Why Modi Matters!

Recently, the distinction between Patriotism and Nationalism was brought to the fore by Shashi Tharoor.

Patriotism, in his formulation, is instinctive and affectionate - like a child's natural love for a mother, notwithstanding her flaws and all.

Nationalism, by contrast, is tied to the nation's institutions and principles: the Constitution, the flag, democracy, secularism, and social justice. Up to this point, his argument is both elegant and persuasive.

But Tharoor does not stop there.

He further splits nationalism into two forms: civic nationalism, which he supports, and what he describes as majoritarian nationalism, which he opposes.

In his telling, the latter is exclusionary, anchored in ethno-religious identity, and increasingly used to redefine Indian politics in narrow terms.

That critique has been picked up by the young and the self appointed progressive liberals of India.

It may sound appealing to many, especially the Gen Z and the uninitiated adult, but it rests on assumptions that deserve a far more serious challenge.

For one, it is easy to romanticise the past when one's political memory is selective.

The argument seems to suggest that civic nationalism belonged to an earlier era, one in which the Congress led the republic with greater inclusiveness and restraint.

Yet that claim does not survive close scrutiny. India's political and social landscape was never as neat or morally uncomplicated as it sounds.

The Congress era, for all its rhetoric, also produced entrenched inequities, a national emergency, selective secularism, a near national bankruptcy, and a deeply compromised approach to nation-building.

India was among the first to gain independence, yet countries that became independent years later raced ahead, while most of India’s own citizens were left without even the most basic amenities- roads, water, cooking gas, electricity, toilets, bank accounts, and insurance.

To invoke that period as a golden age of civic nationalism is not analysis; it is nostalgia.

More importantly, the political-liberal's critique overlooks a basic truth about modern India: nationalism today is not merely an abstract ideological choice. It is shaped by history, memory, and experience. India was not born into freedom in a vacuum. The country endured centuries of invasion, colonial exploitation, cultural dislocation, and economic extraction.

Let us not forget, the East India Company did not arrive as an army of conquest, but it ended as one of the most devastating instruments of dispossession in modern history. 

Over time, foreign rule stripped India of prosperity, dignity, and self-confidence.

A nationalism that emerges from that experience cannot be reduced to xenophobia or identity politics. It is also a defensive instinct - a way of protecting sovereignty, culture, and national assets from external and internal erosion.

That is why contemporary nationalism in India is simply not hostility to outsiders at all. 

It is about vigilance. 

In a globalised world, vested interest and influence does not always come from armies; it often arrives through benign appearing capital, media, social media, agencies, trade, ideology, NGOs, and other soft power methods.

The new pressure points are different, but they are no less real.

Any serious nationalism must recognise this. It must welcome trade, exchange, and engagement, while refusing to become a passive recipient of one-sided influence.

That is not paranoia. It is prudence.

The later-born and pseudo-liberals also miss another historical continuity: the mindset of divide and manage, inherited from colonial governance later sustained the post-independence governments.

The British were masters of partitioning society, weakening indigenous confidence, and preventing the formation of a truly self-assured people.

Yet many of those fractures were not healed after independence; they were institutionalised and inserted into memory through whitewashed history books.

Instead of building a cohesive civic nation on a level playing field, India often drifted into identity-based patronage, vote-bank politics, and symbolic secularism.

That weakened the very social fabric and trust that civic nationalism requires.

One central weakness of the political-liberals is that they measure nationalism by the standards of elite urban liberal theory while ignoring the lived experience of ordinary Indians.

For decades, Indians were told that nationalism was a suspicion, that cultural pride was hubris, and that the state should not be asserting itself.

The bottom-line outcome - the nation remained poor, dependent, and underconfident for over 60 years after independence.

When a political movement finally emerged that insisted on self-respect, cultural continuity, and national interest, critics dismissed it as majoritarian.

But that is precisely the point of the current shift: the people are no longer content to outsource their national identity to inherited elites and their preferred vocabulary.

The Modi era matters for a reason!

Whether one agrees with Modi's every policy or not, it has undeniably altered the lens of national self-perception. The vocabulary emphasising self-confidence, institutional delivery, strategic autonomy, aggressive foreign policy, and cultural pride has resonated with a large section of the public.

That resonance is not accidental.

It reflects a deeper desire for authenticity - for a civilisation as ancient and a nation as large, India does not merely perform virtue but demonstrates both strength and purpose.

