Welcome back to the Deep Dive, where we take
the complexity and controversy of world figures
and distill them into the most crucial insights
so you can get smart fast. Today, we are turning
our focus to the leader who has governed the
world, the largest democracy for over a decade,
Narendra Modi. It's truly a dense and often contradictory
portfolio. The source material you shared. a
deep, comprehensive overview of his entire career,
it really demands a careful approach. Our mission
today is to cut through the often competing narratives,
synthesizing what we know about his rise, his
economic legacy, and the dramatic ideological
shift he has engineered in Indian governance.
That is the big picture tension, isn't it? We
are looking at a man who started as a former
full -time campaigner, a Prakarak, for the right
-wing Hindu nationalist volunteer organization,
the RSS. How does that figure rise to command
consistently high domestic approval ratings,
become a globally dominant leader, and yet at
the same time fundamentally redefine India's
political alignment toward the right, even weathering
intense controversy along the way? It's a study
in political dexterity. And to understand it,
I think we have to examine three critical things.
Okay. First... The ideological roots planted
during his youth. Then the contentious, but also,
you know, economically successful in some ways,
legacy of the Gujarat chief minister years. And
finally, the massive centralized structural shifts
he has orchestrated on the national stage since
2014. It's hard to believe this global powerhouse
started out working in a humble tea stall. Where
do we even begin to understand those early seeds
of ambition and ideology? We begin right there.
in vadnagar gujarat he was born in 1950 into
a gujarati family of the other backward class
or obc background and that's a crucial detail
right oh absolutely it grounds his story in the
vast social landscape of india where identity
and caste are politically vital so on one hand
you have those humble beginnings working infrequently
at his father's tea stall at the vadnar railway
station But simultaneously, there's this early,
clear drive toward public performance. A drive
that suggests the persona was being cultivated
early on. Completely. Though teachers described
him as an average student academically, the sources
repeatedly highlight that he was a keen, gifted
debater with a strong interest in theater. And
he liked specific kinds of roles. Yes, specifically
preferring to play larger -than -life characters.
That flair for the dramatic, the ability to command
attention and present a powerful image, clearly
influenced the political persona that now dominates
the national and global stage. And his formal
education profile reflects a certain unconventionality.
I mean, it seems like he was relying heavily
on distance learning to acquire credentials while
already deeply entrenched in the political apparatus.
That's correct. He completed his secondary education
in 1967, but he later acquired both his Bachelor
of Arts that was in 1978 from Delhi University
School of Open Learning and then his Master of
Arts in 1983 from Gujarat University in Political
Science. All through external distance learning.
Exactly. And it's worth noting that the authenticity
of those degrees has been a source of ongoing
controversy, though Delhi University did later
affirm the BA was authentic. For his development,
however, the real university, you could say,
was the Moshriya Swam Sivaksang, or RSS. He was
introduced to the RSS at age eight, attending
local shakas, or training sessions. When did
this move from a weekend activity to his central,
defining life commitment? That happens in 1971.
That's when he became a full -time prakarak,
or campaigner, for the RSS in Gujarat. And this
transition involved a deep ideological commitment.
And historically, it often required a commitment
to celibacy. Ah, and this brings us to a complex,
hidden chapter of his personal life that speaks
volumes about the singular nature of his dedication
to this political path. It does. You're referring
to the arranged betrothal and subsequent marriage
to Joshua David and Shimon Lomodi when he was
just 18. This was a detail kept private for decades.
Right. And it's more than just a private matter,
isn't it? It feels like a political footnote
that underlines his core identity. I think so.
The sources state the marriage was never consummated
and he soon abandoned his wife, electing instead
to dedicate his life fully to the RSS. A Modi
biographer cited in the source material suggested
the secrecy stemmed directly from that historical
requirement that a precaric maintain celibacy.
So admitting he had a wife would have been, you
know, problematic for his ideological role within
the organization. So that decision to hide his
marriage for decades and fully adhere to his
precaric identity. really speaks volumes about
the singular, almost monastic focus on his political
path. It does. It positions politics not just
as a career, but as a total consuming mission.
