The Macksey Journal Volume 2 Article 49 2021 Drawing Parallels: Modi and the Machiavellian Prince Muda Tariq Lady Shri Ram College for Women, University of Delhi Recommended Citation Tariq, Muda (2021) "Drawing Parallels: Modi and the Machiavellian Prince," The Macksey Journal : Vol. 2, Article 49. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Johns Hopkins University Macksey Journal. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Macksey Journal by an authorized editor of The Johns Hopkins University Macksey Journal. Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
Transcript
The Macksey Journal
Volume 2 Article 49
2021
Drawing Parallels: Modi and the Machiavellian Prince
Muda Tariq Lady Shri Ram College for Women, University of Delhi
Recommended Citation Tariq, Muda (2021) "Drawing Parallels: Modi and the Machiavellian Prince," The Macksey Journal: Vol. 2, Article 49.
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Johns Hopkins University Macksey Journal. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Macksey Journal by an authorized editor of The Johns Hopkins University Macksey Journal.
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
Drawing Parallels: Modi and the Machiavellian Prince
Muda Tariq
Lady Shri Ram College for Women, University of Delhi
Abstract
Narendra Modi is no ordinary leader; he could be understood as a phenomenon as he
has introduced a new grammar in Indian Politics. Modi shares striking similarities with the
Machiavellian Prince; even though he is a product of democratic electoral setting, unlike the
Machiavellian Prince who is an autocratic leader. Modi is a suitable politician to suit the
Machiavellian understanding of a ‘good’ prince.
Machiavelli’s Prince, written a half-millennium ago, cuts through the smokescreen of
morality and offers a brutally realistic understanding of political power play. Machiavelli gives
foremost importance to a Prince’s ability to maintain his position in power - the principle of
mantenere lo stato. The Prince must take ‘politics seriously’ as his every act is political. He must
be able to keep his subjects satisfied by doing what taps into their nerves and is politically
expedient. Machiavelli highlights the instrumentality of communication and the rhetoric to tap
the social psyche to be a successful Prince. The Prince must employ a careful balance of tools of
compassion and cruelty to deal with his subject and enemies, moral considerations must take a
backseat.
The paper intends to understand Modi as a politician within the framework of the
Machiavellian Prince. Does Modi measure up to the expectations of an ideal Prince? Modi has
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
successfully catapulted back in power in recent 2019 elections, making his electoral slogan of
‘Abki baar 300 paar’ a political reality, dashing to smithereens the liberal myth of Modi’s 2014
victory as a rare occurrence. Modi has managed to communicate and connect with the masses
through Mann Ki Baat – a social revolution in itself. Is Modi an ideal amalgamation of the fox
and the lion in the contemporary times? The paper attempts to draw parallels between the
Machiavellian Prince and Narendra Modi.
Keywords: Narenda Modi, Indian Politics, Machiavelli, The Prince, Political Philosophy,
Contemporary Politics
Nicollo Machiavelli, a 16th century Florentine philosopher and an Italian diplomat, was
one of the first thinkers to move away from Christian morality and analyze the realpolitik.
Machiavelli’s best-known work is The Prince, published in 1532, almost 5 years after his death.
It focused on the ‘effectual truth’ and realpolitik, significantly derailing not only from the
Christian notions of ethical politics but also the scholastic conception like the Aristotelian
notion of a virtuous ruler and Plato’s philosopher king. In contrast, the ruling guidelines for the
Machiavellian Prince are based in the corrupted view of the human nature and his ultimate goal
is maintaining his power regardless of the means used.
Over the period of time, the term ‘Machiavellián’ has been considered derogatory and is
synonymous with evil, cruelty, political deceit and manipulation, duplicity and immorality.
However, despite the negative connotations associated with Machaivelli, Machiavelli’s
influence on the modern-day politics and politicians is highly pronounced. Looking at the Indian
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
context, Narendra Damodardas Modi, the current Indian Prime Minister, seems to be the Indian
Machiavelli. Modi’s trajectory as a politician is highly remarkable – he rose from his humble
origins of a Chai Wala to a globally popular leader. He symbolized the Indian dream – his is the
typical rags-to-riches story. He, by his politics, brings the old classic of The Prince to life. Modi’s
political alchemy is phenomenal as his popularity stands uncontested, not just on social media
but among majority of Indians who think of Modi as the strong decisive leader who doesn’t shy
away from thinking outside the box. Modi is revered and loved by many, loathed and feared by
few, but what’s pertinent to note is that he is inescapable – nevertheless, he manages to
dominate one’s imagination.
Machiavelli stressed on how power cannot be taken for granted and for the prince, it is
essential to remain alert and resourceful. He warns us how the circumstances are bound to
change, therefore, Prince needs to constantly strive to maintain and consolidate his position.
Therefore, the Machiavellian Prince needs have a strong foundation, political prowess and
needs to take up a commanding role in order to consolidate his political power and ensure
loyalty. Narendra Modi happens to be the politician who takes his politics seriously.