A few may call this majoritarian nationalism. Many others see it as a long-overdue reclamation of national agency.

A further flaw of the Instagram-generation and coloniality-driven liberals is the assumption that India must imitate Western models of civic nationalism to be modern. But the West's own engine is now sputtering and grappling with the limits of its own assumptions.

Europe and North America are wrestling with migration, integration, identity conflict, law & order, and the tension between openness and self-preservation.

Even societies that once celebrated universalism without qualification are now reconsidering the practical limits of that idea.

India, with its own economic challenges, demographic mix, historical experiences, and social complexity, cannot afford imported ideologies and slogans detached from local ground realities.

This becomes especially important in questions of immigration, citizenship, voting, and demographic balance. 

A country that is developing, vulnerable, and so diverse cannot treat all inflows or claims of belonging in the same way. 

It must make choices rooted in cultural affinity, economic capacity, and national interest.

That is not discrimination in the crude sense; it is smart statecraft.

A government has a duty to protect its own people and cultural identity first, while still remaining humane.

Not offering any special entitlement to the large community minorities is not inhumane, but common sense. The challenge is to balance compassion with prudence.

India's current nationalism, at its best, attempts to do exactly that.

Ultimately, what India needs is not sermonizing from the liberal comfort of imported ideas, or through strawman arguments, or idealism-based protests out of college campuses, or street justice, especially when even a powerful country like America is turning culturally inward and nationalistic, but an honest assessment of where the country stands, what our own history shows, what is visible across geographies, and where it intends to be in the future.

That is the real debate the Gen Z should engage in.

In the final reckoning, India does not need a nostalgia for elite consensus, nor any borrowed ideas, nor idealism unfounded anywhere in the world. 

It needs a nationalism that is alert, agile, pragmatic, and self-respecting. 

Nationalism cannot be reduced to fear, nor can it be reduced to abstraction. It must be rooted in civilizational confidence, institutional strength, and a realistic understanding of global pressures. It must be seen as a positive emotion that protects the nation without shrinking its horizon of influence. It needs citizens who love the country not only in sentiment, but in substance.

And, finally, it needs public intellectuals who can recognise that the world has changed - and that India, too, has transformed.

Bolo Bharat Mata Ki .... Jai Okay Please! 🙏🏽🇮🇳

The Curse Of Wealth

The phenomena of third-generation curse is well established. But there are exceptions.

The third generation is cursed to lose a substantial chunk of inherited wealth because it pressures itself by comparing against how much the second generation grew the wealth over the first. 

Psychologically, they feel incomplete if they cannot carry the torch forward - an illusion of galloping wealth.

What they don't realize is that they are starting from a higher base, so growth is that much more difficult.

Unfortunately, because they are born to richer parents, their ground-level scarcity based grind is never developed. Not their fault. 

Speaking metaphorically, unlike their parents, who had an inferno in their belly with flames tall enough to ignite their minds, they are left at the mercy of a flickering flame.

Yet, to outdo their parents, they take higher risks with lower enthusiasm and little preparation. And the inevitable happens - they fall.

The lesson for the third generation is to measure wealth not by the income of their wealthy friends, but by how much passive income they have over their active expenses.

They must benchmark their parents' early conditions, contextualize them to their's in the present, and reframe their own relationship with money.

A bit of regular charity helps. It brings one in contact with the underprivileged and teaches them the distinction between need and want.

As a byproduct, it gives them a cognitive understanding of what their own active expenses should be.

Anything more that is easily affordable is worthy of gratitude, not arrogance.

The moral: don't pursue a gamble, sustain. You already have enough.

Now, work hard to grow the family's reputation, not its riches.

The Need For A Powerful National Mindset

Every nation lives with two parallel realities: the private world of individuals, their personal joys and grievances, and a collective world – say, the “National Mindset.”

The National Mindset is the belief that a country’s culture and purpose are greater than any single citizen. It gives individuals meaning in relation to a larger whole. Built from shared beliefs and a common aspiration for the future, it offers refuge under a unifying idea of the nation.

That mindset is a powerful uniting force. When people see themselves as part of something bigger, they volunteer, contribute, and prioritise duty over entitlement. 

A nation that shares such a mindset becomes resilient and hard to fracture.

