The 'Utsava Murti' and the Opaque Temple: Deconstructing Modi's Politics

Prayer

I wish to offer my heartfelt prayers to Venkateswara of Tirumala, Tirupati. It is through divine grace that I have found solace and a renewed faith in my own religion and, crucially, in humanity itself. This personal journey has, perhaps, afforded me a unique lens through which to observe the intersection of faith and political power in India.

The office of the Prime Minister in India, particularly under Narendra Modi, has arguably undergone a profound transformation, moving beyond traditional democratic norms to resemble a unique spiritual paradigm. Much like the 'Utsava Murti' (processional deity) in Hindu temples, where a separate idol is ceremonially paraded for public veneration while the main deity remains enshrined within the sanctum, Prime Minister Modi appears to serve primarily as the public face – the 'Utsava Murti' – of the Indian government. This dynamic has led to a perceived depersonalization of the Prime Minister's office, running more like a corporate body focused on 'Brand Modi,' with core decision-makers operating behind the scenes and often unaccountable to the public. This creates a fundamental distortion: a leader serving as a personal embodiment of an organization whose inner workings and membership remain concealed, rendering him unable to function as the Prime Minister in an individual capacity accountable to the public.

The Rise of 'Brand Modi' and the Cult of Depersonalization

Narendra Modi has long cultivated his public image through sophisticated public relations strategies and consistent multimedia communications. From the moment he became Prime Minister, his personal brand has been meticulously crafted and amplified, with his images appearing on billboards, government advertisements, and even vaccine certificates. This relentless projection of 'Brand Modi' is central to his political strategy, positioning him as the singular figure of national responsibility and aspiration.

This approach manifests in a 'super-centralized decision-making' style, where the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) functions akin to a depersonalized corporate style presidency in a parliamentary democracy. Decision-making power is perceived to be concentrated, with key officers often dispatched from or pulled into the PMO to ensure the system runs smoothly and the spotlight remains solely on the Prime Minister. This highly controlled environment contrasts sharply with the expectation of collective governance in a parliamentary system.

A stark illustration of this controlled narrative is the complete absence of traditional, unscripted press conferences by the Prime Minister. Unlike his predecessors, Modi has never faced the press in a spontaneous, open forum since assuming office. His public appearances are carefully managed, favoring pre-approved interviews or direct addresses, which offer no room for unscripted questions that could expose any perceived facade. The 'Utsava Murti,' after all, is meant for veneration and display, not for interrogation about the complex affairs of the 'main idol' within the opaque temple.

The Opaque Temple and its Material Consequences

The maintenance of this 'opaque temple' structure, where core prime ministerial functions and policy decisions are made away from transparent public scrutiny, has, critics argue, led to observable outcomes that disproportionately benefit a select few private entities over public welfare, potentially violating the spirit of the Prime Minister's oath to serve impartially.

This perspective is rooted in a critical examination of how religion is engaged with in the public sphere. It is often noted that figures like Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, a key ideologue of Hindu nationalism, displayed a pragmatism towards religion markedly different from Mahatma Gandhi's deeply personal and spiritual practice. Savarkar, an agnostic or atheist himself, was openly interested not in practicing religion as a path to spiritual enlightenment, but rather in strategically utilizing it as a powerful unifying force for the Hindu community. His emphasis was on 'Hindutva,' a political ideology of Hindu cultural and national identity, rather than on the spiritual tenets of Hinduism itself. Many observers argue that this instrumental approach to religion finds a striking echo in the politics of Narendra Modi, where the projection of a religious image is seen as a component of 'Brand Modi' to consolidate a vote bank and mobilize identity for political ends. This style of politics, some commentators suggest, finds historical resonance with a more assertive and often exclusionary political philosophy, perhaps best described as Militant Majoritarianism.

Several policy trends are seen to reflect this alleged shift:

