Satish Singh Manhas
manhas444@gmail.com
Ever since India attained independence-or even before that-the country has witnessed many popular leaders, from Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel, and Jawaharlal Nehru in the early decades, to Lal Bahadur Shastri, Indira Gandhi, and Bharat Ratna Atal Bihari Vajpayee in later years. Each of them enjoyed popularity during their tenure. However, only a few leaders, such as Indira Gandhi and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, managed to retain widespread influence across political, social, and ideological divides for extended periods.
Every Prime Minister contributed significantly to the nation, though each also faced failures. Jawaharlal Nehru streamlined India’s political and economic systems after independence but failed to secure the nation’s borders effectively and did not succeed in securing a permanent seat for India in the United Nations. Sardar Patel, with his iron will, unified the country and created history. Lal Bahadur Shastri led India effectively during the 1965 war. Indira Gandhi played a decisive role in the creation of Bangladesh, helping people escape atrocities by the Pakistani army.
Rajiv Gandhi promoted modernization through initiatives like Maruti and the introduction of computers. Vishwanath Pratap Singh focused on OBC welfare, though his tenure also saw unrest. P.V. Narasimha Rao introduced major economic reforms. Atal Bihari Vajpayee made India a nuclear power despite international pressure and set an example of corruption-free governance while successfully managing a coalition of more than 20 parties.
Despite these achievements, almost every government faced corruption allegations-from the Jeep scandal to 2G, Commonwealth Games, and Rafale controversies. Rajiv Gandhi once admitted that only a fraction of development funds reached the grassroots level, highlighting the deep-rooted issue of corruption in the country.
After independence, Congress dominated Indian politics, winning elections almost unchallenged. Indira Gandhi returned to power riding on the Bangladesh victory, while Rajiv Gandhi’s massive mandate followed a sympathy wave after his mother’s assassination. BJP’s initial rise was linked to issues like the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, Article 370, and Advani’s Rath Yatra, which brought it into national prominence.
However, what explains the current popularity of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP? It is not based on grand promises, emotional waves, or symbolic campaigns like in the past. Instead, it appears rooted in practicality and delivery.
BJP’s governance record in states like Gujarat under Narendra Modi and Madhya Pradesh under Shivraj Singh Chouhan built credibility. Public dissatisfaction with Congress-due to perceived poor governance, a soft stance on terrorism, and ambiguous positions on key issues-also contributed to BJP’s rise.
The BJP’s bold decisions, such as the abrogation of Article 370, the ban on triple talaq, and the construction of the Ram temple, significantly impacted public perception. Welfare schemes like free LPG connections, rural electrification, bank account inclusion, Mudra loans, housing under PMAY, and sanitation drives addressed real grassroots needs.
This shift attracted voters across communities. Many women, including Muslim women, supported the BJP due to tangible benefits like gas connections and social reforms. The party’s appeal grew not through rhetoric but through perceived delivery and trust.
For instance, in a small village like Bagh in Doda district, all 20 households received housing under PMAY. Such examples reflect the government’s outreach at the grassroots level.
Interestingly, many voters express that even if they personally do not receive benefits, they trust that corruption is being reduced and resources are less likely to be misappropriated. This perception has strengthened BJP’s image as a party of accountability.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many citizens believed that the government would guide the country through the crisis, reinforcing trust further.
Today, BJP is not just seen as a political party but increasingly as a national belief system. It is viewed by supporters as a reform-oriented, nationalist force committed to delivering across social and economic segments.
Its repeated electoral successes at the central and state levels-including victories in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and others-along with strong performance in local body elections, indicate its growing influence.
In conclusion, BJP appears to have shifted India’s political narrative-from dynasty-driven politics to one centered on development and diplomacy. Whether this transformation is permanent or evolving remains to be seen, but its impact on India’s political landscape is undeniable.
(The Author is serving as Assistant Director in Forest Department.)

Ashok Ogra
ashokogra@gmail.com
Today, a meme can travel faster than a missile-and sometimes leave a stronger impression. During the recent Iran-US conflict, a short clip spread widely on Instagram and X. It showed a cartoon-style version of Donald Trump pressing buttons that caused big, exaggerated explosions, while an Iranian figure appeared calm.
