Why Narendra Modi is silent in politically critical movements?
The question of whether Prime Minister Narendra Modi remains silent during politically critical movements is a topic of significant debate, often shaped by political affiliations, media narratives, and public perception. Critics argue that Modi selectively avoids commenting on sensitive issues to maintain political leverage or avoid alienating key voter bases, while supporters contend that his silence reflects a strategic focus on governance over engaging in divisive public discourse. Below, I address this question by examining recent politically critical movements in India, Modi's responses (or lack thereof), and the context surrounding these events, drawing on available information and posts found on X where relevant. The analysis avoids speculative claims and focuses on verifiable patterns.
Context and Key Movements
Politically critical movements in India often involve issues like communal violence, minority rights, economic policies, or protests against legislation. Recent examples from 2024–2025 include:
- Waqf (Amendment) Bill Controversy (2024–2025):
Context: The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, passed in 2025, aimed to reform the management of Waqf properties but sparked protests from opposition parties and Muslim organizations, who argued it infringed on religious freedoms and targeted minorities. Critics, including Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, called it an "assault on religious freedom".
Modi's Response: Modi publicly supported the bill, framing it as a step toward social justice during the Rising Bharat Summit 2025. He emphasized its passage as a significant achievement, countering opposition narratives. This was not silence but an active endorsement, suggesting he engages when issues align with his government's agenda.
Analysis: Modi's vocal stance here contrasts with claims of silence, but critics argue his support ignored minority concerns, fuelling perceptions of selective engagement.
- Communal Violence and Minority Issues:
Context: Posts on X and media reports highlight allegations that Modi remains silent on communal violence targeting Muslims and Christians, with some claiming he benefits politically from communal polarization. For instance, a 2025 post on X stated, "Narendra Modi although silent yet he remains the sole beneficiary of communalism in India," linking his silence to political strategy.
Modi's Response: Specific instances, like attacks on minorities in Bangladesh, saw Modi address concerns directly. In a 2025 meeting with Bangladesh’s interim leader Muhammad Yunus, he raised the safety of Hindus and minorities, emphasizing India's commitment to positive bilateral ties. However, domestic incidents, such as alleged violence in Murshidabad, West Bengal, lack documented public statements from Modi, aligning with claims of selective silence.
Analysis: Modi’s engagement on international minority issues contrasts with limited public comments on domestic communal incidents, potentially to avoid inflaming tensions or alienating coalition partners. This pattern fuels criticism that he prioritizes political stability over addressing all communal issues head-on.
- Economic and Trade Challenges (US Tariffs, 2025):
Context: The imposition of US tariffs under President Donald Trump in 2025 raised concerns about India’s economy, with opposition leaders like Rahul Gandhi criticizing Modi’s silence and questioning his relationship with Trump. The tariffs threatened India’s export-driven sectors, prompting calls for a response.
Modi's Response: Modi has not publicly addressed the tariffs in detail but engaged diplomatically, discussing technology and innovation with Elon Musk and meeting US Vice President JD Vance to strengthen trade ties. His joining of Trump’s Truth Social platform and sharing a podcast interview with Lex Fridman suggest an indirect approach to maintaining US relations.
Analysis: Modi’s restraint on tariff criticism may reflect a pragmatic strategy to avoid antagonizing the US while pursuing backchannel diplomacy. Critics view this as silence on a critical economic issue, but supporters argue it prioritizes long-term bilateral gains.
- Allegations of Censorship and Free Speech (X Lawsuit, 2025):
Context: X’s lawsuit against the Indian government in 2025 alleged unlawful censorship, spotlighting tensions over free speech. Grok’s unfiltered responses, critical of Modi’s scripted interviews, amplified public debate.
Modi’s Response: Modi has not directly addressed the lawsuit or Grok’s remarks. His government’s stance, as reported, denies curbing free speech, but no personal statement from Modi is documented.
Analysis: Silence here aligns with Modi’s broader approach of avoiding direct engagement with tech-driven controversies, possibly to maintain focus on governance or avoid escalating legal disputes. Critics argue this sidesteps accountability on free speech erosion.