Because it is so powerful, adversaries try to do the opposite: they increase sociocultural, socioeconomic, and sociopolitical strains and then exploit fault lines to erode unity. In open democracies this is easier, because openness can be weaponised.

Three common methods stand out.

1) Psychological operations (PsyOps): This shapes emotions, motives, reasoning, and behaviour without physical force. They work through selective focus, redacted historical referencing, regular leaks, targeted narratives, biased ratings, subjective rankings, influencers, paid media, and social-media manipulation. The objective is perception control: weaken resolve, create confusion, and make resistance costly or unattractive.

2) The Cloward–Piven approach: This tactic deliberately overloads local welfare systems with eligible applicants demanding freebies and entitlements to trigger fiscal crisis and force centralised, large-scale funding. Applied as ideological pressure, it can demoralise industry, disincentivise enterprise, raise the tax burden on wealth creators, suffer from imposed tarrifs, retard financial progress, and ultimately destabilise governments. 

3) Repetition and narrative capture (Goebbels’ law): “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.” Operators look for “useful idiots” - the perpetually disgruntled, the uninitiated, the idealistic youth and amplify simple, emotionally charged messages until they stick. They are exposed to digitally doctored content and algorithmic loops that create new & biased neural pathways that help cement a certain narrative. Youthful belief in equality and fairness is admirable; experience teaches that societies must prioritise the greatest good for the greatest number. Rewarding unequal outcomes equally can be unfair and counterproductive. However, some just age but never really grow up.

Foreign manipulators exploit such tensions. 

A contemporary example is how the demand for diversity has sometimes been turned into a moral absolutism, as if it has timeless universal application. 

“Unity in diversity” is an ideal, not an automatic mechanism. 

Morality and social policy must be tested against workability: what actually sustains social cooperation and produces results. Workability grows from natural interdependence. Despite differences, communities must find common ground in basic values and a shared vision. 

Bonding forces must outweigh divisive forces. Ideas should be debated and the best adopted voluntarily; purpose must remain the anchor. Where differences persist, the least common denominator and progressiveness should guide policies that pursue the common good. Widely held ideas stay; the rest must be willingly set aside.

Bharat should never be reduced to binaries. Our strength is cultural pluralism.

We can agree to disagree on some issues while cooperating on all others. We must respect one another’s legacies and traditions insofar as those legacies produce constructive outcomes. Realism and mutual respect should guide cooperation to build a future we share.

This requires clarity on non-negotiables: any and all popular movements that originate outside of India must first be tested on applicability of what we consider as virtue or vice here and should be in line with our civilizational ethos, historical experiences, and prevailing culture. We should be mindful of our national interest while considering who might be our friends and foes, and which ideals we are willing to defend, volunteer for, and sacrifice for. 

Reciprocation should be the operative code. 

When elders teach these by example, identity-centric communities learn that cooperation and assimilation enhance their own futures. They integrate better and, in doing so, strengthen the nation’s integrity - a pattern visible in the success of many non-resident Indians who became model migrant citizens abroad.

Absent such integration, “Unity in Diversity” can decay into “Adversity in Diversity.”

We constantly see attempts to divide and manipulate our perception. Below are a few examples:

During COVID-19, headlines implied India was losing the greatest number of lives, obscuring the fact that India had one of the lowest deaths per million.

Recently, when we turned out to be the fastest-growing large economy nation in the world, analysts discounted it by claiming “India missed the AI bus” to spook our markets; while critics simultaneously called ours “jobless growth.” How exactly is jobless growth possible in a place where the AI bus had left India?

Perhaps they were ignoring the rapid expansion of gig work. But then, they portrayed gig workers as numerous yet unprotected, a narrative that invites regulatory overload, making that sector uncompetitive.

If GDP rises, commentators start to focus on low per capita GDP. Well, they conveniently ignore high per capita debt in shrinking economies elsewhere.

At every turn, positively evolving stories are bypassed and facts are reframed in ways that hurt our national psyche. We must learn to ignore undue contempt and compliments alike. 

Because interpretations follow power rather than truth, powerful Indian stories must be told powerfully. Policy alone does not build nations. Stories do. Nations cohere around the narratives people choose to believe about themselves.

Our task is to shape the living grand narrative by telling those stories that strengthen the National Mindset!

Bolo Bharat Mata Ki …. Jai Okay Please! 🇮🇳 

Modi Hai To Mumkin Hai!

The caption begs the question - Why? 

A Shift Outside the Overton Window!

