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 without any debate during the national emergency.

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! 

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

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 forces China to keep India busy by arming itself, draining funds away from infrastructure and governance.

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

The American president’s geopolitical job is only getting harder. 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 would align with PM Modi’s India First. The European West, Japan, Israel, UAE, & Australia are on the same page. 

The Way Forward 

America needs to de-escalate.  

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.

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 the "senior partner" or giving India unsolicited advice publicly. That would defeat the purpose.

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

America needs to get that!

Your language decides the future performance capability of your entire team!

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

Ladies and girls as young as 15 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 girls and young ladies, but still forgave them and urged the youth to reform themselves and take the higher path. 

If there was an award for name-calling, it would have to be shared by everyone 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!

India’s foreign policy is even foreign to Indians!

India’s steady foreign policy is widely misunderstood. 

That is an irony: while public debate often mistakes its intent, India’s external strategy has been one of the few constants since independence. 

Rooted in Nehruvian non-alignment, Indian diplomacy has remained remarkably consistent across different governments. 

What Prime Minister Narendra Modi has done is to give that tradition new momentum, reframing a value-based idea of equidistance into an active, pragmatic engagement with the world, i.e., equi-proximity. 

And so, Modi’s diplomacy has been notable for its simultaneity. He has courted Washington and Moscow, Tehran and Riyadh, Tel Aviv and Ramallah - often engaging leaders from opposing camps in ways few predecessors attempted. 

He has strengthened ties with the Global North while deepening relationships across the Global South. 

Uniquely, he is the first Indian prime minister born after independence, free of colonial baggage, who has undertaken this global outreach with both conviction and cultural confidence.

The diaspora has played a central role in this strategy. By recasting the “brain drain” as a “brain deposit,” Modi has asked the Indian diaspora to act as ambassadors for the country of their ethnic origin, to invest here, and to advocate for India.

At the same time, he has showcased craftsmanship through cultural diplomacy by asking his hosts for repatriation of stolen ancient India's magnificent temple idols, while gifting them the newly made artefacts from across India. 

That combination of steadiness and activism has paid diplomatic dividends. 

Even as governments across the world change, meetings with Modi have become a staple on leaders’ itineraries. Modi has managed to sign more trade agreements with multiple nations than any leader before him, earning exports and suppliers alike to propel India into a "Goldilocks economy." 

India’s elevated global profile has coincided with strong economic performance: despite the pandemic, India’s GDP rose from 11th to 5th in the world and is poised to climb higher, reflecting one of the better macroeconomic showings among large economies during this period.

The 2023–25 G20 process hosted by India was a case in point. New Delhi managed to secure a joint communiqué that included, crucially, the United States, Russia and China, an outcome that many had thought improbable. For the first time, India also brought the perpetually ignored African Union into the fold, underscoring its role as a convenor in an increasingly fragmented world.

India’s growing influence extends beyond summits. Its expanding military capabilities, financial heft and technological advances have begun to shift calculations in global commodity markets and international forums. India is now a vocal participant in QUAD, I2U2, SCO, BRICS and G20, and it increasingly receives invitations to G7 discussions. 

Far from being the outlier on the UN Security Council, India’s absence from permanent membership is becoming a shortcoming of the institution more than a stain on India.

Under his watch, India has pursued bilateral agreements that include local-currency trade settlements and other measures that nudge the global order toward greater multipolarity, an evolution distinct from the isolationist tendencies of other powerful actors.

What, then, is India’s unique proposition? Simply put: India claims no enemies. It works with any partner that advances the security and welfare of its people. India does not seek domination; it seeks responsibility. In crises, it has often been a first responder—most visibly during the COVID-19 pandemic, when India sent vaccines and medical assistance to poorer nations even as wealthier countries hoarded supplies.

This diplomatic assertiveness has won Modi honours from more countries than most contemporary leaders, reflecting broad international recognition rather than partisan or personal popularity. 

Yet India is not naïve. An ancient civilisation tempered by history, it recognizes threats and responds firmly when required, without cultivating perpetual enmity. 

The tactical pushback against China at the Galwan Valley, calibrated actions against hostile proxies, and the pragmatic recalibration of ties with neighbours that stray from cooperative behaviour exemplify this balance. 

Similarly, India has been willing to withdraw and later restore relations when adversaries change course, as seen in its dealings with the Maldives and in the phased management of ties with Turkey. The announcement of restored military de-escalation with China in early 2021 is another example of restraint coupled with resolve.

In short, India keeps the door open. Some partners walk away in moments of heat; most return when geopolitical realities reassert themselves. 

That elasticity, steadfast principles applied with tactical flexibility is India’s strategic advantage.

So relax and enjoy the ride: you are riding a wise elephant that marches on.

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

Be Indian, be blessed

Most happiness rankings put India at the bottom of the list. The 2025 global poll, conducted by French research firm Ipsos is one with a difference, it places India at the very top!

It begs the question: how is that even possible?

First things first.

If anything is true about India, its opposite is equally true.

Nevertheless, we must stop believing foreigners who rate the happiness of others’ homes from the outside.

They need to recalibrate their happiness scales. They need to get that everything is subjective. 