He only publicly affirmed the marriage in April
2014, right before the national election, and
only because he was forced by electoral requirements
to disclose his marital status. Wow. The fact
that this is an 18 -year -old's decision that
then went on to define his public life for the
next 40 years, well, it's profound. Moving on
to his early political maturation, the years
of the emergency in India between 1975 and 1977
were foundational for him. This was when Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi declared a state of emergency,
suspending civil liberties and jailing political
opponents. Yes, and this period became a crucible
for his organizational skills. Modi was appointed
General Secretary of the Gujarat Lok Sanar Samiti,
an RSS committee that was coordinating opposition
movements. So he had to go underground. He did.
Because the government was actively suppressing
dissent, he was forced to go underground, traveling
frequently in disguise, once as a monk, another
time as a Sikh, just to evade arrest. So he was
mastering the arts of clandestine organization,
strategic maneuvering, and dramatic presentation
all at once, all while organizing demonstrations
and printing pamphlets under extreme pressure.
Precisely. And after the emergency lifted, the
RSS officially assigned him to the Bharatiya
Janata Party, or BJP, in 1985. This was part
of a larger strategy by the Sangh Parivar to
infuse RSS members into key party positions to
ensure ideological fidelity and organizational
strength. And his ascent within the BJP was rapid.
He successfully organized the Ahmedabad municipal
election campaign in 1987 and was named to the
National Election Committee in 1990. By 1998,
he was promoted to the critical post of general
secretary for organization of the BJP. This position
is the key link between the BJP and the RSS,
and his promotion followed a major political
maneuver. Ah, this was during the 1998 Gujarat
Legislative Assembly election, right? That's
the one. He successfully maneuvered the selection
committee to favor supporters of Kishu Pai Patel,
effectively ending deep factional divisions within
the Gujarat BJP and securing a majority win.
This really solidified his reputation not just
as a... dedicated ideological worker, but as
a ruthless and effective political strategist.
And that paved the way for his return to state
politics, but this time in charge. And that takes
us directly into segment two, the chief ministership
of Gujarat. a defining period that established
his national reputation, for better and for worse.
Modi's ascension to the chief minister role in
Gujarat in October 2001 was a study in taking
power amidst crisis. He replaced Kishapai Patel,
whose administration was reeling from criticism
over poor health and, crucially, the widely perceived
mishandling of the devastating 2001 Bhuj earthquake
relief efforts. It was engineered by the national
BJP leadership, who needed a strong, fresh face.
But Modi insisted on setting the terms. He famously
declined the deputy CM role. He did, insisting
that he would be fully responsible for Gujarat
or not at all. This signaled his centralized,
singular command style from day one before he
had even taken the oath. But within six months
of taking office, his tenure became tragically
and eternally linked to the 2002 Gujarat violence.
This is where the source material presents a
deeply contested and painful historical narrative.
The catalyst was the 27th of February 2002 train
fire near Gajra, which killed approximately 60
Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya. Almost
immediately, Modi publicly blamed local Muslims
for the incident. And the next day. The following
day, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, or VHP, which
is a key affiliate of the RSS, called for a general
strike, a band, across the state, which rapidly
ignited widespread rioting. The aftermath was
just horrific. The official death toll was reported
as just over 1 ,000 people, with about three
-quarters of them being Muslim. Independent sources,
however, estimated the death toll at over 2 ,000,
with the overwhelming majority being Muslim.
And the violence was characterized by its extreme
brutality, including mass rapes and mutilation.
The criticism levied against the Modi administration
for its handling of the situation is severe and
extensive. It is. Scholars describe the government
as complicit in the riots, with some explicitly
calling the violence a pokrom, or even an example
of state terrorism. And this wasn't just seen
as negligence. Critics specifically pointed to
consistent police non -intervention. even in
cases where intervention would have been possible.
