Modi I-Day Speech | A chance to heal the nation, lost in political signalling

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Independence Day Speech from the Red Fort once again demonstrates a troubling pattern that has defined his tenure: the inability to transcend party lines and speak as the custodian of every citizen's concern and hopes.

Rather than appearing as the prime minister of every Indian, a voice that should resonate with ‘we, the people of India’, his address reinforced his political style that consistently leans toward partisan identity mobilisation rather than consensus-building.

This approach is not surprising given his electoral strategy, which is deeply tied to energising a specific polarising base. His rhetoric often favours an ‘us vs them’ framing, directly or through coded appeals, as inclusive language might risk alienating parts of the said base.

The paradigm shifts in the Indian political climate over the past decade-and-a-half may superficially indicate that the current political culture rewards sharp, targeted messaging over broad, inclusive statesmanship. However, what is also true is that the country, by and large, desires peace and prosperity; except for a small section that thrives on polarisation.

Particularly concerning was the prime minister's choice to invoke the wrong demographic question, raising the bogey of demographic change rather than the potential of India's demographic dividend. For a young country like India, where nearly 65% of the population is under 35, this represents a historic opportunity that should be at the centre of national discourse.

Instead of fearmongering about demographic shifts, the speech could have highlighted how India's youthful population represents an unprecedented advantage in the global economy, provided they are equipped with skills, opportunities, and an inclusive environment where all can contribute regardless of their background. This demographic fearmongering also constitutes a serious indictment of India's intelligence, security, and administrative apparatus. Self-respecting and patriotic personnel, who have done an excellent job of protecting the country, must speak up now or live with their heads hanging in shame for having been insulted by the prime minister in a public address that was seen and heard around the world.

The nation would have appreciated hearing the prime minister acknowledge the economic distress of the poor, the crisis of joblessness, widening inequality, and rural distress, not as political attacks from the Opposition, but as real problems faced by millions. A clear commitment to protect the dignity and rights of every Indian, regardless of religion, caste, language, or region, would have reassured citizens that he sees himself as a leader of all, not just a political base.

This speech will be closely watched and analysed by the global community, international investors, and diplomatic circles worldwide. They will observe that the Government of India appears inward-looking, more interested in polarising its society and polity than in fostering the inclusive governance that modern economies require. Such messaging sends troubling signals to potential investors and business partners who understand that sustainable investments need an inclusive, harmonious, and stable social environment to flourish. When a nation's leadership appears divisive rather than unifying, it raises questions about the long-term stability and predictability that global markets demand.

The prime minister also missed a significant opportunity to use this platform to acknowledge and outline India's response to mounting global challenges. The Independence Day Speech should have been the moment to articulate India's position on the fraught trade war triggered by the Donald Trump administration and the ongoing threats to India's trade policy sovereignty. The speech failed to address growing concerns about the US meddling in India's external affairs policy, particularly regarding the conflict with Pakistan.

India's increasing isolation among the global community post-Operation Sindoor demanded acknowledgement and a strategic response from the nation's highest office. The absence of any indication on how India plans to navigate these complex geopolitical waters while maintaining its strategic autonomy represents a significant oversight. The absence of a strong call for peace in conflict zones, especially in Gaza, and for India to be a voice for justice and humanity globally, left India's historic moral leadership unvoiced. This silence is particularly concerning when the world may want to count on countries like India for principled leadership on international issues.

Modi's advisers may like to note that there are no separate information and communication ecosystems where he can code-switch between an ethnonationalist leader in the domestic context and a broadminded statesman on the world stage. This schism is what is allowing global heavyweights to corner India. For instance, when the prime minister projects himself as a champion of democratic values at international forums like the G20 or Quad summits while simultaneously overseeing the erosion of press freedom and institutional independence at home, global leaders not only recognise but also weaponise this contradiction.

Modi clearly aspires to be seen as a capable administrator, global statesman, and a leader who will leave a legacy of transformational impact on India's trajectory. He possesses unprecedented political power that he does not have to share, a position that should theoretically enable bold, statesmanlike decisions. However, despite this commanding position, his perception and ultimate legacy will always remain under a cloud if he does not curb his baser political instincts and begin to assume the role of a statesman of true stature.

Ironically, though he may not personally admire him, Modi has a compelling example to follow in Jawaharlal Nehru, who, despite his own political complexities, understood that true statesmanship requires rising above narrow and immediate calculations. In the spirit of Nehru's ‘tryst with destiny’, Modi could have used this platform to pledge: ‘In the days ahead, I promise to protect your right to question me, your right to protest, and your right to demand better. No journalist will be silenced for telling the truth. No citizen will be jailed for speaking their mind. Our courts, our election commission, our Parliament. They will remain independent, not instruments or strongholds of any ruling party.’

A truly national address, especially on a day that belongs to all Indians, ought to be rooted in inclusivity, reconciliation, and a vision that embraces the country's extraordinary diversity. Instead, the speech leaned on selective achievements, partisan signalling, and silences on issues that demand acknowledgement from a leader of the whole nation.

By framing the narrative through the prism of political credit, rather than collective ownership, Prime Minister Narendra Modi diminished an opportunity to unite rather than divide, to heal rather than harden the divides that scar the national fabric, both domestically and in India's relationship with the global community.

The gulf between what such a speech should be and what it was highlights not just a failure of political imagination, but a missed opportunity to position India as a confident, inclusive democracy capable of leading on the global stage while maintaining unity at home.

(Manoj Kumar Jha is an RJD leader, and Member of the Rajya Sabha. X: @manojkjhadu.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.