A receptive audience can be presented to viewers at home as evidence of international approval, although attendance at a rally says little about the views of an entire country or diaspora.
Is India exporting political spectacle abroad
India has every reason to take pride in the achievements of its diaspora. Indians and people of Indian origin contribute to public life, science and business across the world. Their success belongs to the communities they serve as well as to their ancestral heritage. Yet the mass receptions for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat raise a question that deserves frank discussion: when does celebrating India become promoting a particular leader or ideology?
Modi has made large diaspora gatherings a signature of his overseas outreach. Madison Square Garden in 2014, Wembley Stadium in 2015 and the 2019 “Howdy Modi” event in Houston illustrate the scale of this approach. According to India’s Press Information Bureau, the Houston gathering drew more than 50,000 people, with then US President Donald Trump joining Modi. Such events demonstrate organisational skill and a strong emotional connection with India. They also provide unusually powerful platforms for personal political branding.
A prime minister should engage with citizens and people of Indian origin abroad. Those meetings can encourage investment and strengthen relations between countries. The difficulty arises when the leader’s image dominates the occasion so thoroughly that affection for India appears indistinguishable from support for him. A receptive audience can be presented to viewers at home as evidence of international approval, although attendance at a rally says little about the views of an entire country or diaspora.
Host-country politicians may also see an opportunity to reach an organised constituency. The combination of diplomatic ceremony, community celebration and electoral calculation deserves scrutiny. When applause becomes the principal measure of success, questions about the visit’s practical achievements can recede behind the spectacle.
Bhagwat’s appearance at the Madison Square Garden complex on 29 August 2026 brought these concerns into sharper focus. Scroll reported that more than 5,000 people attended the “Universal Oneness Celebration”, while groups including Hindus for Human Rights and the Indian American Muslim Council protested outside. The Indian Express reported that New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani opposed the event, describing the RSS’s vision as exclusionary, while questioning whether the city had jurisdiction to cancel a private programme. These were identifiable objections to an organisation and its ideology; they should not be presented as hostility towards Indians generally.
Bhagwat’s own message also deserves acknowledgement. The RSS’s account of his speech emphasised unity in diversity and urged the diaspora to remain loyal to the countries where they live. Those assurances should be considered alongside the critics’ concerns. The disagreement shows why neither an enthusiastic audience nor a protesting crowd can speak for the whole Indian diaspora.
Overseas Indians differ in religion, political outlook and citizenship. Their ancestry cannot make them the natural constituency of the BJP, the RSS, the Congress or any other organisation. Nor should a leader’s popularity among some of them be mistaken for a mandate from all.
Consider a provocative comparison. Suppose an official from Beijing visited India and thousands of Indian citizens of Chinese descent gathered to wave Chinese flags and express political enthusiasm for the visiting leadership. Would Indian commentators treat it simply as cultural affection, or ask questions about foreign influence? The comparison tests whether we apply the same standards to political mobilisation abroad that we would apply at home.
The answer must begin with equal citizenship and freedom of expression. Ancestry is no ground for suspecting disloyalty. Indian citizens of Chinese descent deserve the same rights as other Indians, just as Indian Americans and British Indians deserve respect as citizens of their own countries. Any concern about improper influence must rest on evidence of conduct, not ethnic identity or attendance at a lawful gathering.
These principles apply equally to supporters of Modi and Bhagwat. Admiration for either man does not establish disloyalty to an adopted country. People can retain deep ties to India while fulfilling their civic responsibilities elsewhere. They must also be free to criticise Indian leaders without being accused of betraying their heritage.
The concern arises when that heritage is treated as an expectation of political allegiance. India’s cultural influence becomes narrower when one leader or organisation claims to embody it. India is larger than its governing party, and Hindu traditions encompass far more than the RSS. An overseas platform that recognises this diversity can build relationships across communities. One that treats dissent as hostility risks reproducing India’s domestic divisions abroad.
Bhagwat’s position requires a further distinction. He leads an ideological organisation; he does not hold an elected office or speak constitutionally for the Indian state. His supporters may regard his appearances as cultural outreach, while critics see them as efforts to legitimise Hindu nationalism internationally. Giving him a prominent platform does not settle that disagreement, and criticism of the RSS should not automatically be equated with opposition to Hinduism.
For Modi, the responsibility is different. As prime minister, he represents India in its entirety, including those who oppose his party. Diaspora diplomacy should reflect that obligation. It gains credibility when outreach includes differing political views and addresses practical concerns, such as consular services and opportunities for cooperation, alongside ceremonial receptions.
Modi deserves credit for recognising the diaspora’s importance. But the value of that engagement must be assessed through durable relationships and concrete benefits. India’s international standing depends on economic strength, reliable institutions and diplomatic credibility. A packed venue can attract attention; it cannot by itself establish any of these.
Indians abroad should be able to cherish their heritage without pressure to represent a party or movement. Do the overseas spectacles surrounding Modi and Bhagwat build respect for India’s diversity, or export political divisions that India itself needs to overcome?
(Besesayo Kezo is a retired IPS officer and former Director General of Police (DGP) of Nagaland.)