Only option is to introduce Presidential system with a ten year mandate for PM Modi: Dr. Jagdeesh Chandra

In the latest edition of the JC Show, Dr. Jagdeesh Chandra examines Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s growing global influence through the prism of the G7 Summit, India’s expanding diplomatic footprint, the country’s leadership of the Global South, foreign investment trends and India’s digital transformation. He discusses the strategic significance of India’s engagement with France, Modi’s interactions with global leaders including Donald Trump, and the role of UPI and digital governance in reshaping India’s economic landscape. The interview also turns to a major domestic political debate triggered by recent developments in the Trinamool Congress and Shiv Sena, where defections, internal rebellions and shifting political loyalties have reignited questions about the health of India’s parliamentary democracy. Against this backdrop, Dr. Chandra assesses whether such upheavals represent a systemic challenge to the parliamentary model, weighs the merits of a presidential system, dismisses speculation about any merger of Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena with the Congress, and argues that political stability and a longterm development agenda remain central to India’s future trajectory. Excerpts...

• The headline of today’s JC Show is ‘BONJOUR MODI’. What is the significance of this French phrase and the narrative associated with it?
  The narrative essentially means “Hello Modi.” In fact, the narrative that has emerged among the people of France and India is both charming and, one could say, a darling narrative. It has been widely appreciated. “Hello Modi” reflects the perception of Narendra Modi as a leader of the 21st century. Such expressions are used because they symbolize Modi’s personality, his identity, and his progressive outlook. Overall, the phrase conveys the message: “Hello Modi, and most welcome Modi.”
• How do you explain what many describe as Narendra Modi’s ability to dominate the global centre stage at the G7 despite India not being a permanent member of the grouping?
  It was undoubtedly a Modi moment at the G7. His presence, popularity and diplomatic stature made him one of the summit’s central figures. More than an invitation, his participation reflected recognition of his standing as a global leader. It also highlighted the strength of India-France ties and India’s growing international influence. Wherever Modi travels, he leaves a distinct impact, and the G7 was no exception.
• PM Modi said world must move towards equality-based partnerships. What message was he seeking to convey?
  Modi has emerged as a leading voice of the Global South. His message is that support from developed nations should not be viewed as charity or donations to poorer countries, but as cooperation among equal partners. He advocates a model of collective progress where assistance is based on mutual respect, shared interests and genuine partnership rather than a donorrecipient mindset.
• What is the significance of the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant Project in India-France relations?
  This is the most ambitious project in the Indo-French energy relationship. Once completed, it is expected to become one of the largest nuclear power plants in the world. It is also regarded as a symbol of longterm French participation in India’s power sector and nuclear energy sector.
• UPI has become one of Modi’s most significant achievements in digital sphere & is now operational even at the Eiffel Tower in Paris. What are your views?
  Narendra Modi’s contribution to Digital India has been extraordinary. Few countries have witnessed such rapid digital transformation. Today, even vegetable vendors accept UPI payments, making digital transactions a part of everyday life across India. In last year alone, UPI processed transactions worth over Rs314 lakh crore. Its global reach is also expanding, with UPI now operational in places such as Eiffel Tower in Paris. India’s digital infrastructure, particularly during Covid, showcased capabilities that many developed nations had yet to achieve. This is a remarkable success story, and Modi along with his technology team deserves significant credit for it.
• At the G7, Donald Trump reportedly stated that if any country attacks India while Modi remains PM, the US would stand with India. What is the significance of this unexpected statement?
  Trump’s remarks reflect the respect he holds for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and are undoubtedly encouraging for Indians. At the same time, questions remain about the necessity of such assurances and the reliability of geopolitical commitments, which often shift with strategic interests. Trump, known for his transactional approach to diplomacy, may invite some skepticism. Nevertheless, his public endorsement of India and Modi’s leadership was a positive gesture and was warmly received by Modi’s supporters. Whatever the broader context, Trump deserves credit for expressing such sentiments about India’s PM.
• In light of recent developments in TMC and Shiv Sena, do you think India’s parliamentary democracy has failed and that the country now needs a presidential system similar to that of the US? Also, how much truth is there in claim made by some Shiv Sena MPs that Uddhav Thackeray was planning to merge his party with the Congress?
  The second part of your question is absolutely false. The suggestion that anyone was joining or merging with the Congress is entirely unfounded. There was no such discussion, proposal or need, as the party had its own identity and political relevance, particularly in Mumbai. The larger issue, however, is the wave of defections seen in parties such as the TMC and others across the country. These developments have left many voters feeling betrayed and have raised a serious question: whether the parliamentary system, under which elections are fought, governments are formed and leaders are chosen, is adequately serving the mandate given by voters.
  There are two aspects to this. First, I would not say the system has failed. Narendra Modi is the PM and is providing a stable government. He himself is a product of this very system, and the system continues to function.
  The second aspect is that the recent political developments have certainly raised a question mark over whether the system is working as intended. They have prompted a debate about whether India should move towards a presidential system. Personally, I have always been supportive of the presidential model, so if such a system were introduced, I would welcome it.
  However, the fundamental issue is something that very few people, and certainly very few political parties, would be willing to accept. The real need today is simply to entrust Narendra Modi with power for the next ten years. Enough political battles have been fought. Political parties have struggled extensively, yet many of them have failed to achieve their objectives. In fact, their own members have betrayed them, left in groups, and joined other camps. If leaders cannot retain control over their own legislators and party members, then one is compelled to ask what meaning remains in leadership, or opposition politics.
  The reality is that, although it may not happen formally in this manner, Narendra Modi could continue winning elections and remain Prime Minister for the next ten years. That is a separate matter. The events that have taken place have undoubtedly created a serious challenge for parliamentary democracy. There can be no doubt about that. When asked whether the system has failed, my answer remains divided into two parts. The Narendra Modi aspect of the system is successful. The aspect reflected in these defections and political realignments is not.
  Politically, Rahul Gandhi or any opposition leader cannot be expected to accept Narendra Modi remaining in power for another decade. However, one view is that if a leader has received a clear mandate, he should be allowed to govern and pursue a long-term development agenda, while opponents seek public support to replace the government through democratic means. At present, there appears to be no strong prospect of such a change, which is why these developments have sparked a broader debate about the effectiveness of parliamentary democracy. The ultimate answer will emerge with time.