The Modi Paradox: Personality Wins, Performance Faces Big Test

In democratic politics, few phenomena are as puzzling as the leader who gains popularity even as his government loses effectiveness. Strongmen typically rise and fall with their ability to deliver tangible results, including economic expansion, military victory, or social progress. Yet Narendra Modi appears to have discovered something rarer: the art of political levitation, maintaining dominance even as the foundations of his appeal steadily erode. This defiance of electoral gravity may represent either the ultimate triumph of personality over performance or the prelude to an eventual reckoning that could reshape the world’s largest democracy.

The latest India Today Mood of the Nation survey, conducted in August 2025, captures this paradox in stark numerical terms. The poll’s findings reveal tremors that should concern both India’s ruling establishment and those who oppose it. Prime Minister Modi remains the colossus of Indian politics, but the ground beneath his feet is shifting in ways that suggest his era of effortless dominance may be drawing to a close.

The headline numbers paint a familiar picture. If elections were held tomorrow, Modi’s National Democratic Alliance (NDA) would secure 324 seats in the 543-member Lok Sabha, a comfortable majority that reflects the staying power of his political coalition. The opposition INDIA bloc would claim 208 seats, a respectable showing that nonetheless leaves it far from power. At first glance, this appears to vindicate the conventional wisdom that Modi’s appeal transcends the normal rules of democratic accountability.

Yet beneath these projections lies a more complex reality. The survey reveals a leader whose personal brand remains formidable, 51.5 per cent still prefer him as prime minister, but whose government increasingly struggles to meet public expectations. Satisfaction with the NDA government has plummeted to 52.4 per cent, down from 62.1 per cent just six months earlier. More tellingly, Modi’s personal performance ratings have slipped to 58 per cent, a significant decline from the commanding heights he once occupied.

Modi may be confronting the sternest test of his prime ministerial career, as domestic challenges converge with an increasingly hostile international environment. Donald Trump’s return to the White House brings the threat of punitive tariffs that could devastate India’s export-dependent sectors, while traditional ally Russia emerges weakened from its Ukrainian entanglement, reducing New Delhi’s strategic options. Europe remains diplomatically distant, preoccupied with its own security concerns, leaving India more isolated than at any point since Modi took office. Most ominously, the survey captures growing anxiety about an emerging China-Pakistan-Bangladesh nexus, with 47.8 per cent expressing concern about this regional alignment. With China’s economic and military shadow lengthening across South Asia, Modi faces the prospect of simultaneous pressure on multiple fronts, economic warfare from the West and strategic encirclement from the East. For a government already struggling with domestic economic stress and declining satisfaction ratings, these external pressures threaten to compound existing vulnerabilities at precisely the moment when Modi's political magic appears to be fading.

Also Read: Why a polarised Assam still bets on Dispur’s Dada

The erosion of Modi’s invincibility becomes most apparent when examining Operation Sindoor, the government’s recent military response to terrorist attacks. In the political calculus that has defined Modi’s tenure, such operations once provided reliable boosts to his standing. The 2019 Balakot strikes against Pakistan elevated his approval rating from 54 per cent to 71 per cent within six months, helping secure his re-election later that year.

Operation Sindoor tells a starkly different story. Despite 54.5 per cent of respondents viewing it as a “strong” response and 54.2 per cent accepting the administration's account of events, Modi’s ratings continued their downward trajectory from 62 per cent in February to 58 per cent in August. The operation’s political impact was so muted that credit for the subsequent ceasefire remains disputed: 30.7 per cent attribute it to Modi’s decision-making, 29.1 per cent to American pressure, and 24.9 per cent to Pakistani entreaties.

This represents a fundamental shift in Indian political psychology. Military adventures, once guaranteed to rally public support around the flag, now compete with more prosaic concerns about employment and inflation. The failure of Sindoor to replicate Balakot’s political dividend suggests that even Modi’s most reliable political weapon—projecting strength against Pakistan—has lost much of its potency.