• Corporate Favors and the Adani Group: A discernible pattern has been highlighted by critics, where significant foreign contracts for certain private conglomerates, most notably the Adani Group, have often materialized in countries soon after high-level diplomatic engagements by the Prime Minister. This correlation has been observed in various nations, including Australia, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka, raising questions about whether diplomatic efforts are being leveraged for specific corporate interests.
• Widening Wealth Inequality: Under the current administration, India has witnessed a stark widening of the wealth gap, with reports indicating that the top 10% or even 1% of the population have accumulated a significantly larger share of national income and wealth. Critics contend that policies have contributed to this disparity, enriching the rich while the conditions of the poor remain challenging.
• Undermining Institutional Autonomy: Concerns have been raised about the perceived erosion of autonomy across various public institutions. This includes the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), which has seen unprecedented transfers of its surplus funds to the government, leading to fears of undermining its independence and stability. Similarly, critics point to a "plummeting academic freedom and autonomy" in universities, with allegations of government control over appointments and curricula, and a thrust towards centralization that significantly curtails state autonomy, reducing states to mere implementers of central policies.
• The Polyester Flag Controversy: A striking illustration of policy changes aligning with corporate interests is the December 2021 amendment to the Flag Code of India. This change, allowing machine-made polyester flags, subsequently fueled by campaigns like 'Har Ghar Tiranga,' created a national demand. It's noteworthy that Reliance Industries Limited is a global leader in polyester production, positioning it as a significant beneficiary. Critics argue this move symbolically undermined the historical and economic significance of Khadi, a fabric deeply tied to India's freedom struggle and local cottage industries, in favor of mass-produced alternatives that could potentially benefit large industrial houses.
• NEP and the 'Institutions of Eminence' Scheme: The National Education Policy (NEP) has drawn criticism for its perceived emphasis on privatization and commercialization of education. A particularly stark example within this framework is the 'Institutions of Eminence' (IoE) scheme. In 2018, the Jio Institute, promoted by the Reliance Foundation, was controversially granted 'IoE' status under the 'greenfield category' – a designation for institutions yet to be established. This meant a proposed university, lacking an operational campus, faculty, or students, was deemed 'eminent' even before its existence, raising profound questions about the fairness and transparency of the selection process and perceived favoritism towards corporate-backed ventures.
• 'Rules as a Private Tap': Critics argue that such instances are not isolated but symptomatic of a deeper, systemic issue where certain large corporate entities are perceived to treat government rules and regulations not as immutable laws, but rather as a 'private tap' – to be turned on or off, or adjusted, to suit their strategic advantage. This suggests a disturbing fluidity in policy-making, where the sanctity of public regulation appears to be undermined by private interests. Prominent critics, including S. Gurumurthy, have historically pointed to instances where regulatory changes or interpretations appeared to disproportionately benefit certain conglomerates, even if his more recent stances on specific policies have shifted.

The Weaponization of Celebrity and the Selective Silence

The maintenance of this 'opaque temple' and the uninterrupted projection of the 'Utsava Murti' is significantly aided by a compliant or strategically focused media landscape, often characterized by the insights of veteran journalist Ravish Kumar. Kumar famously coined the term 'Godi Media' (Lapdog Media) to describe a segment of the Indian news landscape he argues is subservient to the ruling establishment, prioritizing government narratives over independent journalism.

Ravish Kumar's own career provides a poignant illustration of the pressures faced by independent media. His unwavering commitment to scrutinizing power led to him being directly targeted, culminating in the hostile takeover of NDTV by the Adani Group. Kumar's subsequent departure, in good conscience, underscores the high personal and professional cost of upholding journalistic integrity.

Kumar's analysis extends beyond mere media bias to a more profound observation about public discourse. He argues that 'Faltu Baat' (Useless Talk), once an occasional digression, has now become the alarming 'new normal' in India's media and political landscape. This calculated shift, he posits, serves a strategic purpose: to deliberately barrage the populace with irrelevant information and sensationalism, thereby preventing genuine engagement with critical national issues. This is reinforced by a communication strategy where the Prime Minister often projects an image of singular national responsibility, designed to delude citizens into passive acceptance, discouraging independent thought. Kumar, in turn, has urged citizens to 'ignore the useless talk of Modi,' challenging the Prime Minister to practice what he preaches by publicly making a 'list of all foreign-made items used by the office of the Prime Minister,' a direct challenge to the 'opaque temple's' lack of verifiability.

The strategic deployment of 'Brand Modi' extends deeply into the realms of sports, celebrity, and entertainment. This nexus contributes significantly to the projection of a benevolent leader, even as it serves to divert attention from critical national issues.