Modi’s politics is what Pratap Bhanu Mehta called ‘politics of aesthetics’ (Chotiner, 2019), his
political messages grip one with extra appeal, flatters the mass sensibilities, and even
supersedes the banalities of electoral promises and records of governance. He constructs a
political imagination/truth that helps dismiss the actual problems. One cannot deny that Modi
has managed to redefine terms of public engagement. Machiavellian politics is intrinsically
rhetorical. He stresses upon the instrumental use of rhetoric – exercised via writings and
eloquent speeches, sensationalism and symbolism, and in today’s era, by the use of social
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
media. The aim is to construct an image of the ruler and an ethos than identifies with him
operating through its profound impact on social psyche. For Machiavelli, word is a rootless self-
propelled entity. In Treatise of War, he writes, “The difficulty lies in removing a dangerous
opinion from a multitude, where words are the only means available” (Chaudhuri, 2019). In the
contemporary times, with the power of internet and social media, the volume of information
available to us has increased manifolds. However, not all information is credible enough. With
believable photoshopped images and false narratives, the authenticity of information has been
put to question.
Modi happens to be the second most followed politician on Twitter. His image is that of a tech-
savvy leader who shapes public discourses by aligning himself with the young electorate. He
uses social media to highlight his persona and his political visions. He tends to oscillate between
a ‘Karyakarta’ to ‘Mai baap’ style of using social media (Press Trust of India, 2015). As Lance
Price puts it:
“By the use of innovative technology and social media, its ability to reach parts of the
country untouched by a national campaign before, and its capacity for galvanizing young
people and those normally uninterested or disillusioned by politics, the Modi campaign
was a master-class in modern electoral politics.” (Price, 2015, p. 14)
Modi’s ‘rumor mill’ (Chaudhuri, 2019), that is social media apps like WhatsApp, is basically
information disseminating through channels that are unverified and hard to trace. This
information continues to grow in transmissions and it keeps on altering. It then becomes hard
to dislodge. These narratives are again reinforced by visuals that tap the public’s readiness to
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
believe whatever they see. In a sense, the subjects, citizens in Modi’s context, end up
constructing the narrative for the Prince and might even sideline their well-being in this
process. There is a constant devaluation of facts, and histories are being changed in a way that
suits the ruling party and their leader, Modi. Modi’s popularity is so huge that it has dwarfed his
own political party, the Bharatiya Janta Party (Ahsan, 2019).
The Machiavellian Prince would like to be both loved and feared, but if a choice between the
two has to made, Machiavelli chooses the former because fear affects the behavior through the
instrument of punishment and is eternally powerful in comparison to latter, since he thinks
men are less hesitant in letting down someone they love (The Prince, 2007, p. 36). Modi to a
great extent is both loved and feared: this political alchemy does wonders for him. Modi has
what Machiavelli called the ‘goodwill of the people’ (The Prince, 2007, p. 3). It is evident from
the very fact that even in the face of economic slowdown, joblessness, agrarian distress, and
many more broken promises, people voted him to power (Ahmad, 2019).
Machiavelli’s politics is illusory politics, in other words politics of appearance, wherein the
Prince needs show he has certain virtues, even if he has none. It is a must for a Machiavellian
Prince to be great at pretense and a dissembler [simulatore e dissimulatore], the art of
camouflage is quintessential for him (The Prince, 2007, p. 38). It is essential to understand that
a Prince cannot observe all those things for which men are considered good, for in order to
maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against
humanity, and against religion (C V, 2016). Having all these qualities and practicing them can be
detrimental but appearing to have them is instrumental. To appear merciful, faithful, humane,
trustworthy, and religious is useful to sway the masses in favor. However, a Prince’s mind
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
should be disposed in a way that he knows how and when to switch the appearances. Modi
understands that politics is not necessarily about the correspondence with truth but it is about
making people believe by tapping into their imaginations and anxieties (Mehta, 2019). He
understands the power of imagery and gesture and how it outlives the mundane realities.
Modi has undergone a transformation from an RSS pracharak (propagandist) to a decisive
Pragati Purush (Development Man). He is portrayed as the archetype of a strong, all knowing
father, who is unwavering and courageous to take bold and out of the box stances. He comes
across as the ‘alpha male’, with 56-inch chest, under whose watch ‘New India’ will kill terrorists
by barging into their dens, thereby reinforcing that Modi is the protector that Indian masses
needed. This ‘Ghar Mai Ghus K Marengey’ (We Will Kill You in Your Homes) narrative resonates
with Machiavelli as he believes it is okay for the Prince to have a reputation for cruelty
especially when on campaign (The Prince, 2007, p. 36). Modi’s executive actions are thus
measured in the ‘macho-man’ standards.