- Historical Allegations (e.g., 2002 Gujarat Riots, Farmers’ Protests):
Context: Critics often cite Modi’s alleged inaction during the 2002 Gujarat riots (when he was Chief Minister) and his muted response to the 2020–2021 farmers’ protests as evidence of a pattern. A 2021 X post accused Modi of silence on issues like coal shortages, farmers’ issues, and fuel prices, reflecting similar sentiments.
Modi’s Response: On the Gujarat riots, Modi has maintained he acted responsibly, though critics argue he avoided accountability. During the farmers’ protests, his government repealed the contentious farm laws in 2021, but Modi’s public statements were limited, focusing on reform benefits rather than addressing protester grievances directly.
Analysis: These historical cases shape the narrative of Modi’s selective silence, particularly on issues that risk alienating core supporters or escalating unrest. His eventual policy concessions (e.g., farm law repeal) suggest a preference for action over verbal engagement in some crises.
Why the Perception of Silence?
Several factors contribute to the perception that Modi remains silent during politically critical movements:
Strategic Communication: Modi’s media strategy emphasizes controlled settings, such as social media posts, scripted interviews, and public addresses on government achievements. A 2025 Lex Fridman podcast showcased a reflective Modi, avoiding confrontational topics like domestic unrest. Critics argue this avoids accountability, while supporters see it as disciplined leadership.
Political Calculations: Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) relies on a diverse coalition and a strong Hindu nationalist base. Silence on communal or polarizing issues may prevent alienating voters or coalition partners, as seen in his limited comments on domestic violence versus international minority concerns.
Delegation to Others: Modi often delegates responses to ministers or party spokespersons, as seen in the X lawsuit, where BJP official Amit Malviya declined comment. This allows him to maintain distance from controversies while government machinery addresses them.
Focus on Governance: Supporters argue Modi prioritizes action over rhetoric, citing project inaugurations (e.g., Varanasi’s Rs 3,880 crore projects) and diplomatic engagements as evidence of leadership during crises.
Counterarguments and Supportive Views
Modi’s supporters reject the "silent" label, pointing to his active public presence:
Frequent Communication: Modi’s X posts, speeches, and international engagements (e.g., Sri Lanka, Chile) demonstrate consistent outreach. His 2025 Varanasi rally criticized opposition dynastic politics, showing he engages when it suits his narrative.
Action Over Words: On issues like the Varanasi rape case (2025), Modi directed strict action without public statements, suggesting a focus on results. The extradition of Tahawwur Rana (2025) earned praise for his persistence, countering silence claims.
Global Diplomacy: Modi’s meetings with world leaders (e.g., Musk, Yunus, Xi) show engagement on critical issues like trade, minority rights, and geopolitics, challenging the notion of passivity.
Critical Perspective
While Modi is not universally silent, his selective engagement—vocal on government achievements or international issues, restrained on domestic communal or opposition-driven controversies—creates a perception of strategic silence. This aligns with criticisms on X, where users argue he avoids issues that don’t serve his political narrative. The lack of direct responses to allegations of free speech erosion or communal violence fuels claims that Modi prioritizes image control and electoral strategy over addressing all critical movements. However, his actions (e.g., policy changes, diplomacy) suggest a leadership style that values measurable outcomes over public rhetoric, though this does little to quell critics who demand vocal accountability.
Conclusion
Narendra Modi is not consistently silent during politically critical movements but adopts a selective approach, speaking out when issues align with his government’s priorities (e.g., Waqf Bill, international diplomacy) while remaining restrained on divisive domestic issues (e.g., communal violence, X lawsuit). This strategy, rooted in political pragmatism and controlled communication, fuels criticism that he sidesteps accountability, as reflected in X posts and opposition narratives. However, his supporters argue that his actions—policy reforms, project launches, and diplomatic engagements—demonstrate leadership without needing constant public statements. The truth likely lies in a balance: Modi’s silence is not absolute but a calculated choice shaped by political context, voter dynamics, and governance priorities. For a definitive assessment, one would need to analyze specific incidents further, but the pattern suggests strategic restraint rather than outright disengagement.
source: Grok AI
