12 years of Narendra Modi: why he remains at the center of Indian politics

Over the past decade, a clear trend has emerged. Politicians who focused solely on their opposition to Modi are gradually losing their relevance. Those who expected it to fail were disappointed. People who tried to get close to him for personal gain were pushed aside, and those who used flattery to gain influence had to look elsewhere.

Twelve years is a long time in politics. During this period, leaders come and go, parties form and disappear, and slogans are created and forgotten. Sometimes, however, a leader stands out and becomes the center of attention. Now that the Narendra Modi government has completed 12 years at the Centre, it is worth looking back at what that period meant.

Over these years, Modi’s supporters have praised him for many qualities, while his detractors have leveled many accusations. People often predicted his downfall and many campaigns were waged against him in India and abroad. Yet one thing has not changed: Narendra Modi has remained at the center of Indian politics, and he still is there today.

Over the past decade, a clear trend has emerged. Politicians who focused solely on their opposition to Modi are gradually losing their relevance. Those who expected it to fail were disappointed. People who tried to get close to him for personal gain were pushed aside, and those who used flattery to gain influence had to look elsewhere.

In a nation as large, diverse and complex as India, with many languages, castes, faiths and regions, there are many languages, castes, religions and regional interests. Yet Narendra Modi remains the main figure in national politics. After winning three consecutive elections, he is more than just a party leader; he is the main reference in Indian politics. Both his supporters and his opponents plan their strategies around him. The opposition may have slogans against Modi, but it lacks a strong alternative to its broad reach. This is why the belief that any group can seize political power simply through street mobilization reflects a misunderstanding of both India and the Indian state.

If this approach were effective, movements such as the anti-CAA protests or the farmers’ agitation would have fundamentally transformed the political landscape. However, Modi maintained his position, while many of these movements found themselves entangled in internal contradictions and failed to defeat him.

The opposition’s main mistake is trying to challenge Modi without first understanding his political strategies. Occupying public spaces, brandishing slogans and fomenting unrest can force the government to back down. However, empirical evidence suggests otherwise. Modi’s most important political asset is his constant refusal to react, while his opponents depend on a reaction he withholds.

Opponents and protest groups often expect the government to respond. When this doesn’t happen, many protesters lose focus, cross the line, and reveal their own weaknesses. The audience then sees who remains calm and who is driven by chaos. Those who wonder why the government isn’t cracking down often miss a key point: In politics, the worst outcome is not jail, but becoming irrelevant.

When public opinion stops taking an opponent’s accusations seriously and loses interest, it is a major political defeat. Modi has often managed to achieve this by being patient and consistent. Some see his restraint as a weakness, but governments often hold back because they know that waiting can work in their favor.

Those who question the strength of the Indian state might consider recent operations against left-wing extremism. Anyone who doubts the strength of the Indian state should examine recent actions against left-wing extremism. Groups that once challenged the government in large forest areas had to come to the table when the government took tough action. The message is clear: when the Indian state is determined, it can take strong action. Whether it was Khalistan-influenced elements within the peasant agitation or the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, Indian society has finally passed its own judgement. Those seeking to reshape national politics through protests alone have discovered that street power does not necessarily equate to public legitimacy.

This distinction highlights how Modi’s political style differs from that of many of his opponents. While his rivals often want quick results and focus on the news of the day, Modi looks ahead, thinks ahead and stays in touch with voters. His main challenge is not limited to electoral defeats; rather, it lies in his continued failure to understand the reasons for Modi’s continued success. Therefore, the opposition often shifts its focus from substantive political engagement to questioning the legitimacy of the electoral process, thereby revealing its weakness more than that of Modi.

On several occasions, we relied on foreign opinion, international pressure, media stories or street mobilization. However, sometimes people depend on foreign opinions, international pressure, media reports or street protests. But Indian democracy is not shaped by other countries, NGOs, media or social media trends. It relies on the trust and participation of hundreds of millions of Indian voters. Douglas Macgregor recently asserted, in the context of the Iranian crisis, that the United States should consider Narendra Modi as a credible mediator. MacGregor’s reasoning is that India has working relationships with Israel, Iran, the United States and China. He argues that India’s stature, influence and strategic importance are increasing and this development should be seen as an opportunity rather than a challenge. Such assessments reflect not only recognition of Narendra Modi, but also recognition of India’s growing global position.

Those who think that street protests, mass movements or political disruptions can overturn election results do not understand how India works. The country will continue to operate in accordance with its Constitution, its democratic institutions and the will of its voters.

To effect a change of government, the appropriate solution is to obtain an electoral victory. If you want to change the government, you must win the elections. Political disagreements should be resolved through democratic debate. Trying to overturn election results through protests is neither a real substitute for democracy nor a sustainable strategy. It is easy to criticize or oppose Narendra Modi, but understanding his political style is much more difficult. Failure to do so only weakens the opposition.

Understanding society, building organizations, and governing at the state level, and which subsequently remained the defining force in national politics for more than a decade.

After twelve years, it is no coincidence that Modi remains at the center of the political projects of his supporters and opponents, as well as of elections and national debates. It is the major political fact of our time, resulting from its long influence. Regardless of support or opposition, Narendra Modi continues to occupy the center of national discourse.

After twelve years, it is no coincidence that Modi remains at the center of the political projects of his supporters and opponents, as well as of elections and national debates. It is the main political fact of our time, resulting from its long influence

The writer is a socio-political analyst, columnist and digital strategist. He writes on politics, governance, public policy and contemporary social issues; The opinions presented are personal.