Modi’s image has is that of a self-made, efficient and an incorruptible leader, in contrast to
Rahul Gandhi whose constructed image is that of being incapable of taking decisions, immature
and a product of dynastic politics. Parallels can be drawn between Rahul Gandhi in Indian
context and Alexander in Machiavelli’s context, as in both the cases the image of them working
on the commands of their mothers and being effeminate brought their downfall. Modi has
done a three-month course on public relations and image management; he himself
understands very well the 3Ps of marketing – presentation, propagation and persuasion (Ahsan,
2019). He knows what to say when and turn the situation to draw the maximum mileage, even
when the facts aren’t in his favor. Modi employs the cleverly crafted the image of alpha male
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
using the tool of ‘fifty-six inches chest’ (Price, 2015, p. 11). Modi becomes what the Indian
masses want him to be by using the tools of propaganda and misinformation. Modi’s rhetoric is
about creating binaries between the nationalist and the anti-nationalist, the Chowkidaar and
the English-speaking entitled elite (the Khan Market gang/Lutyens) (Biswas, 2019). The Howdy
Modi event at Houston was an expression of the larger politics of power display to show that
India stood with Modi and US with India. He manages to artfully stand in as the representative
of nation, constantly producing identification. He is aware that the masses won’t be impressed
by trade statistics but by the image of Modi shaking hands with Donald Trump, the US
President. His politics is spectacular in the sense that gives people the confidence that there will
always be a next move, another spectacle of his leadership to witness. Modi reminds of us of
Ferdinand Aragon in the Machiavellian context, who kept his subjects in a state of amazement
and anxiety about what was going to happen next and acted on a grandiose scale (The Prince,
2007, p. 47). Modi, just like the Machiavellian Prince is considerate about the public opinion.
Therefore, Modi’s political discourse is intrinsically rhetorical, based on post-truth, alternative
facts and constructed imaginations.
The Machiavellian Prince is the one who doesn’t allow everyone to speak or question him, as it
can have detrimental consequences on the respect of the Prince. Modi has been repeatedly
accused of using the administrative machinery to settle scores against those who refuse to fall
in line ("Narendra Modi: Messiah or Machiavelli?", 2019). One of the main problems that may
people have with him within his party is that he goes with what he considers right. Under him,
the space for political freedom and dissent is increasingly shrinking. Pratap Bhanu Mehta notes,
“it is difficult to remember a time” when the “premium on public and professional discourse
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
marching to the state’s tune was as high” (Tharoor, 2019). India ranks at 142 among 180
countries in the 2020 Press Freedom Index of Reporters Sans Borders ("2020 World Press
Freedom Index | RSF", 2020). Modi blatantly declines to have any press conferences. Modi’s
regime has been maintaining a ‘panoptican’ state in terms of monitoring and regulating the
citizens. Majority of the press in India, whether out of sycophancy or fear, has decided to be
amnesic of Modi’s tainted image as the ‘maut ka saudagar’ (trader of death), a dig taken
against him by Sonia Gandhi in the context of the Godhra riots. The rest who dare to speak
against the ruling dispensation are derogatively called the ‘paid-media’ (Sanghvi, 2018).
Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay quoting a local journalist, writes that if one plans to write about Modi,
you go him, and you write what he wants you to write’ (Mukhopadhyay, 2013, p. 45-46).
Another journalist has been quoted as follows:
“Modi can get extremely vindictive if you write reports that are critical of him. All lines
of information get blocked so the choice is to either stop any critical reporting or just
skim the surface making a few discomforting points here and there but never writing
anything that does substantial damage.” (Mukhopadhyay, 2013, p. 46).
Modi is truly Machiavellian in the sense that he doesn’t like to listen to any other viewpoint
besides his own, he is authoritarian and undemocratic, and doesn’t allow his peers to acquire a
distinct identity of their own and thereby even remotely pose any threat. Mukhopadhyay
quotes Gordhanbhai Zadaphia, a former BJP minister:
“[I never] liked the functioning of Narendrabhai — I consider — that he thinks of himself
as above the organization, whether it is the Parivar or the BJP — he has a very autocratic
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
style of functioning. Narendrabhai always tried to remove his opponents.”
(Mukhopadhyay, 2013, p. 45).
However, many regard Modi as Janus-faced, that’s on one side is the chief minister-cum-
administrator’s face and on the other, is the politician. Modi is said to take credit of others
doings and use it to increase his popularity and glory. Despite having his inner circle to guide
and advise him on policy decisions, he ensures the last word is his. Like the Machiavellian
Prince, he is aware that if he wins the credits for holding his state, his means will be considered
honest and he will be praised. He understands that people are taken by what a thing seems to
be, not what it is. Mukhopadhyay reinforces how Modi shares this trait with Machiavelli as he
quotes:
“The chief ministerial face of this personality listens to his officers and bureaucrats and
in the words of a very senior officer, has this ‘…great ability to make someone else
knowledge his own.” (Mukhopadhyay, 2013, p. 46).