The Overton Window is defined as the range of ideas, policies, and political narrative that the public finds acceptable at any given time. Ideas within the window's view are safe for leaders to support, while ideas beyond it are seen as extreme or even taboo. Over time, the view outside this window changes as society evolves.

Not just in India, but across the world, the view outside the Overton Window has been changing. 

The Left-Liberal ideology that long defined national leadership is giving way to Right-Conservative thinking. Whoever understands this shift, governs by it. Whoever doesn’t, pays the price.

Nations are discarding a template that has now been tried, tested, and failed. It was one that prioritized loose globalization over civilizational ethos, democracy over development, secularism over security, freedoms over duties, and human rights over human dignity.

That model did work well once. After World War II, with global economies in ruins, America - a nation with no ancient cultural moorings, no kings, and no bombs dropped on its soil, delivered unprecedented growth starting in the 1950s.  

From governments to teenagers, the world rushed to emulate the American way of life.

Today, America itself is leading the dismantling of the very system it created, because that engine is now sputtering.  

In its place, nations now seek only selective borrowings from other places, not imitation - only those elements that can be contextualized to their own civilizational roots.

India’s Unique Challenge!

Unlike much of Western history shaped by crusades, conquests, slavery, and colonization, India’s civilizational arc is ancient and distinctive.  

Yet, our founding fathers strangely borrowed heavily from Western constitutional models rooted in very different historical experiences, including their guilt, even when India was the colonized and looted victim. As if to give a tribute to the foreign oppressor’s divide and rule doctrine, even when there was little opposition, they didn't stitch up a uniform civil code for governance. 

That mismatch was deepened by the hurried insertion of the Western constructs of “secular” and “socialist” into the constitution during the national emergency and without any debate.

Governing India then meant navigating the path of least resistance across competing demands.  

Laws and policies must be constitutionally sound, socially acceptable, culturally appropriate, economically feasible, technologically viable, parliamentarily passable, legally defensible, and geopolitically prudent - all at once.

It’s like solving an endless Rubik’s Cube. Align one face, and you scramble the others.

So strong, popular leadership matters more in India than anywhere else. 

Ruling here is exceptionally difficult. Unrest can smolder in multiple regions simultaneously, yet a leader must still win a national majority from a people who, less than a century ago, lived under 560+ princely states. 

To succeed, a leader must be ambidextrous, one that is able to connect with diverse, often disconnected groups across the subcontinental sized Indian nation. To make matters worse, Hindi is the most popular language in India but strangely less than half the nation's population find it a language of their comfort and a fifth don't understand a single sentence spoken in it!

What Could Work for India!

In the end, only a government that is philosophically plural, ideologically patriotic, socially engaged, culturally conservative, fiscally tight, technologically experimental, and disciplinarily tough - can keep a society like India's cohesive and deliver steady, long-term transformation.

The current Modi Sarkar demonstrates a sound understanding of it.  

It is run by a cadre-driven party, not a family-led one, and comes closest to that ideal: maximum good for maximum people, without chasing the impossible task of pleasing everyone all the time.

The Visible Results! 

In January 2014, India was in a tough spot. 

After 67 long years, the Indian GDP was still ranked 10th largest, at about $2 trillion, the economy was growing just 4.7% and was labeled one of the "Fragile Five" due to high inflation at 8-10%, a wide current account deficit near 4.8% of GDP, a volatile rupee that had touched a low of 68.8 to a dollar in August 2013, and foreign exchange reserves stood at a paltry $300 billion. 

Fast forward to today, a day before we celebrate our Independence for the 80th time, and we see that the picture has completely flipped. 

India did rise and how! 

In just a little over a decade, the GDP has doubled and is at $4 trillion, making it the 5th largest globally, growing at 6.5%-7% with FY26 hitting 7.7%. Inflation is down to 4.4%-4.6%, the CAD has narrowed to 0.8%-1.5% of GDP, and the fiscal deficit is targeted at 4.3%. After a brief hiccup arising from the West Asia crisis, the rupee has stabilized with foreign exchange reserves above $700 billion.

India is no longer seen as fragile but as a resilient growth engine and what economists label as a Goldilocks economy. 

What drove this? 

Four things: 

A) Macro stability from RBI’s inflation focus and stronger services exports.

B) Big policy reforms like GST, IBC, PLI and infra + digital push. 