Suggesting a tacit approval or even direction
from above? That was the accusation. And the
government's actions immediately following the
Godra fire were also criticized for exacerbating
the tensions. How so? Well, the decision by the
government to transport the bodies of the Godra
victims to Ahmedabad is seen as having inflamed
the violence in the city. It provided a very
visual flashpoint for mobilization. Furthermore,
the state government initially offered Muslim
victims of the riots half the compensation given
to Hindu victims, a discriminatory decision that
was only reversed after a court challenge. This
complex legal and political firestorm followed
him for years. In 2008, the Supreme Court appointed
a special investigation team, the SIT, to investigate
the broader government complicity. And this is
where the tightrope walk began. The SIT reported
in 2012 that it found no evidence to initiate
prosecution proceedings against him. Which sounds
like a clean shit. It sounds like one, but the
sources also point out that the SIT's findings
were immediately challenged. That's right. An
amicus curiae, a neutral party appointed by the
Supreme Court to assist with its deliberation,
a man named Raju Ramachandran, submitted a report
that was contrary to the SIT's conclusion. He
argued that Modi could be prosecuted based on
the available evidence. So you had the government
-appointed team saying no evidence, and the court
-appointed neutral observers saying yes, there
is a basis for prosecution. It's a very confusing
picture. Ultimately, the magistrate's court accepted
the SIT's final report to close the case in 2013,
rejecting the protest petition from a victim's
widow, Zakiya Joffrey. The Supreme Court later
upheld this clean chit in 2022. But how can a
legal body find no evidence when an amicus curiae
appointed by the same court argued he could be
prosecuted? Can you walk us through that legal
and political tightrope? The difference often
lies in the burden of proof required for criminal
prosecution versus what constitutes prosecutable
evidence in a complex mass violence case. The
SIT found that the evidence didn't meet the high
threshold needed for criminal conspiracy charges.
I see. Politically, however, the original SIT
decision caused widespread anger and disbelief
among the country's Muslim communities. So while
he was legally exonerated, the political and
social accusations remain a defining feature
of his career. It's something his opposition
uses to frame him and which his supporters dismiss
as a politically motivated smear. A perpetual
narrative tension. What's fascinating is that
almost immediately following this period, the
political rhetoric shifted entirely from explicit
Hindutva toward development. It was a remarkable
strategic pivot, but not before capitalizing
on the immediate polarization. In the December
2002 election, the BJP won a two -thirds majority,
successfully leveraging that religious polarization
and framing any criticism of his government as
an attack on Gujarati pride. And once that majority
was secure, the rhetoric transitioned sharply
to the now famous Gujarat model. Exactly. And
he intentionally curtailed the influence of hardline
sign paravar organizations that had helped him
in 2002, didn't he? He did. He started prioritizing
the image of a pragmatic, development -focused
administrator over that of a hardline ideologue.
He openly curtailed the influence of groups like
the VHP and the Harathia Kisan Sang, the BKS.
Right. For example, when the BKS staged a protest
against his agricultural policies, he ordered
their eviction from state -provided housing.
He deepened the rift with the VHP by ordering
the demolition of 200 illegal temples in Gandhinagar
to enforce urban planning rules. This sent a
clear message. Economic growth was his priority,
and ideological allies could not stand in the
way of his centralized control. This pragmatism
was also evident in his dealing with the international
community. The U .S. denied him a visa in 2005.
He was the only person ever denied a U .S. visa
under that specific law. And the U .K. and EU
also initially refused him entry over his role
in the riots. That diplomatic isolation was a
defining challenge. It was. But it dissolved
as his national prominence grew. The U .K. lifted
its ban in 2012, followed by the EU in 2013.
And upon his 2014 election as prime minister,
the U .S. lifted its restrictions and invited
him to Washington, D .C. It shows the powerful
reality that, globally, political necessity often
overrides past diplomatic stances when a leader
gains immense, undeniable domestic power. Now
let's dive into the core of the Gujarat model
itself. What was the tangible economic upside
that allowed him to market this as a national
success story? The upside was quantified, large
-scale growth that attracted global attention.
Gujarat's GDP grew at an average rate of 10 %
during his tenure, a rate above the national
average and competitive with other industrialized
states. Modi was a fervent supporter of privatization,
liberalization, and small government. Policies
often considered contradictory to the traditional
stance of the RSS, which had historically opposed
privatization. He certainly made Gujarat look
like a business -friendly destination. It topped
the World Bank's ease of doing business rankings
among Indian states for two consecutive years.
And he proved he could attract capital. At the
2007 Vibrant Gujarat Summit, for example, something
like 6 .6 trillion rupees in deals were signed.
