Why India’s Prime Minister Modi Rarely Faces the Press

Modi has consciously chosen an alternative model that privileges direct communication over mediated interpretation.

The criticism that India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has not followed the tradition of frequent press conferences is often framed as evidence of a democratic deficit. In international commentary, the press conference is treated as a near-sacred ritual of accountability, and its absence is read as avoidance.

Yet this argument overlooks political context, media evolution, and a revealing comparison with Modi’s predecessor, Manmohan Singh. To understand Modi’s communication style, one must first understand why press conferences became necessary for Singh—and why they functioned very differently from how they are remembered today.

Press Conferences as a Compulsion, Not a Virtue

During the United Progressive Alliance years in India, press conferences were frequent, but frequency should not be confused with openness. Indian media then, as now, operated through selective access, negotiated questioning, and editorial framing that often limited spontaneity. These interactions rarely produced unscripted accountability; instead, they reassured the political establishment that the Prime Minister was visible and institutionally present.

That reassurance was politically necessary. Manmohan Singh governed within a power structure in which authority was fragmented. At major public events—inaugurations, launches, and announcements—media coverage often foregrounded the Congress party leadership rather than the Prime Minister himself.

Singh’s public appearances were fewer, his mass rallies limited, and his personal political base constrained by coalition arithmetic. In such an environment, press conferences served a compensatory function. They were not primarily instruments of direct public engagement but mechanisms to assert that the Prime Minister remained central to governance.

International observers often misread this pattern as a norm of democratic virtue. In reality, it reflected a specific political necessity: visibility had to be manufactured because it was not organically produced through mass politics. The press conference became a proxy for presence.

Modi’s Presence Does Not Require Reinforcement

Narendra Modi operates from a fundamentally different political position. His visibility does not depend on press rooms or curated exchanges with editors. Since assuming office in 2014, Modi has cultivated a style of leadership defined by constant physical and symbolic presence.

Whether at large national inaugurations or small district-level programmes, his participation is extensive and highly publicised. From airport terminals to railway flag-offs, and from flagship infrastructure projects to modest local initiatives, Modi’s attendance is widely reported and directly associated with governance outcomes.

This matters because visibility in democratic politics is not merely about being seen; it is about being recognised as the locus of decision-making. Modi’s presence is not symbolic in the abstract sense but personal and repetitive, reinforcing a direct association between leadership and delivery. For supporters and critics alike, there is little ambiguity about who represents the executive authority of the Indian state.

In this context, the press conference loses its earlier function. It no longer serves as proof of relevance or authority because those attributes are already established through constant engagement. To insist on the ritual without considering the altered political reality is to mistake form for substance.

Direct Democracy in a Mediated Age

Press conferences are, by design, exercises in mediated democracy. Questions pass through editorial filters, answers are compressed into headlines, and narratives are shaped by institutional priorities that may or may not align with public concerns.

Modi has consciously chosen an alternative model that privileges direct communication over mediated interpretation.

His monthly radio programme Mann Ki Baat, direct addresses to the nation, frequent public speeches across regions, and extensive use of digital platforms represent an attempt to bypass traditional gatekeepers. This strategy reaches audiences well beyond metropolitan newsrooms, particularly in rural and semi-urban areas where studio debates have limited penetration.

For international audiences accustomed to press briefings as the primary interface between leaders and the public, this approach can appear unconventional. Within India, however, it reflects a media ecosystem transformed by mobile connectivity and social platforms.

This shift unsettles established power centres precisely because it reduces their intermediary role. The discomfort expressed as concern for democratic norms often masks a deeper anxiety about diminishing influence. The question, then, is not whether communication occurs, but who controls its framing.

Accountability Beyond the Microphone

Democratic accountability cannot be measured solely by the frequency of appearances before cameras in a press hall. It is assessed through parliamentary scrutiny, electoral verdicts, judicial review, and policy outcomes visible on the ground.

By these measures, Modi’s governments have been continuously accountable. Parliamentary debates and committee processes remain active, elections at national and state levels have repeatedly tested popular support, and courts have exercised oversight on executive actions.

To reduce accountability to a single communicative format is to adopt a narrow and culturally specific definition of democracy. Manmohan Singh governed in an era when visibility had to be carefully constructed to compensate for political constraints. Modi governs in an era of constant connection, where leadership presence is ubiquitous and often overwhelming.

One required press conferences to assert presence; the other renders them largely redundant by occupying the public space so completely.

The question, therefore, is not why Narendra Modi does not hold traditional press conferences. The more revealing question is why critics insist on judging a mass-connected, hyper-visible leader by a ritual designed for a very different political reality.

Democracies evolve, leadership styles adapt, and communication technologies reshape expectations. To ignore this evolution is to freeze democratic practice in a form that may no longer serve its intended purpose.

Sometimes, the absence of a press conference does not signal evasion. It signals the declining relevance of an old format in a transformed political landscape.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.