Does the rule apply to the rule-maker?

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat recently remarked that leaders should retire at the age of 75. This has been widely interpreted as a subtle message for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who turns 75 this September-- the same month as Bhagwat himself. Mohan Bhagwat is not known for off-the-cuff remarks; his public statements are typically deliberate and layered with meaning. The timing of his comments on the retirement age for politicians has therefore invited scrutiny and piqued public curiosity.

Although the BJP has earlier stated that 75 would be the upper age limit for holding public office, its constitution contains no such provision. This was more of a cultural guideline—enforced through action rather than written rules. Modi made no official announcement but chose instead to implement the policy quietly. As a result, senior leaders such as L K Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, and Sumitra Mahajan were marginalised and excluded from the electoral landscape, left to draw their own conclusions from the resounding silence that followed.

Leaders like Advani and Joshi were quietly moved into the ceremonial Margdarshak Mandal—a so-called advisory body that has since become a non-functioning entity, devoid of meetings, documentation, and significance. Modi and Amit Shah appeared to treat this shift less as a principled stance and more as necessary political cleansing. In hindsight, one might argue that it was a prudent decision.

On March 30, 2025, Modi visited the RSS’ Dr Hedgewar Smruti Mandir in Nagpur—his first visit as prime minister and after a 13-year interval. According to Partha Banerjee, a former RSS member who later distanced himself from the organisation, the Sangh has long disdained both extravagance and the veneration of individuals. This sentiment likely underlies the ongoing tensions between Bhagwat and Modi.

While not an open confrontation, there has long been a quiet unease between Bhagwat and Modi. After the BJP’s reduced mandate in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the sarsanghchalak delivered a pointed message regarding the ‘arrogance of those in power,’ noting that true ‘sevaks’ must serve people with humility.

When Arvind Kejriwal raised the question of whether Narendra Modi would step down at 75, Amit Shah had already responded, stating that the rule established by PM Modi would serve to end the political careers of leaders such as LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Sumitra Mahajan, and Yashwant Sinha but would not apply to Modi himself. This implies that Modi’s principles, values, and statements lack genuine merit. It suggests that any regulations he introduces are not meant to be enforced upon himself. It is crucial for Modi to clarify his intentions regarding the regulations he has put in place. Will he commit to upholding these guidelines, or is his pursuit of power driving him to seek an indefinite tenure in his role?

Having gained access to the halls of central authority purely on the strength of his ideals, ascended the revered steps of Parliament, and achieved an impressive own goal with the Sengol, our Caesar certainly expects his Chowkidars to uphold high standards.

In the context of power realism, it is entirely plausible that this unwritten norm could be overlooked for Modi, permitting him to remain in office until the end of his term. It can be argued that, “At this critical juncture, this is not a breach of principle; it is an undeniable necessity” in the interest
of the nation. If he steps aside on account of a rule, it would be a triumph of ethics. Otherwise, it would be a surrender to illusion. 

Three consecutive terms for anyone in the prime ministerial role with a strong majority might open the door to authoritarianism. By his third term, independent India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had begun to exhibit authoritarian tendencies. During her second term, Indira Gandhi imposed a state of Emergency.

Similarly, like Nehru in 1962, Modi entered his third term with a propensity for authoritarianism. Regardless of which party is elected to serve unlimited terms while holding a majority, a two-term limit for prime ministers should be established, necessitating a constitutional amendment to implement this change.

(The writer is a retired deputy director of boilers)