Beyond capital, he also tackled persistent infrastructure
problems. His government completed the electrification
of all villages, a continuation of his predecessor's
work, and implemented the Jyotigram Yokana. which
rationalized agricultural electricity. What did
that do exactly? It separated it from other rural
power sources. This improves stability for farmers
and reduced costs, cementing his image as an
effective administrator who gets results. But
the narrative is highly contentious because the
economic growth did not translate equally to
human welfare. Critics argue this was a trickle
-down approach that never really trickled down
far enough. That is the central, enduring criticism
that follows him to the national level. Despite
the impressive growth, Gujarat ranked poorly
on human development, poverty relief, nutrition
and education indices. The state ranked 13th
in poverty and a worrying 21st in education among
Indian states. Critics pointed out shocking statistics,
such as nearly 45 percent of children under five
being underweight. Furthermore, the state government
spent significantly less than the national average
on education and health care as a percentage
of its budget. So we have a clear duality. High
growth, massive investment. But critics argue
this led to widening social inequality. The benefits
of the development were often limited to the
urban middle class, sidelining Muslims, Dalits
and Adivasis. Precisely. The sources note that
between 2001 and 2011, Gujarat's relative position
in terms of poverty and female literacy didn't
significantly change. It remained firmly near
the median of Indian states. It was a growth
strategy explicitly focused on attracting capital,
simplifying business regulation. even weakening
labor laws via the creation of special economic
zones without a corresponding focus on bolstering
social welfare programs or ensuring inclusive
wealth distribution. This is the template he
brought to Delhi. OK, let's track that template's
journey as he makes the ascent to national power.
The national stage offered a much bigger canvas,
and the 2014 campaign was the perfect storm.
Modi was officially named the BJP's candidate
in September 2013, a decision that faced significant
resistance from within the party, notably from
the veteran LK Advani. What's crucial here is
that the campaign became less about the BJP's
platform and more a referendum on Modi himself.
He was packaged as this decisive, strong... masculine
leader who could bring about development. Right.
His strategy focused heavily on the perceived
corruption and policy paralysis of the previous
government, contrasting it directly with the
high GDP growth he claimed to have delivered
in Gujarat. He also utilized technology on an
unprecedented scale, almost manufacturing a sense
of ubiquity. Oh, the technology use was staggering.
He spent an estimated 50 billion rupees, about
590 million U .S. dollars, on his campaign blitz.
This included addressing over 1 ,000 rallies
via hologram appearances. It demonstrated a mastery
of both social media and cutting -edge media
technology, creating an image of a leader who
was everywhere at once. The results were seismic.
Monumental is the word. The BJP won 282 seats,
securing 31 % of the vote. Critically, it was
the first time any party had won an absolute
parliamentary majority on its own since 1984.
A huge deal. Commentators universally described
this result as a political realignment, shifting
India away from its secular socialist post -independence
consensus toward right -wing politics rooted
in capitalism and Hindu cultural nationalism.
Modi himself won comfortably in both Varanasi
and Vidara. Once in office, the centralization
of power was immediate and strategic. Absolutely.
One of the first and most symbolic acts was the
abolition of the Planning Commission. A decades
-old body central to India's socialist, Nehruvian
economic planning structure. Replacing it with
a national institution for transforming India
or an Nnedi Ayog wasn't just administrative shuffling.
It concentrated the power previously distributed
across that commission squarely in the prime
minister's office. And this move, along with
the centralization of decision -making, quickly
drew comparisons to Indira Gandhi's command style.
It did. And he governed with a heavy hand, especially
when dealing with dissent. We saw the immediate
launch of Intelligence Bureau investigations
into numerous NGOs and civil society organizations,
even major global groups like Medicine Sands
Frontiers and the Sierra Club. What was the justification
for that? These were justified under the premise
that these groups were actively slowing economic
growth and holding back development. The investigations
were criticized internationally as a witch hunt
aimed at stifling Democratic opposition. Furthermore,
the administration aggressively used sedition
and terrorism laws against government critics.