The survey exposes a peculiar economic paradox at the heart of contemporary India. Despite the nation's emergence as the world’s fourth-largest economy, public satisfaction with fiscal management has cratered. Only 47.8 per cent rate the administration's economic performance as good or outstanding, while 30.2 per cent consider it poor. More damaging still, 33.7 per cent report that their personal financial circumstances have deteriorated since Modi took power in 2014.

These figures illuminate the disconnect between macroeconomic achievement and lived experience that has come to define Modi’s India. While headline GDP expansion and infrastructure projects provide impressive talking points, 60.6 per cent of households struggle to manage daily expenses, and unemployment remains the nation’s foremost concern for 27 per cent of respondents. The administration’s vulnerability is further exposed by widespread perception that economic gains have primarily benefited the wealthy, with 49.5 per cent viewing India’s rise as largely symbolic rather than meaningful for ordinary citizens.

The persistence of these economic anxieties despite years of development spending and welfare schemes suggests that Modi’s approach to economic governance—heavy on symbolism and infrastructure, lighter on employment generation—may have reached its political limits. Unlike security operations or cultural initiatives, economic performance cannot be stage-managed or spun away when kitchen-table realities contradict official narratives.

For India’s fractured opposition, the poll offers encouragement wrapped in sobering reality. Rahul Gandhi has undoubtedly evolved from political punchline to credible opposition leader, with 50.3 per cent now rating his performance as Leader of the Opposition as good or outstanding. The INDIA alliance itself has demonstrated unexpected durability, with 63.3 per cent supporting its continuation despite predictions of imminent collapse.

These advances remain frustratingly marginal. Gandhi’s prime ministerial preference rating of 24.7 per cent, while an improvement over his historical lows, represents less than half of Modi’s support. The Congress party’s projected seat count of 97, though respectable, reflects only modest gains from its 2024 performance. Most critically, the alliance continues to suffer from what might be termed “leadership deficit disorder” while voters recognize the need for effective opposition, they remain unconvinced that the current alternative possesses either the coherence or competence to govern.

The opposition’s challenge is compounded by regional dynamics that fragment anti-Modi sentiment. State-level leaders like Mamata Banerjee and Akhilesh Yadav command significant influence within their territories but struggle to project national appeal. This localization of opposition politics allows Modi to maintain his advantage through superior organizational reach and message discipline, even when governing satisfaction declines.

Perhaps the most alarming finding concerns the health of Indian democracy itself. Nearly half the respondents—48.3 per cent—believe democracy is in danger, a staggering admission in a country that has long celebrated its democratic credentials. This anxiety manifests across multiple dimensions: 45.5 per cent believe the government misuses investigative agencies, 34.5 per cent think communal harmony has deteriorated, and substantial majorities express concern about institutional independence.

The erosion of democratic norms appears to proceed in parallel with, rather than despite, electoral success. This suggests that Modi’s approach to governance—centralizing power, marginalizing dissent, and weaponizing state institutions—may be politically sustainable even as it undermines democratic foundations. The survey indicates that many Indians are willing to accept diminished institutional checks in exchange for perceived strong leadership, a trade-off that has profound implications for India’s constitutional democracy.

The Mood of the Nation poll captures a political system approaching an inflection point. Modi’s continued electoral viability demonstrates the enduring appeal of personalized leadership in uncertain times, but the survey also reveals structural pressures that could eventually overwhelm even his formidable political skills. Economic discontent, democratic anxiety, and social polarization create potential vulnerabilities that a more effective opposition might exploit.

The administration’s challenge lies in addressing these concerns without abandoning the polarizing rhetoric and strongman positioning that form the core of Modi’s identity. The opposition’s task is arguably more daunting: translating widespread unease into a credible governing alternative while managing the centrifugal forces that constantly threaten coalition unity.

What emerges most clearly from the poll is that Indian democracy has entered a phase where electoral success and governance effectiveness operate on increasingly divergent tracks. Modi’s electoral dominance persists not because his administration excels at addressing citizen concerns, but because no alternative has yet proven capable of channelling public discontent into political momentum. This dynamic may ensure continued NDA rule in the near term, but it also suggests a democracy increasingly estranged from its founding principles of accountability and responsiveness.