• The Silence on Women Champions: A particularly poignant illustration is the stark contrast in the treatment of India's women wrestling champions. Hailed by the Prime Minister as 'daughters of the nation' when they brought laurels, they were largely ignored or met with official silence when they bravely fought for justice against accusations of sexual harassment. Their desperate act of threatening to immerse their hard-won medals in the Ganga received muted coverage and a conspicuous lack of direct support, underscoring how support is extended only when it aligns with the 'Utsava Murti's' branding.
• Bollywood's Silence on Manipur: Further demonstrating this transactional relationship is the conspicuous silence of many prominent Bollywood figures on pressing national crises, such as the prolonged ethnic violence and humanitarian crisis in Manipur. Their lack of a single word stands in stark contrast to their usual vocal presence, highlighting a perceived self-censorship driven by career considerations rather than genuine public concern.
• The Akshay Kumar Interview: Perhaps the most egregious example of the entertainment-political nexus blurring journalistic lines is the widely criticized 2019 interview conducted by actor Akshay Kumar with Narendra Modi. This interaction, roundly condemned as a 'mockery of journalism' for its trivial questions (like his method of eating mangoes), appeared to be a deliberate effort to present a humanized and non-confrontational image of the leader, devoid of substantive inquiry. It epitomizes the 'Faltu Baat' strategy.

Implications for Indian Democracy and the Looming Bust

The culmination of these interwoven phenomena—the deification and depersonalization of the Prime Minister's office, its alleged service to concealed private interests, the systematic manipulation of public discourse through 'faltu baat,' and the perceived ideological drift from foundational national values—leads many observers to a stark prognosis: the 'Modi Bubble' is headed for an inevitable bust.

The very land that gave birth to Mahatma Gandhi today grapples with a political landscape where, critics argue, segments of the ruling party's support base openly celebrate the cold-blooded murder of the Father of the Nation. While Prime Minister Modi often pays homage to Gandhi on international platforms, there is a stark ideological tension at play. As analyses highlight, the Hindu supremacist ideology embodied by Nathuram Godse has gained significant mainstream traction, with some politicians within the ruling dispensation openly glorifying Godse as a 'patriot.' This profound ideological schism represents a fundamental departure from India's foundational secular and pluralistic values.

The depersonalization of the Prime Minister's office, where the 'Utsava Murti' seeks constant limelight and brand reinforcement, arguably leads to a governance style where even grave national tragedies can become points of political leverage. Critics have notably drawn parallels between the aftermath of the 2002 Godhra train burning incident—a tragedy that propelled the then Chief Minister to national prominence amidst the ensuing communal violence—and more recent events like the devastating Pahalgam attack (April 2025). It has been alleged by some that the immediate framing of the Godhra incident as a 'pre-planned attack' served to shape a particular narrative that benefited political consolidation at the time. (It is important to note that official investigations into the Godhra incident concluded with various findings, and the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) cleared then Chief Minister Modi of complicity in the subsequent riots. However, these interpretations and allegations persist in critical political discourse.)

This perspective on Modi's political trajectory finds resonance in strong critiques from political opponents. Sonia Gandhi, a prominent opposition leader, famously labeled him 'Maut Ka Saudagar' (Merchant of Death) during the 2007 Gujarat Assembly elections, directly linking his governance to the tragic communal violence that followed the Godhra incident in 2002. For many, this assessment, while controversial, continues to resonate, reflecting a deep-seated concern about the human cost of certain political approaches.

Concerns regarding Modi's past record and the nature of his politics have not been confined to domestic discourse. For a significant period, elements of the international community, including the United States, maintained a diplomatic distance from Modi, notably denying him a diplomatic visa in 2005. This stance was widely understood to be based on assessments of the 2002 Gujarat riots, signaling a grave concern about accountability for the violence. While diplomatic relations have since evolved, these historical concerns underscore an enduring critical view of the underlying political philosophy.

Furthermore, a particularly contentious argument centers on the 2011 Anna Hazare anti-corruption movement. While the movement mobilized significant public sentiment, critics now suggest that it was cunningly leveraged by certain political forces to gain a 'veneer of legitimacy' for their ascent to power. Ironically, Anna Hazare himself has since expressed profound disillusionment, publicly stating that he felt 'used by the BJP' in 2014. He has repeatedly criticized the Modi government for failing to implement the Lokpal system his movement championed, and for what he perceives as a continued rise in corruption, openly accusing them of 'misleading the people of the country and leading the country to autocracy.'

The cumulative effect of these interwoven phenomena—the deification and depersonalization of the Prime Minister's office, its alleged service to concealed private interests, the systematic manipulation of public discourse through 'faltu baat,' and the perceived ideological drift from foundational national values—leads many observers to a stark prognosis: the 'Modi Bubble' is headed for an inevitable bust. This perspective warns that a political edifice built on brand image, control of information, and alleged systemic favoritism, rather than genuine accountability and inclusive governance, carries inherent vulnerabilities that could eventually lead to a significant crisis of public confidence, a loss of international standing, and profound instability for the nation.