A certain storyline has taken root in parts of the Western press—from The New York Times to The Washington Post—casting Prime Minister Narendra Modi as an authoritarian, even a potential dictator. These claims may suit distant newsrooms and their audiences, but they distort India’s political reality and insult the intelligence of its voters.
India is not an emerging democracy. It is the world’s largest and most resilient one, where 900 million citizens can hire and fire their leaders every five years. No one “clings” to office in this system without public consent. If a leader wins term after term, it is not because he bends the rules—it is because he convinces the people, again and again, that his leadership delivers.
History offers parallels. In the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt won four presidential terms because Americans believed he was the right leader for the Depression and World War II. My own political mentor, California Governor Jerry Brown, served four terms in two separate eras because Californians valued his results over political fashion. In parliamentary democracies, as in presidential ones, repeated re-election is not proof of tyranny—it is the highest democratic endorsement.
Also Read: The twilight of a titan: Narendra Modi’s moment to shape his legacy
I speak from experience, not theory. Over the years, I have enjoyed an intimate friendship with Prime Minister Modi and deep engagement with his team in the Prime Minister’s Office. I have interacted closely with Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and Cabinet Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw—leaders whose competence, integrity, and global vision would stand out in any G20 government. These are not shadowy figures plotting in secret—they are capable professionals managing the world’s most complex democracy in an era of unprecedented change.
My own background bridges both politics and business. I have advised leaders at the highest levels in the United States and India, navigated trade and investment corridors, and worked on both sides of the Pacific. I have seen the careful policy work that underpins India’s economic reforms, infrastructure expansion, and diplomatic strategy. It is work the Western press rarely sees—because too often it arrives with a pre-written narrative.
Yes, Modi is a polarising figure. So was Margaret Thatcher, so was Indira Gandhi, so was FDR. Strong leaders with bold agendas will always make critics uncomfortable. But discomfort is not the same as dismantling democracy.
India’s Parliament remains loud and adversarial, its press free to criticise (often sharply), and its judiciary independent. Elections are fiercely contested, and opposition parties—despite their defeats—continue to mobilize millions of supporters. If this is dictatorship, then the word has lost all meaning.
The real danger in the Western framing is that it erases the agency of Indian voters. By insisting that Modi’s popularity is the product of authoritarian control, these commentators imply that hundreds of millions of Indians either don’t understand their own democracy or are somehow complicit in undermining it. That’s not just inaccurate—it’s condescending.
India does not need to borrow the West’s political anxieties or imported cynicism. It is a robust, self-correcting system where leaders must continually earn their mandate. If they fail, they lose power—often overnight. If they succeed, they are rewarded with another term. It’s that simple.
In the end, longevity in office in a functioning democracy is not a flaw—it is a vote of confidence from the only constituency that matters: the people.
The author is a business and political fundraiser and strategist.
(The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of New India Abroad)
Comments
Start the conversation
Become a member of New India Abroad to start commenting.
Sign Up Now
Already have an account? Login