by Our Foreign Affairs Editor
Today, 17 September 2025, Narendra Modi turns seventy-five, a milestone that is more than symbolic in the labyrinth of Indian politics. For a man who has redefined the way power is imagined, projected, and performed in the world’s largest democracy, this birthday also coincides with an unspoken but increasingly relevant question: what happens when the era of Modi eventually gives way to the demands of political succession? The Bharatiya Janata Party, his political vehicle and ideological home, will have to confront this question with the same seriousness that India itself must confront its future without the man who has become synonymous with its politics. As with Lal Krishna Advani before him, age is not simply a number but a line drawn in the political sand, a Lakshman Rekha that parties rarely allow their leaders to cross. The difference, of course, is that replacing Modi will not be a mere act of organisational rotation—it will be the most consequential moment in post-independence Indian politics.
To appreciate this phenomenon, one must first recognise the length and depth of Modi’s dominance. He has already surpassed Indira Gandhi in terms of consecutive days in power and is second only to Jawaharlal Nehru in total years as prime minister. In a country known for coalition governments, revolving-door ministries, and fractured mandates, his ability to centralise political authority for over a decade speaks to a transformation of Indian politics into something closer to what political theorists might call a “presidentialised parliamentary democracy.” Giovanni Sartori’s insights into party systems and leadership charisma seem apt here: Modi embodies the paradox of being a parliamentary prime minister who nevertheless campaigns, governs, and communicates in a manner closer to a directly elected president. His own words reinforce this: “We walk together, we move together, we think together, we resolve together, and together we take this country forward.” Yet, the “together” here often blurs into a singular persona—the idea that India’s destiny is entwined with Modi’s will.
Modi’s political genius lies in the fusion of three distinct strands of leadership. First, the archetype of the self-made man, the son of a tea-seller who rose through the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the BJP ranks without dynastic privilege. In this sense, he dismantled what Christophe Jaffrelot has described as the “Nehruvian paradigm of elite politics,” introducing instead a new grammar of aspirational populism. Second, Modi redefined development politics. His slogan “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas” translated not merely into policy but into a discourse that positioned him as the architect of a new social contract—one in which welfare schemes, infrastructure drives, and digital expansion were presented as moral entitlements delivered through his personal stewardship. Third, his leadership drew from and deepened the current of Hindu nationalism, shifting it from the margins of Indian politics to its mainstream, and making it the hegemonic ideology of the state.
Economically, Modi’s years have been marked by bold, sometimes disruptive decisions that altered the very texture of Indian capitalism. The demonetisation of 2016, for instance, was less about economic calculus and more about political theatre, demonstrating the state’s ability to reassert control over capital and society. Similarly, the Goods and Services Tax, though flawed in implementation, created a unified market out of India’s fragmented fiscal system. Post-pandemic, India’s recovery has been robust, driven by domestic consumption and a digital ecosystem envied globally. But this record is not unblemished. Unemployment, rural distress, and inequality continue to cast long shadows. As Amartya Sen has often argued, development must be judged not only by aggregate growth but by capabilities expanded, and here the Modi years reveal tensions between headline growth and lived realities.
On the geopolitical stage, Modi has altered India’s self-presentation. From Madison Square Garden in New York to diaspora rallies in Sydney, he has projected a prime minister who is as much a global brand as a national leader. In realist terms, he has positioned India as a pole in an emerging multipolar order, balancing ties with the United States, Russia, and the Gulf, while sharpening strategic competition with China. His statement that “Those who believe in humanity must come together… Terrorism must be delegitimised” reflects not only India’s foreign policy imperatives but his framing of India as a civilisational power with moral authority. This blend of pragmatism and civilisational confidence marks a departure from the cautious internationalism of Nehru or the pragmatic liberalisation of Manmohan Singh.
Yet, the Modi phenomenon is not without its contradictions. His tenure has been shadowed by the memory of the 2002 Gujarat riots, the sharp polarisation of India’s social fabric, and growing anxieties among minorities. Critics see in his governance a majoritarian ethos that redefines secularism in narrow terms, while admirers see a leader who has unapologetically centred Hindu identity in national life. The truth, as with most complex leaders, lies somewhere between charisma and controversy. Political theorist Max Weber’s idea of “charismatic authority” helps explain Modi’s dominance: it rests not on tradition or bureaucratic structures but on the belief in the extraordinary qualities of one individual. The challenge, however, is that charisma by its nature is non-transferable.
And here lies the crux of India’s approaching dilemma. As Modi turns seventy-five, the BJP must ask itself the uncomfortable question: what after Modi? The precedent of Advani is instructive. Once the face of the party, he was quietly sidelined when age and political mood turned against him. But Modi is not Advani; he is not merely a leader of the BJP but the very embodiment of its electoral machine, its ideological assertion, and its global identity. To replace him is not to reshuffle personnel; it is to redraw the map of Indian politics. If the BJP succeeds in producing a successor, it will preserve the Modi legacy as a political doctrine rather than a personal charisma. If it fails, the vacuum could destabilise not only the party but the political system that has grown used to Modi’s singular dominance.
The consequences of such an exit will be generational. If Modi’s successor fails to command equal authority, India could return to the coalition politics of the 1990s, with unstable governments and policy paralysis. If, however, a successor emerges who maintains Modi’s ideological line while adapting to new realities, the BJP could extend its dominance for decades. But as political scientist Samuel Huntington once noted, institutions are stronger than men only if they are deliberately built to outlast charismatic leaders. The BJP’s institutionalisation of the “Modi model” will determine whether his exit becomes a rupture or a transition.
In many ways, Modi himself has hinted at the ethic that will define his legacy. “Hard work never brings fatigue. It brings satisfaction,” he once said. For him, politics is less about the fatigue of governance and more about the satisfaction of shaping destiny. His life, as he put it, is an opportunity to “live for the country” if not to die for it. The paradox of such a life is that it cannot easily be followed. Charisma is not taught, it is not handed down—it is lived. India now faces the daunting but inevitable prospect of imagining itself without Modi at the helm, and in doing so, it must ask whether the Modi phenomenon was a chapter in its history or the beginning of a new political epoch.
As Modi blows out the candles on his seventy-fifth birthday, the metaphor of the Lakshman Rekha becomes impossible to ignore. Crossing it may mean the BJP risks repeating the mistakes of over-reliance on a single leader. Respecting it means confronting the most delicate succession crisis in modern Indian politics. Either way, the decisions taken in the next few years will not merely define the BJP’s future; they will shape India’s political trajectory for decades to come.
