It’s fascinating to think about PM Modi; on his birthday, many wrote about him, and around 200 books have been published on his life and leadership. But what do other world leaders think of him? What would Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin make of him? What is going through the minds of Pakistan’s leaders, or Xi Jinping? And what about his true admirers, his critics, or political rivals like Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi?
The bigger question is: how can we ever know what people are truly thinking, beyond what they say? Modern science offers one method, a “narco” test, conducted while someone is unconscious. Yet a recent report revealed a criminal so clever that he completely misled investigators during such a test, showing even this method isn’t fool proof.
There’s an argument that writing about someone while they are still alive often leads either to excessive admiration or to prejudice. Once, during a conversation with Atal Bihari Vajpayee, he remarked: “If you want to write a book about someone’s life, don’t do it while they are alive. No matter how hard you try to stay neutral, bias or prejudice inevitably creeps in.” I joked that even the books written about Gandhiji after his death show this, and he laughed.
PM Modi is a 21st-century leader you can neither fully admire nor entirely criticise. Our friend CB Patel of “Asian Voice and Gujarat Samachar” urged me to cover him in the supplement, leaving me wondering what to write.
Many research writers claim, “We have written about him after thorough research, using material found nowhere else.” Really? Our Marathi writer friend Girish Dabke, in the days following the Godhra riots, had already documented Narendrabhai’s role in his book titled “Narendrayan”.
I jokingly remarked that Narendrabhai’s opponents, whose numbers have swelled recently with elections in Bihar and elsewhere, along with certain channels, YouTube creators, and other platforms, dig up incidents, contexts, and details from every corner to craft a narrative so convincing that the average reader begins to believe it. These critics fail to realise that, just as social media blurs facts, audiences have become savvy enough to see through it. They know some outlets exaggerate or even fabricate stories; for instance, if a stray dog wandered into Modi’s roadshow, it might be portrayed as if he had orchestrated it.
Elections themselves aren’t new, and the system has long faced criticism. Many in Saurashtra will remember the period between 1952 and 1962, when opposition leaders and workers visiting villages often encountered burly men with moustaches sitting at crossroads, guns slung over their shoulders, while boards hanging from trees warned: “Opposition party members are advised not to enter this village!”
I have personally witnessed such incidents, and there were numerous newspaper reports of rigging during voting. Today, while there may be loud accusations against the Election Commission, Rahul Gandhi casually throws around “bomb” remarks and demonstrates his “decency” by calling the Prime Minister a “thief.”
During the tenure of one of his ancestors as Prime Minister, an election in Kashmir was manipulated so that all nomination papers of Praja Parishad candidates were rejected, ensuring a guaranteed victory for Sheikh Abdullah’s party. Another of Rahul’s ancestors, seeking to assert control over the Assam agitation, pressured then Chief Election Commissioner R.K. Trivedi (who briefly also served as Gujarat’s Governor) announced Assembly elections despite widespread unrest. The agitators in Assam—mostly intellectuals, writers, women, and students, boycotted the polls until the issue of infiltration was resolved. Yet the Election Commission and central government pressed ahead, resulting in tragedies like the Nellie massacre. With public turnout only five to ten percent in most areas, the elected representatives were those who would have otherwise lost their deposits. What kind of government can emerge from such a flawed process?
It’s ironic to overlook these historical events and now label the entire government a “vote thief.” Yet one thing is certain: today’s democracy is resilient enough to withstand such theatrics, provocations, casteism, and endless accusations.
In this context, efforts to encircle the current Prime Minister and his party from all sides have already begun. Don’t be naïve enough to think foreign powers aren’t involved, political upheavals rarely occur suddenly or in isolation. In this sense, power and politics have become “globalised,” and in a democracy, the stakes and opportunities are even greater. The same dynamics play out in other countries as well.
In these circumstances, a Gujarati has emerged as one of the most important, most admired, and most opposed figures in Indian politics. A similar scenario unfolded around Independence, when Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel faced intense opposition. Critics even coined the phrase, “the politics of the Gujarati gang will not work anymore.” Rather than focusing on the country, they are deliberately targeting Gujarat itself with a calculated agenda.
These are days of severe testing. The challenge extends to leaders and workers who, having experienced the satisfaction of power, now enjoy authority solely in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s name.