For the Machiavellian Prince, the task of selecting his ministers is critical as he believes in the
necessity of confident relationships. They need to be loyal, competent, and wise and have to be
kept in check so as to ensure they do not consolidate enough power to challenge the Prince.
Machiavelli stresses that those who cause someone else to become powerful bring their own
ruin (The Prince, 2007, p.7) The Prince should have wise advisors who give advice only when
sought. Modi’s dream team, as pointed out by Sushant Sareen of the Observer Research
Foundation, is comprised of Rajnath Singh, Ajit Dowal and Amit Shah. (Sareen, 2019) Price also
mentions about Modi’s inner circle. He writes:
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
“Within the BJP it was Amit Shah, his closest political ally and a controversial former
minister in the Gujarat government. Piyush Goyal, a member of the upper house of
parliament, was party treasurer and had responsibility for the campaign advertising.
Ram Lal, the RSS general secretary in charge of organisation, dealt with the cadres on
the ground. Ram Madhav was the link person with the RSS leadership. Representing the
volunteer groups, the most influential person was Prashant Kishor, who was now
running an organisation called Citizens for Accountable Governance, or the CAG. From
the Gujarat government secretariat, Modi depended greatly on the sagacity and
experience of the chief principal secretary, Kuniyal Kailasanathan, or ‘K.K.’ as he is
known… Arun Jaitley was one of the party’s most confident and eloquent spokespeople.
Dr Hiren Joshi handled Modi’s personal interactions on social media. Sanjay Bhavsar had
responsibility for managing his schedule. A.K. Sharma, another of the senior Gujarat
bureaucrats, contributed to his speeches, while G.C. Murmu looked after legal affairs.
Bharat Lal, the state of Gujarat’s resident commissioner in Delhi, acted as Modi’s eyes
and ears in the capital while the campaign was being run from Gandhinagar. Among the
professionals for whom Modi’s door was always open were Manoj Ladwa, a Gujarati-
born London lawyer, who spent several weeks in India working closely with the core
team, and Rajesh Jain, a Mumbai-based internet entrepreneur.” (Price, 2015, p. 51)
Another interesting thing about Modi is that he is a consummate politician who often resorts to
politics of silence to look other way when perpetrators of violence happen to be people who
revere and adore him, for example, people from the parent ideological core of his political party
BJP, that’s the RSS. Silence was also used by Modi on his role in Godhra riots of 2002, for he
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
neither acknowledged nor apologized (C V, 2016). Modi’s refusal to apologize for the anti-
Muslim violence of 2002 shored up his political support among hardliners of BJP and the parent
organization, RSS (Price, 2015, p. 31). He tends to maintain a safe distance which explains the
impunity that vigilante groups receive and ensuring his reputation doesn’t get tainted. As Price
rightly points out:
“The Modi spin machine appears to use a mix of official, quasi-official and private
players, with fragmented responsibilities, a structure that allows for grey areas of
accounting and accountability.” (Price, 2015, p. 34)
Modi appealed to the middle class, talked about the traditional Indian values, and railed against
the Indian ‘westernized’ elites (Sanghvi, 2018). In the beginning of his tenure, he had the image
of being pro-rich, the suit boot ki sarkaar image; however, midway he changed his tack and
starting maintaining a deception of being anti-elitist. This anti-elitist narrative also goes with
the Machiavellian principle of keeping the nobles in check. Machiavelli stresses upon the
distinction between the common people and the nobles as he believes the Prince needs to
master this conflict. Modi seems to have effectually done that, as the gap between the
intellectual elite and the masses is higher than ever. Modi swears by ‘hardwork’, not ‘Harvard’
("Hard work is more powerful than Harvard: Modi", 2019), which is basically another jibe
against the elite who he called the ‘Khan Market Gang’or the ‘Lutyens’. ‘Chowkidar Chor Hai’, a
dig against him, ultimately became his war cry (Ahmad, 2019). He changed that narrative to
‘Mai bhi Chowkidar’, reminding people of his humble origins and yet again scoring a point
against the elites who were dominant not only in politics but also had accumulated vast wealth
in the Congress era. Modi’s support extensively comes from the youth which have been
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
exposed to social media apps like TikTok and WhatsApp. Social media has played a great role in
upending their cloistered upbringings and hierarchies, which makes the youth more likely to
embrace BJP’s anti-elite rhetoric. Modi’s New India is the one which is less embarrassed by it
limited heavily accented English, takes pride in its Hindu roots and is assertive in defense of
what it regards as its national interest (Kapur, 2019). Modi’s critique of the elite is politically
astute and not entirely off-base as the very election of an ‘outsider’ ChaiWala represents a
cultural revolution in itself (Mishra, 2019). Modi is the pariah, who considers himself isolated
from the elite class. (Price, 2015, p. 13)
However, Modi has little to deliver to the downtrodden (C V, 2016). For the Machiavellian
Prince to be successful the weakest in regime should be able to feel secure and become their
defender (The Prince, 2007, p. 5), but in Modi’s regime, they happen to be the most vulnerable.
