25 Years of Narendra Modi in Government: From Gujarat to Delhi

On 7 October 2001, Narendra Modi took oath as the Chief Minister of Gujarat. Twenty five years later, on 7 October 2026, he remains at the head of a government, now as Prime Minister of India.

That continuity is the starting point for understanding the political significance of the Modi era. The period is not simply a long political career. It covers two distinct phases of Indian governance: Gujarat from 2001 to 2014 and New Delhi from 2014 to 2026. During these years, Indian politics changed in its language, organisation, campaign methods, welfare delivery, use of technology, relationship between national and state politics and approach to political leadership.

The Union Cabinet on 6 October passed a resolution marking Modi's 25 years as head of government. The resolution presented his journey as a continuous development oriented approach, connecting initiatives from Gujarat with national programmes. That is the government's interpretation of the record, and it should be understood as such.

The historical assessment is necessarily broader. The Modi years include major infrastructure expansion, welfare programmes, digital governance, economic reforms and a stronger international profile for India. They also include contentious decisions, economic disruptions, debates over institutional independence, questions about centralisation, communal tensions and continuing arguments over employment and inequality.

The important question, therefore, is not whether the period should be celebrated or condemned. It is what actually changed in the way Indian politics is conducted and understood.

Gujarat: The Beginning of the Modi Model

Modi's arrival as Gujarat Chief Minister did not take place under ordinary circumstances. Gujarat had suffered a devastating earthquake in January 2001. The state had also experienced a super cyclone, successive droughts and political instability in the preceding period. Modi later repeatedly described these conditions when recalling the circumstances in which he entered the state government.

He was not initially a conventional mass leader with a long electoral career. His background was primarily organisational. His work in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and later in the Bharatiya Janata Party gave him experience in party organisation, campaigning and political mobilisation.

Gujarat became the laboratory in which his governing style developed.

The approach associated with Modi's Gujarat years placed considerable emphasis on infrastructure, electricity, roads, irrigation, water management, industrial investment and administrative technology. Initiatives such as Jyotigram, which aimed to improve electricity supply and rural power management, and SWAGAT, a technology based public grievance system, became closely associated with the Gujarat model.

Investment summits, particularly Vibrant Gujarat, were used to present the state as an attractive destination for industry. The government emphasised roads, industrial corridors, electricity availability and administrative efficiency as instruments of economic growth.

Agriculture also became part of this narrative. Gujarat's agricultural performance, irrigation expansion and water management were presented by the state government as evidence that a state not traditionally identified primarily with agriculture could improve farm productivity.

This became known politically as the "Gujarat model".

The phrase was never a single officially defined economic model. It became a political shorthand for a combination of infrastructure development, industrial investment, administrative efficiency, electricity reform, agricultural growth and a more business friendly image of government.

Supporters argued that Gujarat demonstrated the value of decisive administration and long term infrastructure planning. Critics questioned how much of the state's performance could be attributed directly to the Chief Minister, how much reflected longer term trends and private investment, and whether the Gujarat experience could be replicated across a country with India's enormous regional, social and economic diversity.

There were also deeper controversies surrounding the Gujarat years. The 2002 communal violence became one of the most important and contested parts of Modi's political record. Modi's government faced intense criticism over its handling of the violence. A Special Investigation Team later investigated allegations of a larger conspiracy involving Modi and others. In 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the SIT's conclusion and rejected Zakia Jafri's challenge to the clean chit. At the same time, political and civil society debates over the violence and the broader social consequences of that period have continued.

This combination of development politics and controversy became a defining feature of Modi's political identity long before he reached New Delhi.

From Gandhinagar to the National Stage

The transition from Gujarat leader to national political figure was gradual.

Modi had already built a reputation inside the BJP organisation before becoming Chief Minister. His organisational experience, electoral campaigns and growing visibility within the party helped him establish a national profile.

The Gujarat Assembly elections became increasingly important to that profile. The BJP won the 2002, 2007 and 2012 Assembly elections under Modi's leadership. The 2012 victory was particularly important because it came shortly before the national political transition that would eventually make Modi the BJP's prime ministerial candidate.

By 2013, the BJP had increasingly positioned Modi as its national campaign leader. The 2014 Lok Sabha election transformed the scale of his political communication.

The campaign combined large rallies, television, social media, mobile communication, political branding, technology and direct messaging. Modi's public image was built around development, decisive leadership and administrative experience.

