Modi’s Power Play and the Strain on India’s Democracy

Leadership plays a key role in shaping a nation’s future. Strong, visionary leaders can unite a country and bring about positive change, while weak leaders can create division and instability. Narendra Modi’s leadership, which focuses on centralizing power and using divisive tactics, has raised concerns about its impact on India’s unity and democratic values.
One of the most vocal critics of Modi’s leadership is Subramanian Swamy, a prominent Indian politician and economist. Swamy argues that Modi’s government has filled the cabinet with people who are loyal to him rather than those who can offer independent, thoughtful opinions. He stated “Today’s cabinet, I might say, perhaps one or two I can exempt, but all the others, they are picked up because they would be a ‘yes man,’ because they won’t have a spine.. they will never do anything that annoys Modi.”. He believes this creates an atmosphere where dissent is discouraged, and decisions are made based on loyalty rather than competence. Swamy also accuses Modi of taking credit for the achievements of others, such as the construction of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, where Swamy claims Modi’s contribution has been exaggerated. Talking about Modi, Swamy says “He claims credit for people who have done the work, and he says, ‘No, no, he has done it.’ Like Ram Mandir, he had no contribution in doing anything about getting the Supreme Court to clear the Ram Mandir project. It was I who did it.” this type of leadership weakens democracy because it limits freedom of thought and hinders effective decision-making. The main question that arises here is whether Modi’s leadership, which relies on concentrated power and unquestioning loyalty, can still protect India’s democratic values while addressing the country’s problems.
Modi first became Prime Minister in 2014. Under his leadership, India’s economy has faced both successes and setbacks. One of the most problematic moves was the demonetisation policy in 2016, which led to an economic slowdown. The decision to suddenly ban high-denomination currency notes caused widespread disruption, particularly affecting businesses in the industry. A year later, introducing the Goods and Services Tax (GST) caused further economic challenges as firms struggled with the new system. By 2019, India’s GDP growth had fallen to just 5%, the lowest in six years, reflecting a slowdown in consumer spending and investment. Unemployment was also rising, and industrial production was shrinking, leading many to question whether India’s economic growth could be sustained under Modi’s leadership. While the government has promoted programs like skill development and entrepreneurship, these efforts have not been enough to address the larger economic issues. As a result, many workers remain unemployed, and India’s economy continues to face major challenges.
Swamy also raises concerns about India’s foreign policy under Modi. He believes that India’s growing reliance on countries like Russia and China could harm its long-term strategic interests. While these relationships may provide short-term benefits, such as support and economic cooperation, Swamy warns that depending too much on these countries could limit India’s independence in making its own decisions on the global stage.
Swamy critically analyzed India’s relationship with China, especially referring to 2020’s border tensions between the two countries. He argues that while India tries to engage with China diplomatically, it is also heavily dependent on Chinese trade and investment, creating a contradiction that could compromise India’s national security. Swamy emphasizes this by stating that “He tells lies. For instance, he says that nobody has come from China into our territory, which is a lie.” Similarly, Swamy is cautious about India’s ties with Russia by saying “He (Modi) has sold out to the Russians; he has sold out to the Chinese.” While Russia has been a key partner for India in defense and energy, this long-standing relationship might constrain India’s ability to assert its interests in an increasingly multipolar world.
Under Modi’s leadership, social media has been used as a tool to boost his image. There are concerns that the government has used fake accounts and online campaigns to spread positive messages about Modi, shaping public perception in his favour. Swamy also points out that Modi often takes credit for achievements that involve the work of many people, diminishing the contributions of others. A notable example of this is the India-China clash at Galwan in 2020. After the clash, Modi’s government was criticized for not being transparent about the situation and being slow to share information with the public. Critics argue that this is another example of Modi’s tendency to centralize power, making decisions without enough input from others, which harms trust in the government.
India’s political culture has also been widely criticized, where certain political families dominate the leadership of major parties. He quoted “Sonia Gandhi has no qualifications, yet she wields power because of dynastic politics.” He added “She bluffed about her education. She went to England first with no college degree, no school degree.” Swamy argues that this system makes it difficult for new, capable leaders to rise through the ranks, harming India’s democracy. When power is concentrated in a few families, it leads to inefficiency and poor governance. India needs a political system where leadership is based on merit and not on family connections or loyalty to keep the country’s democracy strong and adaptable.
In discussing Modi’s leadership, Swamy often compares it to that of former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Swamy argues that while Singh was frequently criticized for being too passive and lacking in assertiveness, Modi’s leadership has gone to the opposite extreme. Modi’s focus on centralizing power and making decisions without consultation has led to accusations of authoritarianism. Both leadership styles have their flaws: Singh’s passivity and Modi’s over-centralized control.
Swamy’s criticisms highlight important concerns about transparency, accountability, and the need for a more inclusive approach to leadership. He believes that Modi’s current style, with its emphasis on loyalty and concentration of power, could weaken India’s democracy and hinder effective governance in the future. While these views are controversial, they raise serious questions about the direction India is heading politically.
Modi’s leadership has been marked by a focus on consolidating power and promoting loyalty over competence. While some may see this as necessary for achieving long-term goals, others, like Subramanian Swamy, warns that it could undermine India’s democratic values. The concerns raised about India’s economic challenges, foreign policy, and political culture suggest that Modi’s approach may limit India’s potential for growth and adaptability. The key issue is whether India can continue to thrive with a leadership style that relies heavily on centralization and control. Will Modi’s power play ultimately strengthen the country, or will it restrict the flexibility needed for India to remain a successful, democratic nation?