This is a classic pattern of consolidating executive
power and minimizing external checks and balances,
a hallmark of democratic backsliding. Yet amidst
this consolidation, there was also a focus on
streamlined governance. Yes. In his first three
years, he repealed 1 ,200 obsolete laws. To put
that into perspective, that is a number greater
than the total 3 ,101 laws repealed in the previous
64 years combined. This speaks to a relentless
focus on efficiency and removing bureaucratic
hurdles, which was a clear deliverable promised
by the Gujarat model. This emphasis on strong,
decisive action carried into the 2019 general
election, where the narrative shifted sharply
to national security. It really did. Yeah. The
campaign slogans reflected this, notably the
main Beach Alcadar I -2 Emma Watchman campaign.
The timing of the Pulwama attack and the retaliatory
bellicot airstrike was crucial. While sources
suggest that the airstrike's military success
was dubious, with open source imagery suggesting
no significant targets were hit. Right. And later,
the administration even admitted friendly fire
killed six military personnel during the skirmishes.
Exactly. But despite that, the action had a profound,
mobilizing... nationalist appeal for voters.
The focus on defense and national security paid
enormous electoral dividends. It did. The NDA
coalition won again with an even stronger mandate,
securing 353 seats, with the BJP alone winning
303 seats. This is security in the second term,
where the ideological changes we'll discuss in
the next segment truly accelerated. Now, fast
forwarding to the most recent election in 2024,
the political landscape changed again, even with
Modi still securing victory. The third election.
thought under the banner of the Modi key guarantee
campaign, marked a significant change in the
political temperature. While the NDA coalition
secured 292 seats, enough for a simple majority,
the BJP lost its absolute majority, winning only
240 seats on its own. So they had to rely on
coalition partners. Right. A return to the coalition
politics that defined India before 2014. And
his personal victory margin shrunk significantly
in Varanasi, which the source notes was the second
lowest victory margin in percentage points for
a sitting prime minister in India after Chandrasekhar.
This shift, the loss of the standalone majority,
signals that the decade of unified dominance
might be reaching a point of saturation or fatigue.
Furthermore, the post -election context was immediately
controversial. The opposition claimed widespread
electoral fraud and accused the Election Commission
of India, the ECI, of collusion with the ruling
BJP. Which, regardless of veracity, highlights
the persistent critique concerning the erosion
of institutional independence under his tenure.
Let's transition now to what he actually did
with that power, dissecting the key economic
shake -ups and the ideological legislation of
his two full terms. The economic trajectory of
the Modi government. is defined by a consistent
neoliberal approach, a strong focus on privatization
and liberalization. We saw foreign direct investment,
or FDI, liberalized in significant sectors like
defense and railways. But looking back at the
Goudrop model, this prioritization of capital
formation came at a measurable cost to social
spending. Exactly. Spending on social programs
declined from 14 .6 % of GDP under the previous
Congress government to 12 .6 % in its first year.
Health and education spending decreased as a
share of the budget, and the budget percentage
spent on children's nutrition, education, and
health was almost halved between 2014 and 2022.
Wow. This reinforces the core philosophy. Development
is best achieved by easing the paths for business
and investment rather than through large -scale
state welfare. He also launched the ambitious
Make in India initiative, trying to encourage
foreign manufacturing to turn the country into
a global production hub. But the lasting economic
legacy will be defined by two massive reforms,
the GST and demonetization. Let's start with
the goods and services tax, or GST. The GST was
arguably the largest tax overhaul since India's
independence, taking effect in July 2017. It
was designed to replace a chaotic system of federal
and state levies, subsuming about 17 prior taxes
into a single unified tax structure. The intention
was to create a common national market, simplifying
trade and boosting compliance. That's a monumental
administrative undertaking, but no move has sparked
more disruption and debate than demonetization
in November 2016. What was the intended purpose
and what was the mechanical shock that followed?
The intention was a moral and economic one to
curb black money. corruption and the use of counterfeit
currency by abruptly abolishing the five hundred
and one thousand rupee banknotes, which accounted
for 86 percent of the currency in circulation
by value. 86 percent. The mechanical shock, however,
was immediate and widespread. People had just
hours to deposit or exchange their high value
notes. And the immediate impact on the ground
was catastrophic for the informal economy, which
relies almost entirely on cash. Precisely. It
led to severe cash shortages across the country.
We saw stock market decline, an estimated loss
of 1 .5 million jobs, and internally, the policy
was assessed to have wiped out 1 % of the country's
GDP. The sources even mentioned several tragic
deaths linked to the rush and panic to exchange
cash. It was a high -risk, high -disruption gamble.