The slogan of "Congress free India" also became part of the political narrative. It was not simply an electoral slogan. It represented an attempt to frame the 2014 contest as a choice between an established political order and a new model of governance.

However, the BJP's 2014 victory cannot be explained by campaign technology or Modi's personal communication alone. Anti incumbency against the Congress led United Progressive Alliance government, economic concerns, corruption controversies, organisational strength, regional political conditions and the BJP's broader campaign all contributed to the result.

The significance of 2014 was that Modi's Gujarat political identity became a national governing proposition.

2014: The Shift in Indian Politics

The BJP won 282 seats in the 2014 Lok Sabha election, giving it a single party majority in the House.

That mattered because the BJP did not need coalition partners to cross the majority threshold, even though it governed through the broader National Democratic Alliance.

Indian political communication consequently became increasingly centred on four connected themes: development, leadership, governance and national identity.

The Prime Minister's Office became an especially important centre of political communication. Government programmes were frequently presented through a national leadership framework rather than simply through individual ministries.

This did not eliminate the role of ministers, state governments or the bureaucracy. But it changed how government achievements were communicated to citizens.

The BJP also increasingly connected state level campaigns to the national leadership. Narendra Modi became a central campaign figure in elections across different states, even when the issues involved were primarily local.

This was an important shift in the relationship between national and state politics.

The First Modi Government: 2014 to 2019

The first Modi government attempted to build a governance architecture around financial inclusion, technology, formalisation and direct delivery.

Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana expanded access to bank accounts. Aadhaar and Direct Benefit Transfer systems increasingly became tools for transferring government benefits directly. Digital India sought to expand digital infrastructure and government services.

Swachh Bharat turned sanitation into a highly visible national political priority. Ujjwala focused on LPG connections for women from poorer households. Make in India attempted to improve India's manufacturing profile.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code created a new framework for dealing with corporate insolvency, while the Goods and Services Tax created a common indirect tax framework across the country.

These policies were not isolated schemes. Together they reflected a broader governing philosophy: formalise economic activity, use technology to reduce leakages, expand financial access, improve delivery and place the Union government at the centre of large national programmes.

The approach also had costs and controversies.

Demonetisation in November 2016 was one of the most consequential decisions of the first term. The government argued that withdrawing high denomination currency would attack black money, counterfeit currency and terrorist financing while encouraging formalisation and digital payments.

The decision caused major disruption because a large part of India's economy depended on cash. Small businesses and informal workers were particularly affected. Almost all of the demonetised currency eventually returned to the banking system, leading critics to question whether the policy achieved its stated objectives in the way originally expected.

GST also faced significant implementation difficulties. A nationwide tax system was a major structural reform, but multiple tax rates, compliance requirements and technological problems created difficulties for smaller businesses during the transition.

These examples illustrate an important characteristic of the Modi government: an emphasis on large structural interventions that could change systems, accompanied by a willingness to accept significant short term disruption.

2019: From Political Victory to a Dominant National Narrative

The 2019 Lok Sabha election strengthened the BJP's position further. The party won 303 seats, compared with 282 in 2014.

The second government consequently began with a stronger political mandate than the first.

The political agenda also expanded beyond development and welfare.

In August 2019, the government changed the constitutional and administrative framework governing Jammu and Kashmir by effectively ending the special status associated with Article 370 and reorganising the former state into two Union Territories.

The Citizenship Amendment Act passed later that year became another major political controversy. The government defended the legislation as a measure to provide citizenship pathways to persecuted religious minorities from specified neighbouring countries. Critics argued that its religious classification undermined India's secular constitutional framework. Large protests followed.

The Ayodhya dispute also reached a historic stage. The Supreme Court's 2019 judgment cleared the way for construction of a Ram temple at the disputed site while directing that an alternative site be provided for a mosque.

National security became another central political theme, particularly after the 2019 Balakot airstrike following the Pulwama terrorist attack.

The result was a broader political formula in which welfare, development, national security, nationalism and cultural issues increasingly existed together within the ruling party's national narrative.

Welfare Politics and Direct Government Delivery

One of the most significant changes during the Modi era has been the political importance of welfare delivery.

The focus shifted increasingly from announcing broad government intentions to identifying beneficiaries and delivering specific services.

