On Social Media, Modi Goes Soft

On Social Media, Modi Goes Soft is a Hindustan Times report by Zia Haq published on 26 October 2012. It examines Narendra Modi’s social media presence ahead of Gujarat’s state elections, contrasting his rousing rally speeches with a softer, more reflective tone on Twitter, and quotes Sunil Abraham on how Indian politicians use social media to shape public discourse rather than to directly mobilise votes.

Article Details
Full Text
Context and Background

Article Details

📰 Published in:: Hindustan Times
👤 Author:: Zia Haq
📅 Date:: 26 October 2012
📄 Type:: News Report
🔗 Publication Link:: Not available online

Full Text

"Truth stands on its own; it doesn't need a prop." Is this Mahatma Gandhi? No, it's Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi on Twitter. Gujarat's elections are near, but in the arena of social media, Modi has already won. From over a million subscribers on Twitter to a Facebook page flooded with "likes", Modi's net is cast wide.

In political rallies, Modi roars with demagogic speeches. On Twitter, he displays a softer, brooding side: "Powers of the mind are like rays of light." Only occasionally is a political challenge thrown in: "Delhi Sultanate treats Gujarat like enemy nation but Gujarat will never bow."

A polarising figure still, Modi is often accused of avoiding action to stop a carnage that killed nearly 2,000 people in 2002, mostly Muslims. Yet, he has pulled off a stunning PR strategy on social media to showcase Gujarat as India's Guandong, a Chinese province with top GDP rankings. Gujarat has posted robust growth rates, although its human-development indicators remain skewed.

Modi became the third politician globally, after Obama and the Australian PM, to host a political conference on Google+ Hangout, a video chat platform. In the past quarter, he added nearly 24,000 Twitter subscribers every 12 days, according to twittercounter.com.

Modi has leveraged social media in a way the Congress hasn't been able to. Unlike him, none among the Congress's leadership, including Rahul Gandhi, has a personal Twitter account. "Our leaders believe more in transparent dialogues with the public, rather than spreading Internet canards," said Congress spokesperson Manish Tewari.

Shashi Tharoor, a Congress MP with the highest Twitter subscriber base among Indian politicians, attracts mostly the elite, not the masses. He jibes at his own government with irreverent tweets often making his party frown.

Yet, research shows that social media is more persuasive than television ads. Nearly 100 million Indians, more than Germany's population, use the Internet.

Of this, the 40 million who have broadband are the ones active on social media. "Unlike Obama, who used it directly for votes, Indian politicians tend to use social media more to mould public discourse," says Sunil Abraham, the CEO of The Centre for Internet and Society.

Context and Background

The Gujarat assembly elections of December 2012 were Modi’s third consecutive election as chief minister, and he won with a comfortable majority. His social media strategy, particularly on Twitter, was at the time considered innovative for Indian politics, which had historically relied on ground mobilisation, caste networks and broadcast media rather than digital platforms.

The contrast between Modi’s digital presence and the Congress party’s absence from social media proved significant. Rahul Gandhi did not join Twitter until 2015, by which point the BJP had already established an overwhelming structural advantage in digital political communication. The 2014 general election, which brought Modi to power as Prime Minister, was widely studied as a case where social media coordination played a decisive supporting role alongside traditional campaign machinery.

Sunil Abraham’s observation that Indian politicians were using social media to mould discourse rather than directly seek votes as Obama had captured an important distinction between the Indian and American political contexts. In India, social media’s primary political function in 2012 was still elite opinion formation, particularly among urban, English-speaking audiences, rather than the broad voter outreach it would later become.