But supporters point to a long -term shift, arguing
it formalized the economy. What do the results
say? Proponents highlight that digital transactions
steeply increased following the cash crunch,
pushing India's digital economy forward significantly.
They also point out that the number of individual
income tax returns filed rose by 25 % the following
year, suggesting improved tax compliance. But
what about the macro picture? If we look at the
macro picture, the high -risk gamble didn't translate
into higher overall growth. India's GDP growth
declined during its first eight years to an average
of 5 .5%, compared to 7 .03 % under the previous
government. Furthermore, an internal government
report indicated unemployment reached its highest
level in 45 years in 2017, largely attributed
to the destabilizing effects of both demonetization
and the initial turbulence of GST implementation.
So, highly contested results. A successful push
toward digitization and compliance, but significant
structural economic damage and job losses. Let's
shift gears now to the ideological core of the
government, the Hindutva agenda. While Modi prioritized
development rhetoric in Gujarat, once a national
power, the ideological underpinnings of the BJP,
which are firmly rooted in the RSS philosophy
of Hindutva, became overtly expressed through
legislative and administrative actions. We saw
increased activity of Hindu nationalist organizations
like the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha, including organized
religious conversion programs and campaigns against
the so -called Love Jihad conspiracy theory.
And the RSS connection was formalized within
the government structure itself through appointments,
suggesting a conscious effort to align key national
institutions with the party's ideology. Precisely.
The Modi administration appointed RSS -affiliated
individuals to prominent government and academic
positions. For instance, the Chairmanship of
the Indian Council of Historical Research, or
ICHR, went to an individual with RSS ties in
2014. Furthermore, sources note numerous changes
to history textbooks aimed at de -emphasizing
Neruvian secularism and glorifying Modi. Scholars
view this as part of a cultural nationalist agenda
aimed at staffing major institutions with party
loyalists to reshape the national narrative.
The second term starting in 2019 saw the rollout
of major legislative changes, all of which were
long -held goals of the BJP and the RSS. Three
major legislative shifts stand out for their
profound legal and social impact. First, the
administration made the controversial practice
of triple talaq, or instant divorce, illegal
and punishable in August 2019. A move seen by
many as granting Muslim women greater rights,
but criticized by others as unwarranted state
intervention into minority personal laws. Then,
the dramatic revocation of Article 370. Yes,
the government abrogated Article 370 of the Constitution,
which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir.
This was a hugely symbolic move for the right
wing, reorganizing the state into two union territories.
This move was not smooth. It was accompanied
by a severe security lockdown, mass detentions
of local political leaders, and the suspension
of internet services that lasted until February
2021. It fundamentally altered the political
and constitutional relationship of Kashmir with
the rest of India. And the third, the Citizenship
Amendment Act, or CAA, was arguably the most
controversial internationally because of its
overt use of religion. The CAA provides an accelerated
route to citizenship for specific persecuted
non -Muslim minorities, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists,
Jains, Perkis, or Christians fleeing from three
neighboring countries, Afghanistan, Bangladesh,
and Pakistan. Critically, it does not include
Muslims. This marked a watershed moment. It was
the first time that religion was overtly used
as a criterion for citizenship under Indian law.
This prompted widespread global criticism and
massive domestic protests. And those protests
led directly into the tragic 2020 Delhi riots.
The communal tensions were already high, and
the counter demonstrations against the CAA escalated
into horrific violence, chiefly carried out by
Hindu mobs attacking Muslims. The resulting toll
was 53 deaths, two thirds of whom were Muslim.
This pattern of elevated communal tension resurfaced
during the 2024 election campaign, where Modi
was heavily criticized for his rhetoric, including
referring to Muslims as infiltrators who would
seize India's wealth. Claims that fact -checkers
noted were part of a wider pattern of communal
targets in his speeches. That's right. This systematic
effort to reshape institutions and constitutional
law ties into the larger concerns cited in the
source material, democratic backsliding. The
evidence cited by international watchdog groups
is substantial. Under Modi's tenure, India has
been observed shifting toward an authoritarian
style of government marked by a cult of personality.