Debunking the myth, Modi and his party draw their support largely from the upper castes and
the rich. If we take voters at large, BJP is a party of the elite for the elite and undisputedly, the
richest party in India (Venkataramakrishnan, 2019). The government in its actions is pro-rich
and pro-corporate (C V, 2016), but by its words creates a deception of being pro-poor and pro-
downtrodden. In one of his speeches delivered at Central Hall of Parliament on 20th May 2014,
Modi said:
“[His] government is one which thinks about the poor, listens to the poor and which
exists for the poor. … The new government is dedicated to the poor. This government is
for the villagers, farmers, Dalits and the oppressed, for their aspirations and this is our
responsibility.”("Text of Narendra Modi’s speech at Central Hall of Parliament", 2019)
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
The only thing that Modi government seems to be offering the downtrodden is passionate
rhetoric (C V, 2016). Though, the 2014 election campaign was based on the promises of
economic growth, hope of Acche din (good days), getting rid of corruption and dynastic politics,
Modi government then eventually self-crafted the demonitisation disaster. It is pertinent to
note here that the Machiavelli’s ideal Prince is the one who couldn’t care less about keeping his
word and is able to manipulate the mind of the masses by his shrewdness (C V, 2016). However,
demonitisation has to be looked from the paradigm of power. It was a display of Modi’s power
with a dose of morality and an arbitrary government crackdown on an already precarious
economy. Since Modi can no longer employ promises of economic development to make the
poor jump into his bandwagon, he strategically employs politics of religion, fear and
nationalism. Modi, like the Machiavellian Prince, doesn’t shy away from setting lofty goals and
breaks promises for practical gains. Modi’s manifesto was rather more a mixture of hard and
fast promises and a wish list for a distant future. Some of these commitments were pretty
vague, while others highly ambitious. As Price points out:
“With admirable ambition the manifesto says that ‘The time of knee jerk reactions and
incremental change has gone. What we need is a quantum leap and a total change.’ So
perhaps the BJP government will manage to ‘modernise and equip all stations with
requisite infrastructure and public utilities’, but we shall have to see. Likewise with the
pledge to ‘facilitate piped water to all households’. None of these promises is costed.
Perhaps most ambitious of all is the ‘low cost housing programme’ which will be
expected ‘to ensure that by the time the nation completes 75 years of independence,
every family will have a pucca house of its own’.” (Price, 2015, p. 88-89)
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
It is pertinent to note here that the 75 year celebration falls on 2022 and the latest census
figures show that more than 1.8 million people are homeless across the country.
Machiavelli strongly believes in tapping the military might as a means to consolidate power. For
him, war is an exercise in public relations. His ideal Prince should think of war as inevitable and
even in peacetime, preparations for war must be carried out. War not only consolidates the
Prince’s power in relation to his enemies and allies, but also has a significant domestic impact
as it keeps the people in the Prince’s kingdom content and satiated. He reiterates the necessity
maintain defense not only to provide security but also deter to enemies. He stresses on self
reliance and effective projection of power. Modi plays politics with the Indian army, fetishizes it
and capitalizes politically from their operations (Shukla, 2019). Even though he is continually
resisting peace efforts and showing the Machiavellian characteristic of readiness to go to war
(The Prince, 2007, p. 7), in reality, he is doing little to actually strengthen the forces. This could
be seen as a major difference between the Machiavellian Prince and him as the former believes
in consolidating and advancing his military might. BJP 2.0 politicizes army to make electoral
gains. Post the army surgical strikes in Balakot, Surgical Strike Day celebrations were ordered to
be held in government institutions. Post surgical strikes, Modi rode a wave of jingoistic fervor
for electoral gains to sweep Uttar Pradesh. At a poll rally in Latur district of Maharashtra, Modi
explicitly asked the first-time voters to dedicate their vote to soldiers who carried out the
airstrike in Balakot and the ‘ veer shaheed’ (brave martyrs) of the Pulwama terror attack (ET
Bureau, 2019). While reinforcing the need to discipline the enemy nation, that’s Pakistan,
Nirmala Sitharaman, defense minister in Modi’s cabinet, went on to the extent of confirming
that Indian army had beheaded Pakistani soldiers, becoming the first leader ever to confirm
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
mutilation of the enemy soldier (Shukla, 2019). This might help India domestically but it
significantly underlies India’s credibility in the global political landscape.