Bank accounts, LPG connections, toilets, houses, electricity connections, drinking water, food support, health insurance and direct transfers became highly visible components of government policy.

This produced what political analysts often describe as "beneficiary politics".

The term does not mean that beneficiaries automatically vote for the government. Electoral behaviour is much more complicated. It means that the relationship between citizen and state can increasingly be experienced through specific benefits received directly from government programmes.

NITI Aayog's multidimensional poverty estimates show a substantial decline in multidimensional poverty over the period, although measuring the precise contribution of individual governments to such long term changes remains methodologically complicated.

The political importance of welfare lies partly in visibility. A bank account, house, toilet, LPG connection or food entitlement is more tangible to a citizen than an abstract policy reform.

The criticism is that highly branded welfare can blur the distinction between government institutions and political leadership. Supporters argue that branding improves awareness and accountability because citizens know which government delivered a particular programme.

Both interpretations are relevant to understanding the political transformation.

COVID 19: The Great Test of the Second Term

The COVID 19 pandemic became the defining governance crisis of Modi's second term.

The nationwide lockdown announced in March 2020 was one of the most sweeping administrative interventions in independent India's history.

The government argued that an early lockdown was necessary to slow transmission and give India time to expand health infrastructure.

The humanitarian consequences were severe, particularly for migrant workers. Millions faced loss of employment and difficulties returning home.

The government subsequently announced food assistance, economic packages and measures for migrant workers. Free foodgrain distribution became an important part of the pandemic response.

The vaccination programme later became one of the largest public health exercises in the world. India's domestic vaccine production capacity and the wider vaccination campaign became central elements of the government's response, while Vaccine Maitri extended vaccine supplies to other countries.

At the same time, the second COVID wave in 2021 exposed severe weaknesses in health infrastructure. Shortages of oxygen, hospital beds and medicines produced a national crisis. The government faced intense criticism over preparedness and communication.

The pandemic therefore produced a mixed governance record: large scale mobilisation and welfare support on one side, severe humanitarian and health system challenges on the other.

2024 and the Third Modi Government

The 2024 Lok Sabha election changed the parliamentary arithmetic.

The BJP won 240 seats, falling short of the 272 majority mark on its own. The National Democratic Alliance, however, secured enough seats to form the government.

Modi was sworn in for a third consecutive term on 9 June 2024.

This distinction between BJP strength and NDA strength is important.

The first two Modi governments were characterised by strong BJP parliamentary majorities. The third government requires greater attention to coalition politics and the role of alliance partners.

This does not erase Modi's political dominance within the BJP. It changes the parliamentary environment in which the government operates.

The 2024 result also demonstrated that a long period of political dominance does not mean that electoral politics becomes mechanically predictable. The BJP remained the largest party, but its seat total fell substantially from 303 in 2019.

The third Modi government therefore represents continuity in leadership combined with a different parliamentary structure.

How Modi Changed Political Communication

Perhaps no area changed as visibly as political communication.

When Modi became Gujarat Chief Minister in 2001, politics still depended heavily on television, newspapers, physical rallies and party organisation.

By 2014, social media and mobile communication had become central to campaigning. Modi was among the politicians who recognised the political value of these platforms early.

His communication style increasingly bypassed traditional intermediaries.

Mann Ki Baat created a recurring direct communication channel with citizens. Social media allowed government announcements, speeches and political messages to reach audiences immediately. Mobile applications, digital campaigns, videos, graphics and targeted online communication expanded this ecosystem.

Large rallies remained important, but they increasingly became part of a wider digital communication strategy.

This helped create a more personalised form of political communication in which the leader could speak directly to citizens without relying entirely on party workers or traditional media.

Academic studies of Indian political communication have documented the rise of leader centric messaging around Modi, particularly on social media.

There is an obvious advantage to this model: clarity. Citizens can easily identify the political leader associated with a government.

But there is also a democratic question. If political communication becomes excessively personalised, institutions, ministers, MPs, MLAs, civil servants and local representatives may receive less public attention.

The Modi era has therefore contributed to a broader global trend towards personalised politics while adapting it to India's enormous electorate and digital environment.

Modi and the BJP Organisation

It would be misleading to describe the political transformation as the work of one individual.

The BJP's organisational machinery has been central to Modi's political success.

The RSS provided a longstanding organisational ecosystem. BJP workers, booth level networks, state leaders, campaign managers and social media teams all contributed to election mobilisation.