Once upon a time there was a rich man. He had a servant. The servant did whatever the rich master ordered.

The master believed he was smart, while his servant had low skills, low aptitude, and weak survival instincts. He must be miserable, thought the master. 

By his measurement scale, the servant ranked low.

The master believed the servant couldn’t survive without him.

One day the master went boating on a pleasure ride at sea, with the servant rowing the boat.

An unexpected storm caught them by surprise and pushed them deep into the middle of the wild sea.

They spotted an island and took refuge on that uninhabited place.

It was all wilderness.

The master couldn’t figure out anything in this new place.

The servant, however, could climb trees for fruit, catch fish with his bare hands, and cook on a fire started by rubbing stones.

Such was their fate that the servant became the master and the master became the servant on the island.

Roles reversed, and now the new master believed he was smart, while the newly minted servant had low skills, low aptitude, and weak survival instincts. The new master concluded that the former master-turned-servant must be miserable.

The former believed the latter couldn’t survive without him.

By his measurement scale, the erstwhile “master” ranked low.

And so Indian philosophy teaches us: your position doesn’t matter; your duties do. One must discharge those duties faithfully, in whichever avatar one presently dawns.

Do your duties well, or you will face karmic justice. The rulers of today will be held to account by the ruled whenever the karmic cycles wheel makes a turn. 

Coming back, any ranking of India by the West, good or bad, is like a blind man’s opinion of an elephant.

India’s many opposites live happily, and in close proximity.

Amitabh Bachchan, the Bollywood superstar, lives less than a kilometer from slums.

So, while America’s definition of maturity is reaching one’s heights, India’s is detachment; the ability to settle down. The former is ambition-driven; the latter is aspiration-based.

India’s unique proposition is this: good or bad is not a function of what is, but of one’s frame of mind. What is, is neutral!

Most of us miss this wisdom, and so we remain unsettled, tiring ourselves as we chase the heights.

This is the only land where Buddhas, Mahaviras, Rams, and Krishnas, royalty soaked in the comforts of wealth, but still used their whole intellectual selves to descend from the heights and move in the opposite direction to fulfill their dharmic duties.

That is why, despite a low standard of living, most people here are very happy. Their standard of life is fulfilling. 

Each wedding season, ladies travel from the wealthiest suburbs, pass the poorest slums of Dharavi, to attend weddings in Central Mumbai, and back, wearing glittering jewelry without skipping a heartbeat, even past midnight.

Poverty is plentiful. Crime in India is a rarity.

In the final reckoning:  

“Everything is subject to interpretation. The interpretation that prevails at a given time is a function of power, not truth.” - Friedrich Nietzsche.

Currently, the West is financially powerful, so it uses its influence to decide what happiness means.

I shudder to think how the West would behave if it experienced even a little scarcity.

During Covid, we saw how Americans turned into hoarders of toilet paper and vaccines alike.

In India, people came out and emptied their hearts and purses. No riots. No murders. No looting.

America has push-button comforts and plenty of personal space to enjoy them alone, yet many are restless; some regularly fire on innocent passersby for no reason at all.

Why doesn’t that happen in India?

The other USP of India is that Indians believe in reincarnation. So they bypass frustration and despondency associated from a single life’s unaccomplished goals. Shortfalls if any, are due to past Karma. Doing well in the present circumstances will lead to better times. And Indians carry this attitude wherever they go. 

“Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” is an American offering.

India's is different: Lives, Duties, and the Experience of Bliss.

In fact, happiness can only be experienced by de-pursuing. And so Indians pace, not pursue!

Welfare State - The Bhartiya Way

The names of some of the non-democratic and notorious dictators that stand out are often associated with communist regimes: Think Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin.  

They claimed to pursue equality by redistributing wealth. In practice, they delivered poverty on an equal scale. 

They targeted religious faiths, wealthy individuals, big business, and certain interest groups in the absolute without applying any mechanism to discern, blaming them for all social inequality, and systematically suppressed or eliminated them. They believed that the power must be in the hands of the people. 

The result was catastrophic. Faith and moral codes were weakened. God was killed and sin got a free run.

Over 10 crore citizens were killed, with most damage in Cambodia, China, and the Soviet Union. As expected, economies of these nations collapsed into free fall.

And so the case for democracy. 

However, the long-term effectiveness of democracy in delivering public goods is open to question.

Did these dictators fail because they were non-democrats or because they hated God, knowledge gurus, and wealth creators? 

The People's Republic of China is not a liberal democracy. Under Xi Jinping's leadership, the state maintains strict control over foreign media, promotes a market-oriented economy, and seeks to rejuvenate traditional Chinese civilization. A key policy objective is also the sinicization of foreign religions to ensure they conform to the local and cultural norms. The results are for anyone with an open mind to appreciate. 

America was accidentally discovered by Europeans. Its earliest settlers got a lot of land and resources with zero competition and very little resistance. The simple indigenous tribes of the land were almost wipped out by the new inhabitants. Being a clean slate with no legacy, it became the world's first nation that was formed without a king. It built the nation ground up, using slaves from Africa. 