Similarly, posts that joke about the Strait of Hormuz with Iranian diplomatic accounts saying they had “lost the keys” to the strait, as if it were a locked gate.
The United States also uses social media, often through stylised videos and popular culture references, mainly aimed at its own domestic audience. In one controversial case, official US content mixed real strike footage with clips from video games and films, presenting war almost like entertainment. This showed how even formal communication has begun adopting the language of social media to reach wider audiences.
The difference in approach, however, is clear. Iran tries to reach a global audience, while the US focusses more on its domestic constituency. Still, both understand that how a story is told is as important as the events themselves.
Across all these examples, some common patterns can be seen. Content that is short, simple and easy to understand gains public acceptance more easily.
However, what looks like simple online content is often part of a larger effort to influence public opinion. Governments and people use social media to present their side of a conflict. Memes, short videos and edited visuals are made to attract attention and encourage sharing. Social media have become a space where ideas about a war are created and debated. In essence, war is no longer only fought on the ground.
This development is relatively recent, coinciding with the rapid growth and deeper penetration of social media platforms.
Take the case of the Ukraine war: the country uses platforms like X, Telegram and Instagram to share updates, videos and messages asking for global support. The “Saint Javelin” image has become one of the most powerful symbols of the war. It shows a saint-like figure in the style of a traditional religious icon, but instead of holding a child, she holds an anti-tank weapon. This unusual mix of faith and modern warfare made it visually striking and easy to remember. It spread rapidly online, boosted morale, and even raised over a million dollars for humanitarian aid-showing how a meme can move from symbolism to real-world impact.
Similarly, the “Ghost of Kyiv,” – a viral story about a heroic Ukrainian pilot who allegedly shot down several Russian aircraft in a single day. Though later acknowledged as a myth, it played a powerful role in the early days of the war.
Russia, on the other hand, uses social media in a more controlled way, focusing on its own explanation of the conflict. They use more controlled messaging. Symbols like the “Z” sign became widely visible. Influencers and online personalities amplify pro-war messaging, sometimes under pressure or guidance, creating a digital environment of patriotism and support while limiting dissent.
Both sides-Russia and Ukraine-have seen viral posts that later turned out to be misleading or false. Claims about war crimes, battlefield victories, or leadership actions spread rapidly online, often before verification. Unfortunately, such content influences how people think, rather than giving full details.
New technologies have added another layer. Edited or AI-created visuals can make events look more dramatic or different from reality. For instance, Iran has increasingly used cartoon-style and AI-generated videos on social media to depict the US as confused or weak.
This does not mean everything is false, but it does make it harder to clearly tell what is real and what is changed. While social media have become a major source of information, they also raise questions about accuracy. Because of this, most well-informed people often check more than one source before forming an opinion.
This is why newspapers and established media still matter- though their influence has dramatically diminished in recent years. It continues to provide more complete reporting and context, and present a fuller picture. However, their coverage differs across countries and regions.
Take the case of the Iran conflict. In the United States, newspapers like The Washington Post and The New York Times, when covering the Iran conflict focus on security, policy and risks. In the United Kingdom, The London-based Guardian gives more attention to humanitarian issues and civilian impact.
In Iran, newspapers such as The Tehran Times present a national viewpoint, focusing on unity and response. In the Gulf region, papers like Gulf Times and Khaleej Times focus on stability, oil markets and the risk of conflict spreading.
Indian newspapers such as Daily Excelsior, The Hindu, The Indian Express and The Times of India take a practical approach. They look at oil prices, the safety of Indian citizens and the global impact. They usually call for calm and dialogue.
The fact remains that today, traditional media and social media are closely connected. Viral posts can influence what news organisations cover, while detailed reporting helps people understand what they see online. In short, there is no single way to understand a conflict.
The main point is simple. War today is not only about what happens on the battlefield. It is also about how those events are shown and understood. In this situation, public opinion is not separate from the conflict-it is part of it.
So, the challenge today is not only to follow the war, but also to understand how it is being shown. Remember, in today’s conflicts, what travels fastest is not always the truth, but the story-and often, that story shapes reality as much as the battlefield itself.
(The author works for reputed Apeejay Education, New Delhi)