in a very cautious language. Prime Minister Modi's statement that 'No one has entered, nor is anyone inside' has been recorded in the pages of history as an example of diplomatic self-deception.
The efforts made under the 'Neighborhood First' policy have mostly remained limited to appearances. India's relations with countries like Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bangladesh have either been strained or distrustful. India's interference during the constitution-making of Nepal, silence on the Tamil issue in Sri Lanka, and the negative impact on issues like NRC with Bangladesh—all these have shown that 'Neighborhood First' was only a proclamation, not a policy.
Narendra Modi's foreign policy has become more person-centric than involving institutions. The role of the Ministry of External Affairs has been limited, and most decisions are made directly from the PMO. An expert institution like the Indian Foreign Service has become limited to a 'logistics team,' whose job has been reduced to setting the stage and decorating flags for visits.
When we talk about Modi's alternative, it has to be understood whether Modi's alternative is to be seen only as a person, or also as a style, structure, and ideology? There is no doubt that there is no clear successor to Narendra Modi in the BJP. Names like Amit Shah, Yogi Adityanath, Khattar, Nadda are in the air, but none of them has been able to achieve the universal acceptance that Modi has received.
And perhaps this is also Modi's greatest strength—he completely eliminates the possibility of any successor within himself.
But is this invincibility permanent? No. History teaches that within every invincible leadership lies the seed of disintegration. Modi will be 75. Even if he remains for two more terms, it is certain that he will have to leave the post after that—either voluntarily or compulsorily. Then, will the BJP bring someone from within itself or will a 'Modi mask' be presented who speaks, smiles, and looks at the camera in the same way as the 'hero' wants, not the 'ministry'?
There was a time when the leadership of the BJP was decided by the blessings of the Sangh. But now the political dominance of the Sangh has become zero. It is limited only to symbolic statements. It has neither moral strength left nor organizational grip. In such a situation, it seems ridiculous in today's situation to believe that the Sangh will have a decisive role in the selection of Modi's successor.
If this selection happens in Modi's style, then one morning the party will find out that their new leader is Khattar or Narottam Mishra. But if it happens through a well-thought-out process, then some potential names will emerge—like Yogi Adityanath, Amit Shah, Dharmendra Pradhan, Manoj Sinha, or some other emerging face will be shaped.
But the question is who will the party prefer—someone who is quick at raising funds, who is obedient to the organization, who can emotionally bind the public, or who is only loyal to Modi? At this time, the party probably does not have the answer to 'Modi after Modi, who after that?', but this search is now necessary.
Today the BJP has become not a party but a 'system'—which has one face, one voice, and also one fear. This fear is not of any external force, but of internal silence. No one else in the party dares to raise their voice. And when this happens, 'democracy' remains limited only to the electoral machinery, and the country enters a long political fatigue.
No situation is permanent in politics. The absence of options is not an option. Political consciousness always creates options. The failure of the opposition is not permanent—if the public gets tired, breaks down, and gets bored with the monolithic form of power, then options will emerge. But this will only happen when the public can understand the difference between truth and propaganda in the crowd of information.
There are many questions regarding the Modi government's foreign policy, internal governance style, and succession planning—and their answers also have to come more from the public than from within the power. If a nation wants to protect its democracy, it has to move beyond individualism and rely on institutions and processes. Otherwise, the question will remain the same: 'Are we choosing a hero, or just a new mask?'