Leaders are expected to possess that minimum discerning ability which allows them to read and feel the pulse of the people they lead: the masses. Those who refuse to do that invariably end up being shunted out of their roles, by the force and power of the people. This is more truer in the context of political leadership than corporate leadership since for the latter there is available a legally empowered Board of Directors to take care of any CEO who doesn’t meet the objectives of his job/ entity.
In nascent democracies, stubborn and unpopular leadership is usually removed from power through the military that may or may not have constitutional sanction. In such jurisdictions, there are always available a compliant judiciary, to later give the putsch a legal validation. We have called it the ‘doctrine of necessity’. In this kind of environment, it is the street power of the people that makes possible the toppling of an unpopular leader. History is replete with examples where the rulers were dragged on the streets by their own people.
A great leader is one who knows, when to lead and when to step behind. Not every country can afford to have a political dynastic rule, unabatedly and unashamedly, other than the Kim family of Pyongyang. People, generally, get tired of seeing the same faces , pouring out to them the same old wine in new packaging. They offer nothing better, except Himalayan promises that are rarely delivered or achieved.
In recent time, Dr. Mahathir of Malaysia has been a remarkable exception. The People’s Republic of China’s leadership has done well for its people, but they operate under an entirely different political precept, that is neither entirely socialist, nor is it the unbridled full capitalist orientation; it is a unique political and economic system that not many countries can adventure to adopt. Yet, People’s Republic of China has political changes too, but mostly after long years of stable periods. The underlying principle is the pursuance of consistent economic and political gains.
Narendra Modi in contrast to these ideals of leadership reminds me of the remarks made by Franklin D Roosevelt, “I am reminded of four definitions: A Radical man with both feet firmly planted in the air. A Conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs, who, however, has never learned to walk forward. A Reactionary is a somnambulist walking backwards. A Liberal is a man who uses his legs and his hands at the behest…at the command…of his head”. Modi’s illusions of the grandeur of Akhand Bharat is illustrated in this reference. He is all of those descriptions. A complete sum total of FDR’s views.
Modi arrived into New Delhi with some economic success story achieved in his native state of Gujarat. Although as Chief Minister he had ordered the mass massacre/genocide of Muslims in Ahmedabad and other cities of Gujarat. The tragedy unleashed upon innocent Muslims led him to being denied a visit visa by the United States of America. He swallowed the insult, given the crocodile skin he wears on his persona, which he miserably fails to mask through wearing of Saffron colour clothing.
Modi’s roots lie in the militant wing of BJP (earlier called Jan Sangh), named RSS. This political artery of BJP has since its formation in the 1920s been responsible for the mass murder of Muslims—organised through regular communal riots. It was his “saffron appeal” that led him to the office of becoming chief minister of Gujarat. Thereafter, with rapid speed, he ascended through party ranks, to be hoisted as Prime minister of India. A highly communalist oriented Muslim hater became PM of secular India. A joke. His joining in Indian politics is possibly the longest suicide note in its history. He is taking India to being the wisest foolish country.
Historically, India to begin with wasn’t a country or nation and significantly, nowhere in history, there is any recording of a “Hindu India”. Instead, all history puts to limelight that India had always been secular. In the pre-partition days, India was ruled by several Maharaja(s), Prince(s) and Kings. Hyderabad Deccan, a princely state as large as France, wasn’t part of Indian Union; it was ruled by a Muslim and his subjects were largely Hindus. Junagadh, Kashmir and Patiala, etc. were all independent states. Patel gobbled them by force.
In the BC era, India again wasn’t a Hindu country or area. The Mauryan Empire was largely Buddhist; it also had pre-dominance of Jainism. Brahmanism (Hindu) was a far third religion. Ashoka, with vehemence, pursued to promote Buddhism in India. Ashoka’s moral code’s cornerstone was characterised by peaceful coexistence of all religions. Modi is undoing India’s excellent historical chronicles of being a land of peace and tolerance. Today, the society is polarised. It is being constructed upon “hate”.