Under Modi government, 36 Rafale fighters were purchased from the French company
Dassault. It again is a move detrimental to the forces as it led to soft-pedaling the purchase of
other weapons and equipment that were badly needed by the Indian Armed Forces. The
cancellation of 126 aircraft tender and its replacement by mere 36 Rafale fighters puts India in a
deficit of 90 fighters, and this deficit is likely to deepen in the coming years (Jaipragas, 2019). In
Modi’s regime, defense budget allocations are at a 55-year low - 83% of this budget goes on
manpower and operations, while the remaining goes on modernizing and advancing
ammunitions (Shukla, 2019). Modi, by his fetishization of the forces, aroused hopes of soldiers
with promises of giving them the real attention not just a mention in his speeches, but so far, it
has just been a political jamboree and nothing else. It is pertinent to mention here that Indian
army’s 67% of the equipment is outdated. In contrast, India’s enemies, China and Pakistan are
continuing to arm rapidly. The current Biejing-Islamabad all-weather friendship can undermine
India’s power to a large extent. This move could be seen as an exemplary of Modi’s pro-elitist
stance, as he has been repeatedly charged with crony capitalism (Jaipragas, 2019). This could
even bring about Modi’s downfall as Rafale can be BJP’s Bofor!
Machiavelli believes Princes become great by defeating their opposition and attacking them in a
manner that they cannot even contemplate vengeance. Like the Prince, Modi is not easy on his
competitors and enemies and he hits them where it hurts them the most. If we look at Haren
Pandya’s case, Modi’s friend-turned-foe, Gordhan Zadaphia as quoted in Mukhopadhyay’s
book, says:
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
“I’m not saying Modi got Haren Pandya killed. I have no evidence. But the fact
remains—anyone who speaks against Modi from inside the BJP gets finished either
physically or politically” (as qtd in Mukhopadhyay, 2013, p. 176).
Looking at the case of Ahmed Patel, Modi’s political rival in Gujarat, Modi damaged his image
by linking him to Pakistani officials and claiming Pakistan’s interference in the elections. Modi
often employs the tool of patriotism to cut down his political opponents and portrays his rivals
as treasonous, bringing all Muslim politicians under suspicion, therefore, again fitting well in
BJP’s anti-Muslim and divisive politics. Such a narrative eventually marginalized the political
agency of the Muslim community. Modi has rarely been seen willing to forget the past and has
never forgiven those who dared to disagree or voice their criticism (Mukhopadhyay, 2013, p.
197). By contrast, Modi reveres his allies, as Machiavelli also points out to treat them well
enough to ensure they do not rebel against you. He never criticizes party elders in either public
or private. He insists, ‘There is a galaxy of leaders who are equally competent’ (Price, 2015, p.
46).
Modi doesn’t perfectly fit into Machiavelli’s conception of the ‘Eccelesiastical Prince’, but he
definitely has a strong backing of principles of religion. Modi has the backing of Hindu religion
per se, and Machiavelli claims the princes having such a backing can stay in power regardless of
how they live or behave (The Prince, 2007, p. 24). Modi employs religion as tool to consolidate
his power, offering to Indian masses Hindutva with right dilution. He presented a narrative that
was responsive to the needs of Hindus and stayed from ‘Muslim Appeasement’ (Sanghvi, 2018),
which helps him avoid the hatred of the powerful majority in the country as prescribed by
Machiavelli. Machiavelli argues in favor of the necessary game of internal politics, emphasizing
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
it sometimes is necessary to pit one group against the other in order to gain larger internal
support. Modi’s divisive politics tends to fall in line with Machiavelli. BJP under Modi argued
that Hindus were being shortchanged and only BJP could be the savior, this narrative resonated
with the significant segment of the electorate that’s the Hindus. Modi and the BJP create a
binary between the Mandir and the Masjid (Mehta, 2017), which favors their electoral promises
of constructing a Ram Mandir at Ayodhya. ‘By refusing to put Muslim fears to rest, Modi feeds
them. By clinging to the anti-Muslim vote, he nurtures it’(Price, 2015, p. 25). Their politics
includes fostering divisiveness and arguments over history, portrayal of Muslims as invaders
and the need to reclaim India’s lost glory that only a strong leader like Modi can bring about.
Their campaigns are designed in a way that makes Muslims increasingly irrelevant. Modi has
managed to successfully tap into politics of hope and politics of fear. The former is the
development rhetoric and the latter is based on the construction of the narrative that India and
the Hindu majority are under threat, fear of sabotage by Pakistan and misdeeds by the ‘anti-
national’ hostile elements (Sen, 2019). He uses both personal and national victimhood while
employing the anti-elite, anti-Congress, anti-Muslim and the anti-Pakistan card. 2019 election
was explicitly based on Hindu nationalism and majoritarianism to an extent that Hindutva can
no longer be seen as an upper caste/class phenomenon. His politics reinstated the need to aim
at the cultural regeneration of Hindutva and an open assertion of religious and cultural
majoritarianism.