C) External tailwinds like the post-Covid "China +1" sourcing policy adapted by the West, the continental Europe's BTA attraction with India arising from unreliablity of the US, and the smart energy sourcing implemented by India. 

D) Strong domestic demand with private consumption at 61.5% of GDP.

And India is visibly seen rising in wealth, respect, and stature, besides delivering social goals through market-led dynamics.

Is it any surprise then that on the eve of 15th August 2026 the Modi Sarkar comprising of the BJP led NDA is ruling over 70% of India’s population, landmass, and jurisdiction! 

Bolo Bharat Mata Ki.... Jai Okay Please! 🙏 🇮🇳 

Chanakya’s Arthashastra: Why It Matters Again

The US Deputy Secretary Christopher Landau recently hinted that America won’t repeat with India the economic blunders it made with China, meaning, America can’t afford another rising challenger.

Arthashastra by Chanakya is a treatise on strategic statecraft through trade, politics, military, and economics - a manual for: How to win against an adversary!

Ironically, it is read more outside India than inside India.

Chanakya lays out a 4-stage playbook to subjugate an opponent: Saam, Daam, Dand, Bhed = Persuasion, Inducement, Punishment, Division. 

We all know of the 'Divide and Rule' method that the British used.

Well, we’re seeing that playbook in action again.

Stage 1: Saam or Persuasion

Right after Independence, India was a living poverty poster. The West convinced, read threatened, our leaders to “stay in line.”  

We stayed straight. We were helpless.  

That was Saam at work.

But slowly, we recovered.

Stage 2: Daam or Inducement

As soon as we went bankrupt, the money lenders, like vultures, swooped in. We got loans from the IMF in exchange for a bit of our sovereignty and gold. 

Imports began to pour in and development of some of our core industries got stalled. 

We simply complied. We were needy.

That was Daam at play. 

But slowly, we recovered.

Stage 3: Dand or Punishment

In 1998, Vajpayee led BJP came to power.  

Ignoring international pressure, his first big call was to go ahead with our nuclear tests. In less than 2 months in power, Pokhran nuclear blasts were heard by Indians but it shook the world capitals. 

Sanctions followed. We suffered a little temporarily. 

That was Dand at play.

But we absorbed it, recovered fast, and moved on.

The Counter-Arthashasta

Enter Narendra Damodardas Modi, the first PM to have been born in independent India. After 30 long years, BJP had won by absolute majority on the fervor of highly pitched patriotism. He hit the ground running and began to unshackle India from its colonial baggage. 

Soon, Modi found the Indian stage too small. He made the world his arena by engaging the Global North, South, East, and West.

Making Atmanirbhar Bharat his clarion call, he set his agenda for transforming India into a Viksit Bharat!

Under him, India has mastered statecraft and progressed as follows:

1. Trade: Mega Business or Free Trade Agreements signed covering over 40 individual countries. 

2. Politics: A stable government with the BJP led coalition slowly inching towards a 2/3rd parliamentary majority.  

3. Defense: From importer to manufacturer, and now an exporter of arms, backed by the success of Operation Sindoor.

4. Economy: A “Goldilocks” economy in the middle of global wars and economic upheaval.

This is India's Counter-Arthashastra 101 on display!

Stage 4: Bhed or Division

The adversary now has only one card left. It is being used to weaken and divide India from within. 

Here's how it's unfolding:

A) The constant objections in the parliament by the opposition even on frivolous topics or subjects of national importance, or the selective social media outcry and street protests on narrow issues,  are not random. They are to keep us divided and quarreling. 

B) The unreasonable US tariffs on India for buying energy from Russia is not an inadvertent error. It is to hurt us economically and isolate a rising star. 

C) The US objections against the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act amendment bill, amounting to pushing for covert use of its donations within India, is not a request for a casual right. Without transparency or accountability, the funds can be misused for creating instability or even regime change. 

That's an attempt at Bhed. 

But we're now an awakened and alert nation. 

The Bottom Line

Let’s be clear:  Chanakya offered us a strategic plan 2,300 years ago. The tools haven’t changed. Only the players have.

India has now moved from being the target of Arthashastra to becoming its practitioner!

America India bhai-bhai?

The US, China, and India: The Realpolitik Equation

Unless America gets its act together, China could, in theory, move to take over Japan and Taiwan in the future. The goal would be to control key industries and dominate the Pacific.