Nehru, Gandhi and all of their comrades who led the movement for independence, barring the communalist, Muslim hater the later Home minister Vallabhai Patel, the rest were secularists. They neither raised nor subscribed to the concept of “Hindu India “. Patel was also from Gujarat and active supporter of RSS. He disliked Gandhi and Nehru for their soft corner for Muslims. It is no surprise that it was an active member of RSS, Nathuram Godse, who took out Gandhi from the scene, with just a few bullets that got deposited with ease in his frail body. As a student of history, here, I conjecture that had Vallabhai Patel lived any longer, Nehru too would have been assassinated by RSS under Patel’s guidance.
Modi and his equally tarnished cabinet colleague (fast friend) Amit Shah are true descendents of RSS and active sympathisers of all those who are anti-Muslim. Both have presided over large-scale killings of the minorities, inclusive of Muslims, Buddhists, Jains, Christians, etc. The secular architecture of India, of which the country was always proud of until a few decades back, has become the most religiously villainous part of the Indian society. Secularism is in tatters.
Modi’s attempt to internationally isolate Pakistan has boomeranged so badly that his nose now bleeds, endlessly. The false-flag at Pahalgam, followed by the limited air engagement, when Pakistan downed 5 Indian planes (Raffle, considered to be as formidable as any military aircraft), Modi’s popularity has been on the decline. President Trump in his usual “generosity” has until last count increased the number downed to 11 Raffles. In his new found love for Pakistan, he has directly and indirectly, used sarcasm to rub salt into the wounds of Modi (albeit, done rightfully).
India today suffers from total isolation. After his disastrous decision to shake hands with Netanyahu and for back-stabbing Iran, the world community does not see him as an entity to engage. For achieving durable peace Pakistan to Modi’s chagrin has emerged as a loyal, trustworthy and reliable partner in the region. Pakistan is seen in the role of being a net- security provider to the Middle East. Our soldiers and equipment are on Saudi soil, already.
When Pakistan hosted the Iran-US talks, the anchors on Indian TV channels went bonkers; each of them was doing their best to prove to the audience that they indeed were truly an Irrefutable evidence of Charles Darwin’s theory on the origins and evolution of man. In the studio they were jumping jacks, unashamedly, bashing Pakistan. But now, all guns are blazing upon Modi and his inabilities, relating to India being the internationally isolated country.
Pakistan’s diplomacy has been at its best since the last such zenith achieved in 1974 when the Lahore Islamic Summit was hosted. The Indian media is now praising Pakistan, not because they wish to, but for reasons, to criticise and censure, Narendra Modi. Modi has become hugely unpopular. An aspect he refuses to recognise. A devil incarnate, he is vindictive; hence musing while nursing his wounds of the loss to Pakistan last April.
If spot elections are held, Modi will certainly lose. It is therefore best for him to step down and take Amit Shah with him to the lands of political oblivion. If there is anyone, young who hasn’t been indoctrinated by Modi’s falsehood based, Illusions of Akhand Bharat or of Hindu supremacy, he or she should step forward to lead India, back to its ideals of Panchsheel and Secularism.
Modi’s perspective of history is so coloured that he views Muslims as descendents of invaders. He should listen to his able compatriot, Shashi Tharoor’s discourse on how Islam came to Kerala, to get his sense of history corrected.
Intelligent leaders know when the lights will go off the dimming of the flash bulbs on the centre stage has commenced. Lee Kuan Yew, the Indisputable architect of today’s modern Singapore and father of its success, stepped down voluntarily to give space to young leaders. Deng Xiaoping took a back seat. The Shah of Iran, Raza Pahlavi, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, and more recently, Hasina Wajed, stubbornly and wrongfully clung to power and then the wheel of time removed them dishonorably.
Under Narendra Modi, India has lost its character and identity. It is about time the Indians realised the long-term damage their PM is inflicting upon the social fabric. No society in history that feeds itself upon hatred has either progressed or achieved sustainability. Natural justice demands corrections of wrongs. The undoing of India must be stopped by the people of India who are mostly peace loving Hindus; the cardinal principle of Hinduism is “ahimsa”, which is non- violence.
Narendra Modi and Amit Shah, alongside all the Hindu zealots must read the wall and see the invisible on the anvil. Disaster looms if they don’t make way for new enlightened leadership to take reins in New Delhi.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
The writer is a Banker & the Federal Banking Ombudsman