Prime Minister Narendra Modi appears to have mastered a political craft that few of his contemporaries can match: turning an adverse situation into an advantage, converting criticism into a counter-narrative and, often, putting the Opposition on the defensive with a phrase that becomes the talking point of the day.
His recent address at Delhi University’s Shri Ram College of Commerce (SRCC) centenary celebrations offered yet another demonstration of this political technique. What could have been a difficult conversation about student concerns, political criticism and ideological opposition was transformed into an engaging interaction with young Bharatiyas—with Modi simultaneously reaching out to his audience and taking a swipe at his critics.
That is the Modi style.
He rarely allows his opponents to decide the vocabulary of a political debate. Instead, he invents his own.
The latest example is “Dimagi Naxal”, a phrase that has already triggered considerable political debate. Rather than retreating from the expression after criticism, Modi has done something characteristically political: he has explained it, expanded it and, in the process, given it a life of its own.
At SRCC, he described the phrase through a “homeopathic pill” analogy. His argument was that the phrase produced an immediate reaction from those who felt targeted, thereby exposing what he described as a particular ideological mindset.
Whether one agrees with the terminology or not, the political communication strategy is difficult to miss. The moment critics demanded an explanation, Modi turned the demand itself into another opportunity to explain his larger political narrative.
And that is precisely where Modi differs from many politicians.
His critics often attack him on an issue expecting him to defend himself. Instead, he frequently changes the frame of the debate and makes the critics themselves the subject of discussion.
The SRCC speech was also a carefully calibrated exercise in connecting with young India. Modi did not sound like a conventional politician addressing a formal academic gathering. He slipped into contemporary vocabulary, invoked expressions such as “OG”, spoke of alumni who had “made dhoom” and even described his perennial critics as the proverbial “naraz fufa”—the perpetually disgruntled uncle at an Indian wedding.
It was humour, but it was also political messaging.
By using language familiar to the younger generation, Modi brought down the formal barrier between the Prime Minister and his audience. More importantly, he reduced the political stature of his critics by portraying them as permanently dissatisfied characters who would find fault with anything.
That is not accidental rhetoric. It is political packaging.
The same technique has been visible repeatedly in Modi’s political career. A criticism emerges; a counter-expression is coined; the expression catches public imagination; and suddenly the Opposition finds itself debating Modi’s terminology rather than the original charge against him.
Former Punjab Chief Minister Capt. Amarinder Singh’s demand for greater clarity on “Dimagi Naxal” therefore gave Modi precisely the opening he needed. Singh’s argument—that criticism or questioning should not automatically be equated with an anti-national mindset—is a legitimate point of democratic debate. But Modi’s larger argument goes beyond criticism. He is attempting to distinguish between legitimate dissent and what he sees as deliberate ideological disruption masquerading as dissent.
That distinction will inevitably remain contentious. But politically, Modi has ensured that the debate takes place on his turf.
His broader point about the legacy of Left-wing extremism also carries political resonance. The Congress and other parties that governed several states during periods when Maoist violence expanded cannot simply wash their hands of that history. The state’s fight against extremism, the expenditure of public money and questions of accountability deserve scrutiny irrespective of which party was in power.
But Modi’s real strength is not merely in making such arguments. It is in making them memorable.
That is why his speeches increasingly resemble political theatre without losing their policy content. Facts, humour, colloquial expressions, nationalism, development and criticism of opponents are woven into one narrative.
At SRCC, the applause and engagement from the young audience suggested that the formula continues to work.
Modi understands something that many politicians still struggle to grasp: politics is not only about what you say; it is about what people remember after you have said it.
“Dimagi Naxal”, “naraz fufa” and “OG” may appear at first glance to be mere colourful phrases. In Modi’s hands, however, they become political instruments.
And therein lies his particular craft—when his opponents throw a problem at him, he often throws back a phrase that makes them part of the problem.
