Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Credit: Reuters photo
After its electoral victory in Bihar, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has become emboldened.
Its conceit was on display when in the Winter Session of Parliament, Prime Minister Narendra Modi taunted the Opposition, saying, “There are many places available for doing drama. But here, we need delivery, not drama. We should emphasise policy, not slogans.”
The Opposition fell too easily into the rhetorical trap set by Modi. In a knee-jerk response, it called him the “biggest dramabaaz”. This kept the narrative focused on ‘drama’ instead of questioning Modi’s record on ‘delivery’. It hasn’t yet learned to break through the narrative Modi provocatively sets before every sitting of Parliament.
The Congress and other opposition parties should have used the opportunity to question Modi’s dismal record of delivery on jobs, farmers’ incomes, and inequality, among other things. Instead, they allowed Modi to take the moral high ground — portraying the Opposition as obstructionists, whereas his government as one that delivers on its promises.
The Modi government may claim to have delivered on its promises of implementing the GST, infrastructure expansion, welfare schemes, and the occasional display of assertiveness in foreign affairs. However, many key promises for bettering the lives of ordinary people remain unfulfilled.
In his 2014 campaign, he promised to create one crore jobs a year through Make-in-India, skill development, and industrial growth. But all he has been able to do is organise rozgar melas and distribute 10 lakh appointment letters — a far cry from the one crore jobs promised.
Unemployment remains stubbornly high, with surprisingly high graduate underemployment. Make-in-India also did not generate the scale of jobs promised, and the manufacturing share of GDP has remained near stagnant. At the start of Modi’s tenure in 2014, manufacturing’s share in GDP was 16.7%, and it is 17% in 2025; it has remained at 16-17% although GDP has doubled from 2014 to 2025. This is far short of the government’s Make-in-India goal of taking manufacturing’s share up to 25% of the GDP.
In 2016, Modi swore that he would double farmers’ incomes by 2022. He missed the deadline. Even by 2025, they are far short of transformative levels. Agri-distress continues with many farmers in debt. Farmers still sell below the MSP, and procurement is limited. The government has been unable to shift surplus labour from agriculture to non-farm jobs, and while cash transfers have provided relief, they are not a long-term solution. In short, as the farm laws fiasco showed, the government lacks a growth-oriented agricultural policy, and the cash relief it provides to farmers (Kisan Samman Nidhi) is not transformative because structural issues remain unaddressed.
Modi has repeatedly claimed that his government was reducing inequality by promising ‘Sabka saath, sabka vikaas’ (development for all) and even cited World Bank data to claim that his promise of curbing inequality was being met. However, the paradoxical reality is that while absolute poverty is going down, inequality is increasing because gains of growth are unevenly distributed. India’s richest 1% now control 40% of its national wealth, while the bottom 50% hold less than 3%.
Welfare schemes such as PM-Kisan, housing, LPG, Ayushman Bharat, etc. have provided short-term relief, but they have not altered the long-term trajectories in education, jobs, or healthcare.
The Opposition has failed to take this government to task for failing to deliver on its aspirational slogans. There are hardly any tangible outcomes, and even where progress is claimed, the delivery is uneven.
Modi’s claim of delivery, therefore, is nothing more than a rhetorical framing of the public narrative to where a moral counter-positioning of the Opposition vs the ruling party overshadows policy debates.
Using snappy contrasts — delivery vs drama; development vs obstruction; corruption vs honesty; nationalism vs anti-national forces, and dynasty vs non-dynastic politics — Modi portrays politics as a moral struggle not a policy debate. Governance is portrayed not in terms of outcomes and accountability, but as a battle of values. Embodying the virtues of Ram for Ram Rajya, Sardar Patel for national unity, and Subhas Chandra Bose for his militant nationalism, he casts himself as the only moral alternative.
When his leadership is presented as a moral imperative, it cannot be judged by whether his electoral promises are fulfilled. Complex policy issues are reduced to moral binaries, attenuating the importance of parliamentary or public debate of his policies, promises, and governance record.
By branding the Opposition as indulging in theatrics, corrupt, obstructionist, and anti-development, he shifts the debate from policy critique to moral condemnation. This appeals to both his party cadre and the media who thrive on such simple contrasts to keep Modi centre stage.
In the run up to the 2014 general elections, he was packaged as the moral alternative — clean, decisive, and incorruptible, compared to the UPA government which was projected as steeped in scandals and corruption.
Over the last 11 years, however, his clean image has been undermined by economic concentration that has channelled India’s wealth to a few conglomerates (Adani, Ambani, for example) whose fortunes have skyrocketed during Modi’s regime. It has also been undermined by accusations of tweaking policy on privatisation, regulatory changes, and infrastructure contracts to benefit crony capitalists.
However, with the BJP’s Bihar election victory based on the rhetoric of rejecting jungle-raj, Modi and his advisers think that the framing of politics as a moral struggle still works. Nevertheless, voters in Bihar were undeniably motivated not only by the moral rhetoric but also by welfare measures and easing of household stress by direct cash transfers to farmers and, close to the elections, to 75 lakh women who received Rs 10,000 per household and promised up to Rs 2 lakh to 1.5 crore women under Bihar’s Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana.
They became decisive voters.
Converting politics into the virtue vs vice framework has severe downsides for democratic governance. Delivery failures are obscured and presented as a battle against the hostile and illegitimate forces of the Opposition; such polarisation also reduces the chances of reaching a political consensus.
The strategy will fail, however, if voters become aware of delivery shortfalls, as in the 2024 general election when the BJP lost its majority in Parliament.
The Opposition needs to convince the electorate that Modi’s self-righteous claims of delivery are supported by little more than transactional bribery.
It must drive home the truth that short-term relief through cash transfers will not address structural issues like creating jobs, cost-effective healthcare for all, or affordable education.
Bharat Bhushan is a New Delhi-based journalist.
(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)