Amit Shah became especially important in transforming the BJP's electoral organisation during the first Modi era. The party expanded booth level management, data based campaign planning and organisational coordination.

State leaders remained important, but national campaigns increasingly operated around a combination of Modi's personal appeal and the BJP's organisational structure.

This combination is important because leadership without organisation cannot sustain a national political movement. Conversely, organisation without a compelling national message may struggle to achieve the same level of political visibility.

The Modi era brought these two dimensions together more tightly.

Governance: Centralisation Versus Efficiency

One of the central debates around Modi's governance model concerns centralisation.

Supporters argue that a strong central government can make decisions faster, coordinate national programmes more effectively and overcome bureaucratic resistance.

Large infrastructure projects, digital public systems and nationwide welfare programmes can benefit from common standards and central coordination.

Critics argue that excessive centralisation can weaken federalism, reduce state autonomy and limit institutional checks.

India's Constitution divides powers between the Union and the states. Many major policy areas therefore require cooperation rather than unilateral decision making.

The relationship between the Union government and opposition ruled states has consequently become politically significant. Disagreements over governors, investigative agencies, taxation, funding and administrative powers have repeatedly produced federal tensions.

The same debate extends to Parliament and independent institutions. Critics have raise concerns about parliamentary scrutiny, the use of central investigative agencies and the space available to dissenting voices. The government and its supporters reject the broader allegation that Indian democracy has been undermined, arguing that elections remain competitive, institutions continue to function and government action is subject to judicial review.

The centralisation debate therefore cannot be reduced to a simple question of whether strong leadership is good or bad. The real issue is how efficiency can coexist with institutional accountability and federal balance.

India's Foreign Policy and Global Image

The Modi years have also coincided with a more visible Indian foreign policy.

India has deepened strategic relations with the United States while maintaining its longstanding relationship with Russia. At the same time, China has become a major security challenge, particularly after the 2020 border crisis.

The Quad has become an important platform involving India, the United States, Japan and Australia.

India's G20 presidency in 2023 became another major diplomatic moment. The New Delhi summit produced a consensus declaration and India pushed greater attention towards developing countries. The African Union was admitted as a permanent G20 member during India's presidency.

The government also organised the Voice of Global South Summit and sought to position India as a bridge between developed economies and developing countries.

The basic principle has remained strategic autonomy. India has avoided formally aligning itself with any major power bloc while simultaneously expanding relationships with multiple major powers.

This approach has advantages because it gives India diplomatic flexibility. It also has limitations. Relations with China remain difficult, India's neighbourhood continues to present security challenges and balancing relationships with the United States, Russia and other powers becomes increasingly complicated in a more fragmented international system.

The broader change is that foreign policy has become more closely integrated with domestic political communication. International summits, diaspora events and diplomatic achievements are now regularly communicated directly to Indian audiences.

The Political Opposition and Criticism of the Modi Era

Any assessment of 25 years must include the criticisms.

Opposition parties have accused Modi's governments of concentrating political power, weakening institutional checks, using central agencies selectively and creating an uneven political environment.

Civil society organisations and international rights groups have raised concerns about minority rights, freedom of expression, treatment of journalists and activists, and the broader political climate.

Human Rights Watch, for example, has criticised the Modi government over minority rights and restrictions on dissent. The Indian government has rejected such assessments and has repeatedly argued that India remains a vibrant democracy with constitutional protections and regular competitive elections.

Economic criticism has focused on unemployment, the quality of job creation, inequality and the impact of disruptive policies such as demonetisation.

The opposition has also criticised the government over Parliament's functioning, federal relations and the use of investigative agencies.

These criticisms should not automatically be treated as established facts. They are part of an ongoing political and institutional debate.

Equally, the existence of regular elections should not mean that questions about institutions and civil liberties are irrelevant. Democratic assessment involves elections as well as the functioning of courts, legislatures, media, civil society and constitutional institutions.

That tension is an important part of understanding the Modi era.

What Actually Changed in Indian Politics?

After 25 years, several structural changes stand out.

First, Indian politics has become more leader centric. National elections increasingly involve a direct assessment of the prime ministerial leadership rather than only local candidates and party manifestos.

Second, digital communication has become a permanent part of political organisation. Political parties now operate through social media, messaging platforms, digital advertising and data based campaign systems.

