Prime Minister Narendra Modi is among the most electorally successful politicians in contemporary India, having avoided defeat in the arithmetic of democratic contests. He has mobilised and mesmerised large sections of the electorate with a confident—critics would say combative—style that projects decisiveness. Yet performance in political theatre is not the same as performance in governance.
While Modi is widely acknowledged as an effective communicator, detractors argue that rhetorical power cannot substitute for substantive achievements that tangibly transform national life. In their view, the politics associated with his leadership and the broader Hindutva project has deepened polarisation in India.
Supporters portray his foreign policy as assertive and pragmatic. Critics, however, contend that the government has aligned India too closely with Western powers, particularly the United States and Britain, entering into trade and strategic arrangements that they believe disadvantage Indian agriculture, industry, and both rural and urban economies. They further argue that the ideological lineage of Hindutva did not play a central role in the anti-colonial struggle and that its contemporary orientation reflects an accommodation with global capitalism rather than an independent developmental path rooted in social justice and economic sovereignty.
According to this critique, Hindutva politics draws upon ethnocentric frameworks that divide citizens along religious, regional, and linguistic lines. Such divisions, opponents argue, weaken social cohesion and distract from structural economic challenges. They see parallels between the colonial “divide and rule” strategy and contemporary political mobilisation based on identity cleavages. In this interpretation, Hindutva becomes less a civilisational revival and more a political instrument that consolidates power while integrating India into global capitalist hierarchies.
Indian patriotism, in contrast, has historically been associated with unity in diversity—an aspiration to build social, political, economic, and cultural conditions that strengthen solidarity while respecting pluralism. Critics argue that Hindutva politics, by privileging a majoritarian framework, risks marginalising minorities and narrowing the constitutional imagination of citizenship. They contend that this political direction facilitates the transfer of public resources into private hands, entrenching crony capitalism and shaping an economic vision that benefits corporate elites more than ordinary citizens.
On the international stage, opponents maintain that the government’s alliances with powerful capitalist states compromise India’s long-term autonomy. They characterise Modi’s leadership style as transactional and short-termist, driven by immediate political gains rather than a coherent developmental strategy. In their assessment, the absence of a forward-looking, inclusive economic roadmap risks squandering demographic and technological opportunities that could otherwise secure broad-based prosperity.
Electoral dominance, critics argue, has been accompanied by a weakening of democratic norms and constitutional institutions. They claim that the government often conflates propaganda with performance and electoral victories with substantive social and economic progress. Democratic mandates, they insist, should strengthen citizenship rights and institutional accountability rather than diminish them.
Economic indicators are central to this debate. Detractors point to rising external debt, persistent unemployment, and widening inequality as evidence that growth has not translated into equitable development. They argue that there is no comprehensive strategy to mobilise domestic resources for shared prosperity, and that current policies disproportionately favour a narrow corporate class while leaving the majority in precarious conditions.
Concerns have also been raised about the direction of education and historiography. Critics contend that secular and scientific temper—enshrined in the Constitution—are being undermined, while history is being reshaped to align with ideological objectives. They warn that such shifts could stifle innovation, discourage critical inquiry, and weaken India’s intellectual foundations.
India’s vast cultural, religious, and linguistic diversity has long been regarded as a civilisational strength. Opponents of the Hindutva project argue that attempts to redefine the republic as a “Hindu Rashtra” risk eroding this plural ethos. In their view, the steady dilution of constitutional secularism and federal balance signals a transformation of the republic’s founding vision. They see the making of a Hindu Rashtra as the unmaking of a secular, progressive, and democratic India.
Ultimately, the debate over Modi’s leadership is a debate about vision. Admirers credit him with decisive governance and global stature; critics see a deficit of inclusive, long-term imagination. For the latter, leadership without a transformative social and economic vision becomes a burden rather than a beacon. They argue that India’s future depends on reclaiming politics as an instrument of progressive change—strengthening democratic institutions, protecting citizenship rights, and ensuring that development advances peace, prosperity, and justice for all.
---
*Academic based in UK
Comments