Critics point to the systemic attack on mechanisms
of accountability and the erosion of civil rights
and press freedom. The core idea is that the
BJP government has incrementally attacked nearly
all existing mechanisms, the ECI, academic bodies,
the judiciary, designed to hold the executive
to account. ensuring they become subservient
to the political executive or captured by party
loyalists. But how can a leader who oversees
a measurable decline in democratic freedoms,
as the sources suggest, simultaneously maintain
such high domestic approval ratings, peaking
at 88 % in polls? How do we reconcile those two
facts? That is the central paradox. One factor
is narrative control. His administration has
mastered the projection of strength and decisiveness,
often framing strong centralized action, even
if it limits dissent, as necessary for national
development and security. Second, the sheer magnitude
of the development projects and welfare schemes
he has delivered resonates deeply with the population,
especially infrastructure. And third, the Hindutva
plank unifies a significant portion of the electorate
around a cultural identity that feels validated
by the government's actions. So for many voters,
perceived efficiency, national pride and economic
stability outweigh concerns about institutional
checks and balances or minority rights. It suggests
a population prioritizing a strong state that
delivers over one that merely adheres to liberal
democratic norms. This centralization, though,
has allowed him significant success on the globe.
Let's turn now to his foreign policy and public
image. On the foreign policy front, Modi continued
the preceding government's approach of multi
-alignment, aiming to improve economic ties and
security with diverse global partners. He rebranded
the Look East policy to the more proactive Act
East policy, signaling deeper engagement with
Southeast Asia. And the relationship with the
United States is a perfect example of this pragmatic
realignment. Despite the earlier visa denial,
relations improved dramatically, driven by shared
strategic interests regarding China and the need
for economic partnership. Modi visited the U
.S. several times, and the relationship remained
positive through different presidential administrations.
He also maintains a strong personal relationship
with Russian President Vladimir Putin. That relationship
was vital in 2022. India's decision to maintain
neutrality during the Russian invasion of Ukraine
while focusing entirely on the massive evacuation
of over 19 ,000 Indian students, an operation
dubbed Operation Ganga, was a clear demonstration
of this multi -alignment strategy in action.
India placed its strategic autonomy and domestic
citizen welfare above the demands of Western
alliances. Relations with neighboring Pakistan,
however, have been defined by confrontation and
a tough -on -terror focus, often used for domestic
political messaging. Absolutely. Modi promised
a tough stance. We have the example of the 2016
surgical strike, where India claimed strikes
on terror launch pads, though independent analysts
suggested exaggeration of the scope and casualties.
This tactic was repeated in 2019 with the Balakot
airstrike, a retaliatory measure after the Palama
attack. As noted earlier, while militarily dubious
based on open source imagery, the domestic political
efficacy was enormous, proving the power of decisive,
visible action. And the sources even mention
recent conflict activity Operation Sindor in
2025. The continued tension is a constant feature.
Indy's Operation Sindor, targeting terror infrastructure
in Azad Kashmir and Punjab, was met by Pakistan's
retaliatory air assault, Operation Bunyan -Unmarsuz,
targeting military sites in western India. This
rapid escalation and subsequent ceasefire, all
within a short period, exemplifies the tit -for
-tat military signaling that has defined his
defense posture. Meanwhile, tensions with China
in the north have also deteriorated significantly.
Following the 2020 China -India skirmishes, specifically
the Galwan Valley standoff where dozens of soldiers
were killed, relations plunged. By late 2022,
Modi faced significant criticism for his silence
regarding the ceding of an estimated 2 ,000 square
kilometers of land to China since the 2020 clashes,
leading to opposition accusations of weak leadership
on India's borders. Let's turn briefly to climate
policy, which shows a significant ideological
evolution. In 2014, Modi was openly skeptical,
stating that climate has not changed. We have
changed. This initial approach was consistent
with moves to reduce the environment ministry's
budget and dilute environmental laws to favor
industrial activity. However, a dramatic shift
occurred later in his administration toward supporting
climate action and promoting clean energy. This
was crystallized in 2015 when he proposed the
International Solar Alliance, or ISA, initiative.
positioning India as a leader of the global south
on climate solutions. And at the COP26 conference,
he announced India would aim for carbon neutrality
by 2070. That's a huge commitment, and the sources
note that India is actually performing well against
its stated goals. They are. Yes. India is the
only major economy that is currently on track
to meet its Paris Agreement goals, even achieving
its goal of 10 % ethanol blending in fuel ahead
of schedule. This successful pivot allows him
to maintain credibility as a responsible global
actor while still arguing that developed countries
hold the historical responsibility for climate
change, a position that solidifies his role as
a voice for developing nations. We have to return
to the immense scale of his public perception.