Later, by another accident of geography, it escaped the evils of the world wars as not a single bomb fell on it, but did benefit from it as a supplier of arms and ammunition to the warring factions. It did drop the Atom bomb to prove and declare itself as the undisputed master of the world. It began to dictate the fate of other nations through alliances or sanctions. 

America believes that democracy must prevail across the world. 

However, America itself became what it did, on a model of gradually evolving and controlled democracy over 170 plus years. Unfortunately, India, even when not ripe,  became a full fledged democracy soon after getting its independence. That allowed all adult citizens to vote, including "all women," a decade before all Americans did. 

While we are very much of a democracy, frankly, even today, America is not. It runs on a two-party "regime," with huge overlaps, which it calls democracy. And it declares itself as a model for success.  

I think it simply has a higher standard of living, not life. It suffers from broken families, homelessness, high debt, crime, gun violence, deep racism, substance abuse, addiction, polarization, mental health issues, etc. 

But the world believes and accept what the Americans preach because of its economic and military might. It is America that decides what is good, bad, or mad. 

Everything is subject to interpretation. The interpretation that prevails at any given time is not a function of truth but power - Friedrich Nietzsche.

Only democracy serves, is just a childhood indoctrination spread through the American hard and soft power, a constant self-serving narrative building exercise. 

Many of us began with the conviction that democracy is the best form of government, only to later settle on the more pragmatic view that it is merely the least undesirable. 

Today I feel that compared with a benevolent dictator, democracy is appearing inferior. Yet it retains one crucial advantage: when no benevolent ruler emerges, citizens can at least remove a bad one through the ballot.

The difficulty, however, is that while we can't locate the good, the genuinely malevolent rulers do come to power; ironically through democracy. 

History offers several examples. Once in office, such leaders often learn how to manipulate institutions from within and extend their power well beyond the limits that democracy was meant to impose.

Think Hitler, who was angry with the reparation costs imposed on Germany, as according to him, Germany did not lose the first World War, but was manipulated from outside and betrayed from within by domestic revolutionaries and the Jews.

So, democracy is ineffective in keeping dictators at bay. 

This raises an uncomfortable question: is a dictator always necessarily worse than a flawed democratic order? 

Leaders are often branded as tyrants by powerful foreign democracies, and by their media systems that pick up some inevitable frictions or lapses as spoken by rivals or opposition within a foreign country and then use that to amplify the problem. 

Media was supposedly created to keep power within its home country honest through truthful reporting and not an overreaching commentary on other countries' matters. 

Political reputation, in other words, is rarely neutral.

History also shows that public perception of leaders is deeply contested. 

Muammar Gaddafi was, for many, as beloved to his people as Mohammad bin Zayed Al Nahyan is to Emiratis, or Putin is to many Russians. 

Each of these leaders pursued welfare-oriented policies in his own way. Iran too complicates simple categories: it is not a straightforward dictatorship, and its democratically elected political leadership has long been viewed differently by Iranians and by the United States. 

The Shah, for example, was detested by many Iranians but admired by America.

The deeper problem is that humanity has not yet perfected the art of self-government. 

Compared with the great empires of ancient Bharat, modern democracy has often produced only limited pockets of welfare-state success. This is especially striking in an era when territorial disputes are largely settled, yet many leaders still struggle to survive even a second term. Some, facing likely defeat, are tempted to weaken the electoral process itself rather than accept a rightful exit.

Today’s conflicts are no longer mainly about land. They are about markets, resources, and influence. 

That makes external intervention a persistent feature of political life, often aimed at weakening a nation’s standing in global trade and commerce. In such a world, political freedom without economic strength can leave a country vulnerable.

For this reason, I believe a nation should first attain at least middle-income economic strength before being granted full democratic freedom. Economic maturity gives society the resilience needed to resist narratives that undermine its people and its leadership. 

In India’s case, our tragedy has been to expand democratic freedoms before building durable economic foundations. The result is that voters are too often offered short-term handouts instead of governance that breaks dependence on election-time doles.

Once economic strength is secure, a gradual transition to a more disciplined political model, such as a single-party democracy like Singapore’s, may be worth considering. 

Even then, the public must retain the power to remove the top leader at the end of a term if performance is poor. 

Alternatively, a party-state system in which elections occur within the party rather than directly among the public may work, provided it is guided by Dharmic principles.

Why should such a model be taken seriously? Because human beings are naturally drawn toward adharma when self-awareness weakens, imagination runs unchecked, memory fades, conscience slackens, and willpower fails. 

Governance, therefore, cannot rely on idealism alone. It needs modeled restraint, institutional discipline, and a clear sense of duty towards the state and the subjects.

That is why the equivalent of Chanakya–Maurya model deserves revival, one where a Brahmin-led moral counsel could serve as a reminder to the mightiest Kshatriya rulers, that to rule the world, one must first serve it. Here God is not the enemy of the state but solace for anyone when misfortune strikes. 

Only a civilization as ancient as Bharat and a country as young as India, rooted in its past and committed to its future, can attempt such a long-term project with seriousness. 

If it succeeds, India need not merely govern itself well; it can become an example for the world to follow.