So, what happened? In view of unanswered questions about the Pahalgam attack, Operation Sindoor, the upcoming Bihar elections, the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the state, and the Ahmedabad plane crash, it was a given that this would likely be a high-stakes session. But the fallout of Operation Sindoor and the diluted 2024 election mandate seem to have complicated the situation further. Operation Sindoor, because there is a verifiable gap between the government’s triumphalist claims and public perception about what went down. And the fallout of the 2024 election, because for the first time in Modi’s enviable career, it was proven that he was not invincible. That led to many dynamics.
One of them was the confirmation of the growing distance between the RSS and the Modi government. So far, Indian pundits have tried to present it as a personality clash between Dr Mohan Bhagwat, the RSS chief, and PM Modi. However, new evidence has emerged to substantiate claims that the differences are institutional, and the widening gulf between the two sides is outlook-oriented. Operation Sindoor’s end has simply strengthened the case of the Modi critics within this self-contained universe.
When the BJP failed to win a clear majority in the 2024 general elections, an unconfirmed report reached me via the RSS’s international affiliates that Modi had reached out to the organisation with an assurance and a request. The assurance was that he would step aside when he turned 75 (17 September 2025), but until then, he or his government should not be disturbed.
Now, you understand I cannot prove or disprove that claim. Since his rise to power at the Centre, Modi has used the 75-year age limit to retire many senior party leaders like Advani. Now the shoe is on the other foot. And, as if that was not enough, recently Bhagwat, who himself turns seventy-five six days before Modi, on 11 September, gave a speech in which he extolled the virtues of retiring at that age. It was read as a direct reminder to Modi.
You have to hand it to the Indian media for being so craven that even so-called independent voices in the digital, social, and alternative media suggested that Bhagwat retire on 11 September to put pressure on Modi to retire six days later. Then they would enlighten you that the RSS’s secretary-general Dattatreya Hosabale, and possibly Bhagwat’s successor, was close to Modi. So, basically, Modi just had to outlive Bhagwat’s tenure. As we shall see, this has changed significantly. But let’s return to the parliamentary session for a minute.
Days before the start of the session, it was already made public that, in the opening days, Modi would travel to the UK and then Mauritius. So, he wouldn’t participate in the session in the intervening period. But the session’s first surprise came when, on day one, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned from his office, citing his health. Only days earlier, he had informed an audience that he intended to serve his full term until 2027, barring any divine intervention.
Given that, like his American counterpart, the Indian Veep is supposed to preside over upper house proceedings, the obfuscation machine that is India’s media began spinning a yarn, claiming — through sources – that Dhankhar was shown the door because of his differences with the Modi government. Both as Bengal governor and then vice president, he had behaved as Modi’s most committed troll. So this did not compute. Not one story mentioned that he is 74 years old and will be 76 in 2027. Get it?
There is speculation that more heads may soon roll. One name mentioned is that of UP’s Yogi Adityanath. But this speculation is the outcome of the fallacy that the Modi government was responsible for Dhankhar’s exit. Granted, the RSS seems to be looking for a different kind of PM candidate, but it does not seem to have any problem with Yogi as CM.
If Dhankhar’s exit was a case of age-limit implementation, it puts another speculation to rest. Earlier, it was thought that upon turning 75, Modi may step down, installing Amit Shah as premier, only to return as president once the incumbent retires. In short, the Putin model. This theory, of course, presumes that the RSS will not have any issue with him becoming president after seventy-five. But if the vice president has to be younger than that age, then that option is also out of the question. Perhaps that is why Amit Shah appeared to be managing expectations by bringing up his retirement plan a day before Bhagwat spoke.
Now the RSS’s inner dynamics. While Modi, Shah and their allies have made a career out of Muslim-baiting, Bhagwat has progressively tried to reach out to India’s most significant minority. This Thursday, RSS leadership met with Muslim clerics in New Delhi and agreed on an interfaith dialogue. Among the RSS top brass that participated, Hosabale was also present. So it is a clear signal that Bhagwat’s policies are not just those of one man, but of the institution. Incidentally, the organisation does not elect its leader. The outgoing leader nominates the next.
So, why the difference in outlook? Modi and Shah’s perspective is defined by their short-term survival and hence optics. The RSS, which turns one hundred this year, believes in the long game. And while the ruling duo served its purpose well in the first term, it has become a liability. Between 2015 and 2022, the organisation had achieved many of its strategic goals — narrative dominance, the Ram Mandir judgement, and the rapid rise of the Indian diaspora. Then it learned that it had to choose between being unique and being universal. Meanwhile, Modi’s policies abroad caused a blowback which negatively impacted the diaspora and India’s core interests. The Sangh Parivar now needs the real deal, not a make-believe global leader. And for that, it is ready to wait and groom new leaders. It just wants the blowback to stop, which is impossible without Modi’s departure.
So, is it the end of the road for Modi and Shah? Who knows? But this extrapolation exercise was undertaken because the Indian media is utterly unreliable. And, given that all of these are deductions, I can be woefully wrong. But, as I highlighted above, there is enough prima facie evidence to suggest that I am not.