2019 election was fought on the nationalist card, wherein the voters were constantly reminded
that it was Modi who taught Kashmiris and Pakistanis a lesson. However, this politics also fits
perfectly in BJP’s anti-Muslim rhetoric. Modi’s campaign was drenched in communal innuendo
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
(Saran, 2017). His electoral campaigns have been based on politics of fear. He proves the
Machiavellian principle that power doesn’t come preloaded with morality. With Modi coming
to power, RSS loyalists have been seeded in almost every institution – significantly weakening
them. There has been an imposition of food bans and we see subversion of individual rights
(Saran, 2017), while at the same time communalism and religious bullying seems to be
encouraged in this regime. Modi engages with the crowds with a great fervent and visceral
passion. If we analyze Modi’s election speech at Banaskantha, it would not be wrong to suggest
it was strung with communal canards and conspiracy theories (Mehta, 2017). Modi
communicates to masses in idioms and phrases (Ahmad, 2019) dripped in communal innuendo,
which help him claim monopoly over patriotism. His speeches are delivered with great
precision; he weaves the personal and political, the local and the national, and emotional with
the policy content. (Price, 2015, p. 12)
Modi, just like the Machiavellian Prince, ensures he is the most important entity in the state –
the ruler is the state and state is the ruler, people hardly matter. 2014 and 2019 elections can
be rightly summed in two words: Narendra and Modi. Modi, as he himself pointed out, is the
only issue. He functions on the level of personal identification with the masses. The
#IamNewIndia campaign is a part of this charismatic system in which Modi operates. One
cannot deny that Modi is the mandate. As Price puts it: ‘Modi first, Modi second, Modi last’
(Price, 2015, p. 17). Arun Jaitley interestingly noted that if you take Modi away, 90% speeches
of the opposition will be over, reinforcing Modi’s powerful imagery (Tiwari, 2019). He has
successfully personalized the campaign by displaying a grasp on the public opinion and guiding
the public perception. His parent organization, the RSS, lays down the ideological groundwork
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
for his victory; it constructs a public discourse that favors Modi. Modi is not just a political
phenomenon but a large social movement which seems to have encompassed India at large
and doesn’t rely on sociological determinism of caste and class. Modi has constructed his image
as that of a Messiah for the Indian population. A Centre for Study of Developing Societies
(CSDS) report showed that had Modi not been the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate, people
would have supported other parties (Biswas, 2019). This in itself is exemplary of how the
elections were all about Modi and his leadership. By mining national security and foreign policy
for electoral gains, Modi constructs a political reality and an imagination that favors him to an
extent that he seems to have colonized our consciousnesses (Mehta, 2019) so much so that
even criticizing him underscores his importance and reinforce his imaginative hold – fantasies,
hopes and fear to an extent that even resistance to him works in his favor. He has successfully
crafted the art of being everywhere. His persona is larger than his cadre-based party - he is the
symbol of hope and aspiration of the masses. In the flamboyant, techno-savvy, wanderlust
Modi, Indian millennials see a bit of themselves too. Modi’s electoral arithmetic is directly
proportional to his charisma and political alchemy!
Under Modi and Amit Shah, BJP has been successful in developing the party machinery that is in
a constant campaigning mode. It shouldn’t be surprising that Modi’s cabinet has always been a
slimmed down affair as his key campaign tagline was that of ‘less government, more
governance’ (Price, 2015, p.129). What we have witnessed is also a dangerous concentration of
power in his hands, perhaps the greatest concentration of power in the modern history. A
similar remark was made by Abhijit Banerjee, the Nobel Laureate, who stressed on how the
excessive centralization under Modi has not only created an aura of fear but has also slowed
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
down decision making as now it is one man making decisions for a country as huge as India. This
new modus operandi has ruffled even his own ministers as Modi happens to be going over their
heads and trying to run their departments from the center - ‘even our secretaries and advisers
are imposed on us. We don’t have any decision-making powers’ (Price, 2015, p. 130). What we
witness is an intense deification and personification of one man, one leader that is Modi – Modi
is an exaltation of power and control (Mehta, 2019). In both its institutional and aesthetic form,
Modi’s victory is the victory of Ceasarism where the power of every institution from business to
religious institutions, revolve around one man – Modi (Mehta, 2019). We happen to be in a
seemingly permanent state of nationalist arousal that sidelines all the social and economic
contradictions in Modi’s New India. This could be understood as the ‘mental and moral
sterilization of the society’, a concept developed by Leszek Kolakowski for a different context
but increasingly relevant in the Indian context (Mehta, 2019).
The Machiavellian Prince encourages his citizens to excel in their occupation and rewards those
who contribute to the prosperity of the state. He needs to show himself as the patron of virtu
and to honor those who are talented in any art or craft. He encourages his subjects to
undertake their ordinary occupations – commerce, agriculture and ensures no one is deterred
from starting up a business as a trader by fear of taxes or duties. Prince should instead create
incentives for doing things and anything else to improve his city (The Prince, 2007, p. 48). Modi
government is supportive of the entrepreneurial ventures as encapsulated by the following
one-liner of Modi: ‘The government has no business to be in business,’ and ‘I will turn
redtapism to red carpet,’ (Mukhopadhyay, 2013, p. 226). He is not only popular among Non-
Resident Indians but also among the Gujarati industrialists. Modi during his tenure as Gujarat’s
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
Chief Minister organized various business summits and ensured frequent interactions with the
industry and winning over sections of intelligentsia.
