In the pulsating chaos of Indian democracy, politics has undergone a peculiar metamorphosis, a transformation so profound that it demands a new term: (M)olitics . This is not merely politics modified but Modi-eized, a term that captures the ideological alchemy of PM Narendra Modi’s hegemony, where the political is sublimated into a spectacle of moliticks—a tick-like parasitic attachment to the body politic, draining dissent while sustaining itself on the libidinal energies of the masses. To understand this, we must turn to the lens of Slavoj Žižek, whose psychoanalytic Marxism unveils the obscene underbelly of ideology, and may reveal how (M)olitics in India operates as a seductive mirage, a symbolic fiction that both conceals and sustains the Real of power.
The Symbolic Order of (M)olitics: Modi as the Big Other
Žižek, riffing on Jacques Lacan, teaches us that ideology functions through the Big Other—the symbolic order that structures our reality, the unwritten rules we obey even as we pretend to resist. In India, Narendra Modi has become the embodiment of this Big Other, not merely a prime minister but a mythic signifier: the Vishwaguru, the Chaiwala-turned-Hindu Rudai Samrat , the ascetic strongman who promises Viksit Bharat (Developed India). This is not politics as policy but politics as performance, where Modi’s image—beamed through WhatsApp forwards, Twitter (now X) memes, and Mann Ki Baat soliloquies—constructs a seamless narrative of national rejuvenation.
(M)olitics, then, is the art of making the contingent appear necessary. Žižek would argue that Modi’s dominance is not about governance alone but about sustaining a fantasy: the fantasy of a unified, Hindu-centric India rising from the ashes of colonial and Nehruvian humiliation. This fantasy papers over the Real—the messy contradictions of caste, class, and religious pluralism. The 2014 and 2019 elections, and the ongoing consolidation of power, are less about democratic choice and more about what Žižek calls the objet petit a —the unattainable object-cause of desire that keeps the masses hooked. Development, security, cultural pride: these are the lures, forever deferred, yet endlessly promised through grandiose spectacles like the Statue of Unity or the Ram Mandir inauguration.
The Tick of (M)oliticks: Ideology as Parasitism
My term (M)oliticks is wonderfully Žižekian, evoking the image of a tick burrowing into the skin of democracy. For Žižek, ideology is not a lie but a truth that distorts. The tick of (M)oliticks feeds on the blood of dissent, transforming critique into complicity. Consider the media landscape: 24/7 news channels, once platforms for debate, now function as echo chambers for Modi’s charisma, what Žižek would call the “sublime object of ideology.” The opposition—be it Congress, AAP, or regional parties—flounders not because of policy failures alone but because they are trapped in the symbolic order of (M)olitics, forced to play by its rules. To oppose Modi is to risk being labeled anti-national, a traitor to the fantasy of New India.
This parasitism is most evident in the erasure of the Real. Žižek’s Real is that which resists symbolization: the poverty of millions, the violence against minorities, the ecological devastation beneath the sheen of Make in India. (M)oliticks does not deny these realities but absorbs them into its narrative. Farmer protests? A conspiracy by “Khalistanis.” Lynchings? Isolated incidents exaggerated by “urban Naxals.” The tick thrives by redirecting attention to Modi’s omnipresent image—inaugurating trains, meditating in Kedarnath, or tweeting about yoga. This is what Žižek calls fetishistic disavowal: “I know very well, but…”—we know the economy falters, but we believe in Modi’s vision anyway.
The Hysteria of the Masses: Desire and Jouissance
Žižek’s psychoanalytic lens reveals that (M)olitics is not just top-down but sustained by the jouissance—the perverse enjoyment—of the masses. Modi’s rallies, with their choreographed fervor, are less political events and more Lacanian hysterical discourses, where the subject demands answers from the Master (Modi) while secretly enjoying the lack of resolution. The chant of “Modi! Modi!” is not a call for policy but a libidinal release, a collective orgasm of belonging to the imagined community of Bharat. This is why facts—unemployment rates, GDP slowdowns, or communal tensions—fail to dent Modi’s aura. The masses, in Žižek’s terms, are not duped; they choose to be seduced, finding pleasure in the very uncertainty that (M)olitics thrives on.
Take the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) or the abrogation of Article 370. These are not mere policies but ideological acts, what Žižek calls “quilting points” that stitch together the symbolic order of (M)olitics. They signal to the Hindu majority: “You are the nation; the Other (Muslim, liberal, dissenter) is expendable.” Yet, as Žižek would warn, this creates a paradox: the more (M)olitics excludes, the more it depends on the excluded to define itself. The “anti-national” becomes the necessary enemy, the tick’s sustenance, ensuring the system’s survival.
Escaping the (M)olitickal Trap
Can India escape the tick of (M)oliticks? Žižek’s pessimism offers little hope. He argues that ideology’s grip is strongest when it appears invisible, when we think we are free but are most bound. The opposition’s failure lies in its inability to break this symbolic order, to offer a counter-fantasy that rivals Modi’s. Rahul Gandhi’s Bharat Jodo Yatra or regional leaders’ caste-based appeals are gestures, but they lack the libidinal pull of (M)olitics. To disrupt this, Žižek might suggest an act—a radical gesture that shatters the coordinates of the existing order. Perhaps a coalition that embraces the Real of India’s diversity, not as a slogan but as a militant rejection of (M)olitickal homogeneity.
Yet, Žižek would also caution against naive optimism. The tick of (M)oliticks is resilient, adapting to crises—be it COVID-19 or economic woes—by doubling down on spectacle. The 2024 elections, though competitive, showed Modi’s ability to reframe setbacks as victories, a classic Žižekian move of turning defeat into ideological triumph. The question is not whether (M)olitics can be defeated but whether India can imagine a politics beyond the tick’s bite.
Conclusion: The Obscene Underside of (M)olitics
In the end, (M)olitics is not just Modi’s creation but a symptom of our times, a global shift toward what Žižek calls “post-political biopolitics,” where governance is reduced to managing populations through fear and desire. India’s (M)oliticks is a local variant, uniquely garbed in saffron and nationalism, yet universal in its logic. To dismantle it requires confronting the Real—not just Modi’s policies but the fantasies we invest in him. As Žižek might quip, borrowing from Lacan: “The only way to kill the tick is to stop feeding it our desire.” Until then, (M)olitics will continue its parasitic dance, metamorphosing India’s democracy into a spectacle of its own making.