Despite the political and social controversies,
his approval ratings remain phenomenal at home.
He has received consistently high domestic approval
ratings, peaking at an extraordinary 88 % in
a 2017 Pew Research poll. He regularly ranks
as the world's most approved leader in global
surveys like Morning Consult, testament to the
success of his public messaging and image cultivation.
And that personal image is carefully curated
down to his clothing. Absolutely. He is noted
for his ironed half -sleeve kurta style, but
also for specific high -impact statements, like
the famous suit he wore, which featured his own
name repeatedly embroidered in the pinstrokes.
Oh, I remember that. A detail that sparked immense
media attention and solidified the idea of a
personal, centralized brand. Biographers describe
him as charismatic and energetic, if also sometimes
perceived as arrogant by critics. He's certainly
managed to craft a lasting cultural footprint.
There are biopics, television series, and he
even appeared on Discovery Channel's Man vs.
Wild with Bear Grylls in 2019. It's hard to imagine
a previous Indian prime minister engaging with
pop culture and media platforms like that. It's
an unprecedented level of cultural penetration,
and it secures his celebrity status. This recognition
extends internationally too, visible in the vast
collection of civilian honors he has received.
The list is staggering. Champions of the Earth
from the UN, the Seoul Peace Prize, the U .S.
Legion of Merit, Russia's Order of St. Andrew,
Nigeria's Grand Commander of the Order of the
Niger, Kuwait's Order of Mubarak the Great, and
Bhutan's highest civilian decoration, the Order
of the Dragon King. And to top off the cultural
influence, he is a published author, writing
books like Exam Warriors for Students. He even
penned the lyrics for two Gujarati Garba songs,
and a song featuring his speech on Millets, Abundance
and Millets, even received a Grammy nomination
in 2024. This blend is key to understanding him.
He's a leader simultaneously deeply rooted in
the political ideology of the RSS, having written
the book Jogatupunje Profiling Its Leaders, and
profoundly media savvy, embracing pop culture
and modern... marketing techniques to create
an enduring, inescapable brand. That dual identity
perfectly encapsulates the man and his mission.
So what does this all mean for you, the listener,
as you synthesize the steep dive? If we synthesize
his career, I think the defining characteristic
is the political dexterity required for his transition.
He moved from a hardline RSS precaric who was
undeniably tied to the controversy of the 2002
Gujarat riots to a hyper -focused, development
-centric chief minister who successfully marketed
the Gujarat model as a national necessity. And
translating that skill set to the national stage
resulted in the unprecedented ability to centralize
power within the prime minister's office. He
successfully engineered a massive political realignment
toward the right wing, fundamentally changing
India's political landscape, even if the recent
2024 election signaled a required shift back
toward coalition management. The ongoing tension
remains the most crucial takeaway. It's the constant
duality between the rapid, large -scale economic
and infrastructure initiatives like major tax
reform, the Make in India initiative, and highly
visible national projects, and the persistent,
measurable decline in democratic freedoms, institutional
independence, and the marginalization of minorities
through targeted ideological legislation like
the CAA. Modi's commitment to the RSS ideology
is clear through his administrative appointments
and his writing. His focus on highly visible,
centralized infrastructure projects is also evident.
You just have to think of the Statue of Unity
or the central vista redevelopment. He aims for
legacies both ideological and monumental. Which
leads us to our final provocative thought for
you to consider. Given the intensity of his cult
of personality and his proven ability to deliver
highly visible results, how will future historians
ultimately weigh the value of his enduring domestic
approval against the quantifiable shifts in India's
democratic and ideological framework he engineered
over the past decade? Was this a period of developmental
necessity enabled by centralization, or was it
one of institutional corrosion masked by economic
success? And can the two outcomes truly be separated
in the final analysis of his era? That is a question
worth a deep, long thought. Thank you for joining
us on The Deep Dive.