Modi is seen as a man who works for the country and not his family. Modi even in his campaign
maintained that he was a man without any personal ambitions, as Price quotes him saying in
the final stage of his campaign: ‘I am a person who never dreamt of becoming anything, you
should always dream of doing something’ (Price, 2015, p. 17). Modi’s humble beginnings were
an important part of the narrative that used his own transformation through hard work and
dedication to tell a story of what India itself could achieve if it chose to do (Price, 2015, p. 18).
The Machiavellian Prince should avoid inducing hatred by keeping his hands off the property
and women of his subjects. Modi’s image is similar to the Machiavellian Prince in this regard as
well. In a patriarchal setup like India wherein the position of women becomes a live political
issue, it is an issue for Modi as well. The subject of women in Modi’s life came up when two
investigative news websites, ‘www.cobrapost.com’ and ‘www.gulail.com’ broke a story
instantly dubbed ‘Snoopgate’. 267 recordings were handed over to the Central Bureau of
Investigation in this matter. The two websites claimed these where telephone conversations
from August 2009 in which Amit Shah, Modi’s close aide and confidante, could be heard
ordering the surveillance of a young architect who later came to be known as ‘Madhuri’. As
mentioned by Price in his book:
“According to www.gulail.com, ‘The tapes indicate that for at least over a month the
Gujarat police apparatus used its sweeping powers to rigorously monitor every private
moment, every personal conversation and every daily movement of Madhuri . . . Strict
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
orders were given to closely observe and profile those who met her. Shah was
particularly interested in knowing the men she was meeting and whether she was alone
or with some man when she checked into a hotel in Ahmedabad. Her phones and those
of her family and friends were tapped. Every bit of information was conveyed to Shah in
real time, who in turn claimed to be relaying it to his Saheb.” (Lance, 2015, p. 61)
Modi’s party reacted to these allegations in no time and deemed them as foundationless and
made it look like another Congress stunt against Modi. Rajnath Singh further pointed out that
the girl’s father had asked Modi for security of his daughter, and further said: ‘The head of the
government is responsible for ensuring the safety and security of the people. Modi was only
performing his dharma [duty]’(Price, 2015, p. 62). Therefore, the notion that Modi is the
defender of the subjects, especially the women was reinforced.
Cruelty, for Machiavelli, is a necessary evil which can be justified for the greater public good like
internal stability. His ideal Prince doesn’t hesitate to punish delinquents, sort out suspects, and
to fix any weaknesses in his position (The Prince, 2007, p. 4). If we look at the recent de-
operationalization of Article 370 in Kashmir and imposition of the longest clampdown including
shutting all means of communication, one might consider it to be unethically or amorally done.
However, Modi played the ideal Machiavellian who did not bother about what others would
say. The Modi government overnight ordered detentions of 2300-4000 men, including minors
as young as 9 year old, to curb any sort of rebellion against the move. The arbitrary action in
Kashmir was projected as a triumph as the purpose of the Modi regime seems to be the show
of power, nationalist fervor, and social control. Bold actions, like the one taken in Kashmir, are
now the order of the day in Modi’s New India. (Mehta, 2019)
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
In conclusion, Modi seems to check every box in the Machiavelli’s ideal prince. He is an
intelligent combination of the fox and the lion – is able to identify the problems the moment
they are born and is undisputedly, the most powerful in the Indian context presently. However,
it is important to note that though Machiavelli’s The Prince illustrates the political paradigm
with a wide range of exemplary rulers like Cesare Borgia, however, he wants his ideal Prince to
be someone who unites Italy. In the Indian context, Modi, though being the ideal Machiavellian
Prince, is showing tendencies of dividing the Indian nation like never before. Modi has the
majoritarian mandate and he was seen as the harbinger of change, however, even Machiavelli
notes that sometimes men who change their rulers in the hopes of bettering themselves, end
up worsening their condition (The Prince, 2007, p.3).
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
Works Cited
2020 World Press Freedom Index | RSF. (2020). Retrieved 2019, from
https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table
Ahmad, S. (2019). Making Sense of Modi via Machiavelli’s Prince. Retrieved 29 October 2019,
from https://www.asiavillenews.com/article/making-sense-of-modi-via-machiavelli-
prince-6496
Ahsan, S. (2019). The secret behind Modi’s Machiavellian smirk. Retrieved 29 October 2019,
from http://saudigazette.com.sa/article/67132
Biswas, S. (2019, May 24). How Narendra Modi has reinvented Indian politics. Retrieved
October 29, 2019, from https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-india-48293048.
C V, S. (2016). Narendra Modi, The Machiavellian Prince Of India – Countercurrents. Retrieved
28 October 2019, from https://countercurrents.org/2016/08/narendra-modi-the-
machiavellian-prince-of-india
Chaudhuri, S. (2019). Of Modi and Machiavellian rulers. Retrieved 28 October 2019, from
