An extraordinary event at the Press Club of India in New Delhi, where a cutout of Prime Minister Narendra Modi was depicted as Lord Ram and worshipped, has raised serious questions about the sanctity and credibility of an institution that is expected to uphold the independence of the press.
Videos of the event, held on August 20, show a group of people performing aarti before a cutout of Modi depicted in the likeness of Lord Ram, complete with a bow and arrow. Participants were also seen reciting what they called the “Bhagwan Shri Narendra Modi Chalisa” and chanting slogans such as “Jai Jai Modi, Har Har Modi.” A banner at the venue carried the words “Bhagwan Shri Narendra Modi Chalisa.”
The symbolism was striking. A sitting Prime Minister was being presented in the imagery of a Hindu deity and subjected to a ritual normally associated with religious worship. Whatever the organisers’ political or personal motivations, the spectacle raises an uncomfortable question: what happens to democratic institutions when political leadership begins to acquire the trappings of religious devotion?
The event was reportedly organised by people associated with the Bihar State Transgender Welfare Board. Its vice-president, Rajan Singh, told the media that the group was planning to construct a temple dedicated to “Lord Shri Narendra Modi ji” in Bihar. He justified the proposal by saying that Modi’s government had secured rights and opportunities for the transgender community. Reports also quoted him as saying that the proposed temple would cost around ₹112 crore.
The Press Club of India, however, has strongly distanced itself from the event. It said the club neither organised nor endorsed the programme. According to the club, the hall had been hired for a press conference, but the organisers violated the terms of the booking, following which the authorities intervened and stopped the event. The club has also indicated that it is reviewing its procedures governing the use of its premises.
That clarification is important, but it does not entirely answer the larger question.
The Press Club of India is not merely another venue available for hire. It occupies a symbolic place in India's journalistic culture. It is associated with the professional community of journalists and with the broader struggle to protect freedom of expression, institutional independence and democratic accountability.
For that reason, an event of this nature taking place within its premises inevitably damages public confidence, even if the club itself did not organise or endorse it. Institutions are judged not only by what they formally authorise, but also by the standards they establish for the use of their spaces.
The controversy therefore deserves to be viewed as more than an isolated incident involving a group of political enthusiasts. It raises a fundamental question about whether spaces associated with journalism should permit activities that blur the distinction between political loyalty, personality cults and religious devotion.
There is an even larger concern. India’s democratic institutions are already under pressure from growing political polarisation and declining public trust in the media. The last thing the press needs is for one of its principal professional institutions to become associated, even inadvertently, with the promotion of a political personality cult.
This is particularly relevant when there is a growing debate over attempts to redefine India’s constitutional identity in explicitly religious terms. A press institution must be able to scrutinise such developments rather than appear to provide them with legitimacy.
The Press Club’s explanation may establish that it did not organise the event. But institutional credibility cannot rest on disclaimers alone. The club should also demonstrate that its rules are strong enough to prevent its premises from being used for activities fundamentally inconsistent with the principles of an independent and secular press.
This is not an argument against religion or religious expression. Individuals are entitled to their beliefs and forms of worship. The issue is the appropriateness of using the premises of a professional press institution for a spectacle that portrays a serving political leader as a deity.
Nor is this the first controversy surrounding the use of Press Club premises for political or ideological activity. Over the years, the club has hosted speakers and events representing a wide spectrum of political views. That diversity is part of democratic life. But diversity of opinion cannot mean abandoning professional standards or allowing a press institution to become a platform for communal propaganda, personality cults or hate speech.
The history of the press in India contains enough examples of the dangers of political proximity. Journalists and press institutions have a responsibility to maintain sufficient distance from political power to scrutinise it effectively. When that distance disappears, journalism risks becoming propaganda.
This is where the recent remarks of veteran journalist N. Ram at the National Conclave of the Federation of Press Clubs in Hyderabad acquire particular significance. Ram identified two interconnected challenges facing journalism: the erosion of public trust and growing threats to press freedom and independence. He also argued that the credibility crisis cannot be blamed entirely on external forces; sections of the media themselves have contributed through sensationalism, weak professional standards, communal rhetoric and excessive proximity to political and corporate interests.
That warning should resonate strongly within every press club in the country.
The newly formed Federation of Press Clubs has itself emphasised the need to promote ethical journalism, professional standards and press freedom. Its Hyderabad Declaration called for stronger cooperation among press clubs and reaffirmed the importance of the unhindered practice of journalism under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The Press Club of India should take that principle seriously.
A press club cannot demand public trust while allowing its institutional space to be associated with the glorification of political power. Nor can it expect the public to distinguish indefinitely between what the institution formally endorses and what it permits to take place under its roof.
The issue is therefore not whether the Press Club organised the “Modi Chalisa”. It did not, according to its own clarification. The deeper issue is whether the institution has adequate safeguards to ensure that its premises remain dedicated to journalism, public debate and democratic discourse.
The answer should be a clear and unequivocal yes.
India's position in the 2026 World Press Freedom Index makes the question of institutional credibility even more urgent. Reporters Without Borders ranks India 157th out of 180 countries, with a score of 31.96, placing it in the “Very Serious” category. India ranked 151st in 2025.
Against this backdrop, India's press institutions should be exceptionally careful about their proximity to political power and ideological movements.
The Press Club of India has an opportunity to turn this controversy into a moment of institutional introspection. It should strengthen its rules governing the use of its premises, ensure transparency in bookings and enforce clear safeguards against activities that convert a professional press space into a venue for political or religious spectacle.
The credibility of the press cannot be demanded from the public. It has to be earned.
If journalism is to remain a pillar of democracy, its institutions must be seen as independent not only in their words but also in their conduct. The “Modi Chalisa” episode should therefore serve as a warning: the Press Club of India must ensure that its premises remain a space where power is questioned, not worshipped.
---
Syed Ali Mujtaba is a senior journalist based in Chennai, and Head of the Department of Visual Communication at Guru Nanak College
Comments