Volumes have been written on Narendra Modi’s persona with many critics (such as Christophe Jaffrelot, Nitasha Kaul, Catarina Kinnvall, Ravinder Kaur among others) confidently projecting Modi as unabashedly masculine in his politics. Most of them locate Modi’s masculinity within Hindu nationalism and its supposedly aggressive  culture. Modi fits into the easy binary template where Nehru is the soft person given to cosmopolitan values, liberal education and inclusive politics not to mention his love for roses and affection for children. Modi is presented as the contrast of those qualities leading to what many believe an exclusionary politics with bias for Hindus, and an aggressive international relations complex. This supposedly muscular approach to politics and culture rooted in Hindutva, combined with attitudinal rigidities,  and the absence of urbane sophistication (even though he articulates well) contribute to the myth of Modi masculinity. Much of critical literature sees Modi in physical attributes and corporeality, which requires robbing him off all intellectual qualities. In this pursuit Nehru is represented as the  intellectual superior, the reason why he is seen in terms of modernity and scientific temper. Unlike the urban restraint of Nehru, Modi apparently does not believe in self-effacement; his gait, his swagger and his ability to attract attention on to himself reveal his character as much as the people who idolize him for being a super-human figure (captured in the slogan Modi hai to mumkin hai or Modi makes it possible).

Literature on Modi masculinity draws upon Modi’s physical body (exaggerating an election speech where he boasted of a 56 inch chest) to the exclusion of his policies. Understanding his speeches as an indicator of Modi’s character is one thing, but converting these  to character is misleading. Some scholars see a renewed interest in hyper masculine identity of Hindus as an attempt to move Hinduism away from Gandhian ahimsa to Modi’s aggressive pursuit of Hindutva. But we must not forget the fact that if Gandhi’s politics was avowedly Hindu, Modi’s understanding of physical fitness is equally Hindu. If Gandhi reversed colonialist understanding of Indian effeminacy by investing in it moral superiority, Modi went to tradition to recover Hinduism’s core values. His ‘56 inch chest’ and the resolve to go after terrorists, contrast of his own majboot (strong) and Manmohan Singh’s majboor (helpless) sarkar, mockery of ma bete ki Sarkar (govt. run by mother and son, referring to the power wielded by Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi over a weak Prime Minister Manmohan Singh) are as much directed at his own conviction as it is a castigation of the previous government. Though all these sound like the revival of the traditional man of yore and institutionalization of hegemonic masculinity, in reality Modi-masculinity is symbolic of a new kind of fashioning where traditional masculinity meets nationalism, aspirations of lower-class  and developmentalism.

Modi’s axiomatic aggression in his election rallies (that often act as anecdotes for any kind of critical engagement) produces a different kind of impact among people who see him not merely as one who can deliver, but also one who can fight every odd. The fact of the matter is that Modi is also a modernizer in his push for digital culture and economic reforms. If we believe psychoanalyst Sudhir Kakar, in India there is a strong preference for an authoritative, even autocratic leader who is strict, demanding but also caring and nurturing – very much like the karta, the paternalistic head of the extended family. Very few leaders can demand so much from people/citizens in what they can do for the country and how much hardship they can endure (as during demonetization or social/physical distancing during the pandemic) for the benefit of the nation. If we delink body from power, and then redefine power as the ability to channelize the nation’s aspirations, we will have a better model to understand power. That makes Modi’s masculinity not hegemonic, but constructive and developmental. Modi’s focus on housing, sanitation, health insurance, LPG subsidy and bank accounts for all stole the Left thunder that his government is only for the rich. Thus Modi, at most, may be masculine in the realm of culture but feminine in the realm of economy.

To understand Modi’s masculinity, we have to integrate his rhetoric with his life-style, everyday habits, prepared speeches and his social/economic policies. During the pandemic, his carefully grown snow-white beard shifted his masculinity from that of an inflexible monster (as he is presented in left-liberal circles) to that of a sage. Similarly his playing with peacocks at his official residence is designed to evoke emotions of calmness and reflective mood. His focus on yoga, surya namaskar etc. brings another dimension that makes his character rooted in Indian tradition. Modi’s politics also draws from Indian akhada and ascetic traditions, where women are to be treated as mothers and sisters, something that explains his address to mataon aur behno (mothers and sisters) and so should not be seen as paternalistic. During his Chief Ministership of Gujarat, he outlined five pillars of development policy for Gujarat: water (jal shakti), energy (urja shakti), people (jan shakti), education (gyan shakti) and security (raksha shakti). Some of the present schemes (Sukanya Samridhi, AMRUT, HRIDAY, UDAY, Ayushman, UMANG, PRASAD etc.) are named after Indian experiences and cultural symbols and so combine the cultural/religious with the developmental/technological. He takes elections like a dangal where fighting passionately is dharma.  Avoidance of alcohol is also an important part in this tradition; Modi avoids alcohol even in his official meeting with state heads. But unlike a wrestler or a sanyasi who would see the market or bazaar as a corrupting influence, Modi’s development agenda mediates that vision and finds salvation in consumption.

Contrary to available assumptions about the myth of Modi masculinity, Modi’s politics is both national and cosmopolitan, territorial and extra-territorial, hegemonic in performance and feminine in policy (as in Ujjwala scheme or supernumerary seats for female candidates in IITs). Those who limit Modi masculinist ideology underestimate his ability to refashion himself. Modi’s performance is legendary and very few leaders can match his control over not just what he says but how he looks, how he walks and the way his body becomes a site of politics. His idioms are contemporary without being intellectual, easy to understand and yet substantive. Unfortunately, academic community and mainstream media have failed to capture the enormity of Modi’s complexity in its zeal to reduce Modi to warrior philosophy. The right approach should be to mediate that with his ascetic practice. There indeed is a clear ascetic streak in Modi, as in giving up salt in his childhood, then chillies and even oil, something that may problematize the easy association of his persona with hegemonic masculinity. Modi masculinity is thus a mix of ascetic and warrior at a personal level and their mediation by consumption and development as public or social goal.

Tags :

• Indian Politics65

• Share on Social Media

• Follow us on Social Media