Third, welfare delivery has become more targeted and technologically integrated. Bank accounts, Aadhaar, mobile connectivity and direct transfers have created a new architecture for delivering government benefits.

Fourth, the BJP's national footprint expanded significantly during this period. The party moved from being one of India's principal national parties to becoming the central governing force in national politics for much of the period.

Fifth, political branding has become more important. Government schemes increasingly have recognisable names, visual identities and direct associations with political leadership.

Sixth, the relationship between national and state politics has changed. State elections remain heavily shaped by local issues, but national leadership increasingly influences campaign strategy.

Finally, governance itself has become more visible as a political product. Infrastructure, digital services, welfare delivery and administrative performance are now central components of electoral messaging.

Whether these developments strengthen democracy or create new institutional risks depends on how they interact with accountability, competition and constitutional checks.

Gujarat to Delhi: What Remained Consistent and What Changed?

The strongest continuity between Gujarat and New Delhi is the emphasis on development, infrastructure, technology, administrative efficiency and direct

 communication.

But governing India required a much broader political vocabulary.

Gujarat is a state government operating within a federal system. The Union government deals with the entire country, state governments, Parliament, the Supreme Court, the armed forces, foreign governments, macroeconomic policy and national security.

The scale is fundamentally different.

In Gujarat, industrial investment and electricity could be central political themes. At the national level, the government had to manage monetary conditions, global trade, relations with China and the United States, defence policy, interstate finances and a much wider social diversity.

Coalition politics also became relevant again after 2024.

The Gujarat experience therefore provided Modi with a governing philosophy and political identity, but it could not simply be copied at the national level.

The national version became more complex. Development remained central, but it was combined with welfare, nationalism, national security, foreign policy, cultural politics and digital governance.

25 Years: Achievement, Controversy and Political Transformation

The 25 year journey contains both significant policy transformations and major political controversies.

There is strong evidence of change in infrastructure, digital governance, welfare delivery, political communication and India's international visibility.

There is also substantial evidence of political contestation around economic disruption, unemployment, communal tensions, institutional independence, centralisation and the treatment of dissent.

Neither side alone explains the period.

One way of understanding the Modi era is as a transformation in the relationship between leadership and governance.

 Policies are increasingly communicated through a central political personality. Welfare is increasingly connected to direct beneficiary experiences. Technology has become part of both government administration and political campaigning. The BJP has combined organisational depth with highly personalised national communication.

The long term historical question is which of these changes will survive beyond the individual leader.

Will digital governance become a permanent feature of Indian administration? Will beneficiary focused welfare remain central to electoral politics? Will leader centric campaigning continue to dominate national elections? Will the BJP's organisational model reshape competition among national and regional parties? Will stronger central coordination produce a lasting change in India's federal structure?

These are questions historians will have to answer with greater distance from the events themselves.

Conclusion: From 2001 to 2026

The journey from Gandhinagar in 2001 to New Delhi in 2026 is significant not simply because Narendra Modi has spent 25 continuous years at the head of government.

Its larger significance lies in what happened to Indian politics during those years.

The country moved from an era dominated by television and traditional political campaigning into an era of smartphones, social media and direct digital communication. Welfare moved towards increasingly targeted delivery. Government programmes became more closely integrated with technology. Infrastructure became a more visible part of political messaging. The BJP expanded its national reach. The relationship between national leadership and state politics changed. Foreign policy became a more prominent component of domestic political communication.

At the same time, the period generated intense debates over economic disruption, employment, centralisation, federalism, minority rights, institutional checks and democratic space.

That is why the 25 year milestone should be studied as a political period rather than simply celebrated as a personal achievement.

Narendra Modi's career provides a lens through which to examine how Indian politics itself evolved between 2001 and 2026.

The defining feature of the era may ultimately be development politics, welfare delivery, political centralisation, BJP expansion, digital governance, leader centric politics or India's changing global role. It is too early to determine which one will carry the greatest historical weight.

What is clearer is that the political system Modi entered in Gujarat in 2001 is not the same political system that exists in India in 2026.

The next chapter will be shaped not only by Narendra Modi's individual political journey, but by whether the institutions, communication methods, welfare systems, organisational structures and governing practices that emerged during these 25 years become permanent features of Indian politics.

The question for the years ahead is therefore not who will win a future election or what any individual politician's future will be.

It is this:

What aspects of the Modi era will continue to shape Indian politics after 2026?