There have also been media reports about a covert meeting between Rahul Gandhi and officials of the American administration. 

This has fueled speculation that the US may want a regime change in India.

But realpolitik will likely force America to choose differently.  

Washington will have to prefer even a non-acquiescent, often inconvenient, BJP government under Modi over a Congress government led by Rahul Gandhi.

Why Congress Doesn’t Fit the Moment

Culturally and strategically, the Congress does not have the mindset or the resolve to stand up to China, even when the situation demands it.

The Doklam crisis is proof. In the middle of a military standoff between Indian and Chinese troops, Rahul Gandhi was caught meeting the Chinese ambassador in secret.  

Then came the revelation of a secret MoU between the Congress Party and the Chinese Communist Party, an evidence of an unholy bonhomie.

The Congress’s pro-China tilt was on display again when senior leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury asked the PM to grant Taiwan the diplomatic recognition it deserves.  

One would have assumed this was meant to align with the national mood after the Wuhan virus leak, which caused a global pandemic, lockdowns, and massive disruption.  

Instead of irritating China, it caused instant discomfort within his own party.

The Congress was quick to distance itself, saying, "That may be Mr. Chowdhury’s personal view. The Congress recognizes the special partnership between China and India."

What America Actually Needs From India

The US needs a long-term, strategic partner in India to counter China.  

A strong India keeps China distracted. A weak India eases China’s efforts to keep India busy by arming itself, draining funds away from infrastructure and governance.

Despite India refusing to tow the US line on Russia-Ukraine, and rejecting an offer to join NATO, India has still become indispensable to the West.

The American president’s geopolitical job is only getting harder as China gets stronger, and both EU and Canada look for an alternative beyond America. 

He needs all the help he can get.

What the US really needs is a new direction, a leader with clarity of the long-term, but with a worldview that puts America first without ignoring what some nations of the world can offer it. 

Historically, Republicans have understood India’s concerns better, especially on China and Islamic terror, two areas where the Indian and American interests converge. 

Putting America first,  if not considered as a zero-sum game proposal would align with PM Modi’s India First. The European West, Japan, Israel, UAE, & Australia could be brought back on the same page. 

The Way Forward 

America needs to de-escalate its hard stance. The USD 40 trillion debt, a psychologically dreadful barrier is about to be crossed by it.

It needs to move away from endless wars and think out of the box with a more accommodative worldview.

Without the baggage of the NATO template, it should:

1. Work with India to build future-ready technologies. A rising India is a threat to nobody.  

2. Use India’s influence to manage Russia, save face, and secure energy cooperation from it rather than attempt to defeat it through economic sanctions and proxies.  

 

3. Jointly strategize with India to contain a more belligerent China or the global terror networks in the years ahead. 

Russia is aging. In a few years it will struggle to hold its massive landmass. But it has one of the highest stockpile of nuclear weapons. 

Like India and most of China’s neighbors, Russia also has contentious border issues with China. It may be willing to shift sides in exchange for a firm promise of no NATO expansion on its borders.

NATO, in any case, is a Cold War relic that America has kept alive well past its expiry date.

The Final Word

All of this must be done without America acting like a senior partner or giving India unsolicited advice publicly. Any attempt to escalate trade tariffs or pressure India into submission to American interests is bound to fail. 

That would completely defeat the purpose. But with Trump, one never knows. Fortunately, in the end TACO it is!

There’s wisdom in an old saying: It is better to bend than to break.

America needs to get that!

Mind Your Language!

The defining moment in the recent legal and peaceful student protest at Jantar Mantar was that it suddenly overflowed onto the streets and transformed into an unlawful and awful anarchy marked by verbal diarrhea.

Some of the protestors, whose prefrontal cortex, the part of brain that fully develops only by mid twenties, and responsible for mature longterm thinking, deep decision-making, self-control, and emotional regulation - was obviously underdeveloped, and so were heard hurling choicest abuses at the prime minister who is old enough to be their grandfather, including at his deceased mother. 

Prime Minister Modi noted the cultural shock that the nation was experiencing due to these depraved youth, especially girls as young as 15, but still forgave them. 

He urged the youth to reform themselves and take the higher path. 

The opposition had supported the protest and while that is understandable, what is not understood, is their silence and failure to condemn such low grade language by the youth. 

Well, if there was an award for name-calling, it would have to be shared by most on the opposition benches.

Sure, Madam Sonia Gandhi was called "Italy-ki-beti" or Italy's daughter (and therefore unfit to understand the civilizational moorings of Bharat) by the ruling NDA when it was in opposition. Mr. Rahul Gandhi has been called "Pappu" by the public.  

But all that pales compared to what Modi ji has been called and this was led by none other than the senior-most leaders of the opposition.

Yes, Modi has been vilified beyond comparison and comprehension.

In fact, the industry of name-calling was started by Sonia Gandhi herself. 

About decades ago, she was rarely seen in New Delhi or in her own constituency. 

She was busy campaigning in the Gujarat Assembly polls, desperately trying to stop the rise of Modi, then the CM of the state.  

Her clarion call was: Modi is a "merchant of death."  

What followed were "mass murderer," "intolerant," and "dictator."  

Soon the comparisons became Hitler, Mussolini, and Milosevic.

Despite all the venom, Modi won that election and kept rising. 

He has never lost an election.  

That name-calling of Modi by his detractors couldn't stop the beginning of history making for Modi - not just in Gujarat, but in New Delhi, and eventually in world politics.

Even after receiving 9 international awards, the Pakistani PM Imran Khan repeated some of those same phrases at the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, in front of world leaders. 

He started by saying he would not have come to the UN if he did not feel that some "urgent issues" needed to be addressed and then went on to say that Modi is a life member of the RSS, "an organisation inspired by Hitler and Mussolini."

None of that stopped Modi ji's ascent or the withering of those opposed to him. 

It begs the question: Why?

The answer is in the utility of language. 

Steve Zaffron and Dave Logan, in 'The Three Laws of Performance,' put it simply:

1. How people perform depends on how situations occur to them.

2. How situations occur to them arises in language.

3. Future-based language transforms how situations occur to people.

Politicians and people regularly use language in the present to sell fear or hope in the future. 

Communication is the most powerful asset for any person - especially for a politician who must mass communicate. It is also the only quickest way for the listener to judge the speaker. 

A politician’s language can show you a dream or a nightmare. 

It cannot show you reality, because reality is a matter of perception and differs for everyone.

It is all about the emotional context in which the words are spoken and heard. But one thing is common - everyone wants a brighter future!

Language gives us a clue about a leader’s intent and the goal he has in mind.  

Tone decides the tribe.  

A constant negative goal with a depressing tone makes people gather to fight what’s coming. A consistent positive goal with an aspirational tone makes people gather to claim what’s coming.

If the message is value-based and sharply future focused, it is less about eloquence and more about the consistency of engagement by the speaker that leads the followers to not just remain mute appreciators, but in fact turn volunteers and contributors to the speaker's cause, as it's as much their own. Individuals then coalesce to become an interest group, often a motivated, fused block.  

It explains why Modi enjoys an army of ardent followers - whom his detractors mock as "bhakts" or blind followers.

Even when patience is in short supply, implementation issues or slight delays matter less if the future is communicated with honest conviction and some results are already visible. 

The public does empathize with Modi as it understands: the future is a work in progress.

The public also knows this: if a person has no bright ideas about the future and shows no agenda based action, a dark outcome is almost assured.

That explains why Modi's opposition continue to fail - they are discordant and portray nothing beyond Modi's occasional temporary shortcomings or inadvertent errors. 

In politics, future-driven language is everything, including when leaning on evidence or experience from the past.

For the most part, the opposition is silent on the work done by it in the few states it is still in power or about their future development plans. Instead, it indulges in personal attacks.

And when it does talk about present problems at the center, it still faces flak, because "Today" is nothing but "Yesterday’s Tomorrow," when Today’s opposition was in power Yesterday. It was they that had promised this bright Today.

That long night of Yesterday is over. People now realize they were taken for a ride.

So, what exactly is Modi’s secret sauce?

What most people don’t understand about Modi ji is that it is not just his oratory skills but it is his rich value-based language and future-driven tone that wins him votes and fans alike. Who dosen't want a Viksit Bharat? 

Modi just dosen't talk, he communicates. Period. 

That’s why, instead of anti-incumbency, his pro-incumbency victories are worthy of great communication lessons. 

His slogans, "Achhe din aane waale hain" or Good days will surely arrive, and "Sabka sath, sabka vikas" or Together with all, development for all, are not just words - they are a complete and whole aspirational narrative of hope in themselves!