‘The next prime minister could be a theocratic autocrat’: Tavleen Singh

Interview | Tavleen Singh, journalist and author

Veteran journalist Tavleen Singh says that ‘Guruji’, the future autocratic prime minister in her novel The Actor, isn’t based on Prime Minister Narendra Modi. “Are you saying the prime minister is a theocratic autocrat?” she interjects when asked.

But then, Guruji rose from humble means. He has bulbous lips, wears rimless glasses and his face is “plastered everywhere”. His welfare measures won him popularity among the poor and he likes to “repeat in all his speeches that he spent twenty-four hours a day working for Bharat Mata”. He is also narcissistic, media conscious and ruthless to his opponents and critics. He is also “impossible to defeat” and “has changed the nature of politics in a fundamental way”.

The Actor, Singh’s first work of fiction, begins with actor Amit Singh contemplating his future in Bollywood after a string of flops. He takes a detour into politics, and joins his friend and parliamentarian Naresh Khanna and his new, fiery Parivartan Party. Khanna believes that “the answer to a religious autocracy cannot come from political parties whose only ideology is socialist feudalism”. Together, they set out to challenge Guruji with their party, offering an alternative to both the ruling party and the opposition.

“I didn't even know the Cockroach Janta Party was on the horizon, and here I was writing about young people coming together to form a new political party,” says Singh. “But the CJP has to get its act together.”

Edited excerpts:

Q/ In your book, you describe an India of the future with a sort-of theocratic dictatorship with an almost non-existent opposition. What was the idea behind writing your first novel?

I am always interested in the nature of power, whether it is the power of cinema or politics.

I have been covering politics as a journalist since the Emergency. And that period fascinated me. Everything was controlled by one person with immense political power, and because of that power she handed not just the Congress but India to her son. That left a deep impression on me. I realised it was worth examining. Then there is the power of cinema in India, and I wanted to link the two.

Q/ In your book, you are also critical of, what you call, feudalistic socialism.

Yes. The reason you might, in the future, have a Guruji-type figure is this: is there an opposition leader who isn’t born into a political family? Hardly anybody. None of the big ones. Rahul Gandhi, Supriya Sule, Omar Abdullah, Mehbooba Mufti, Tejashwi Yadav—look at the list. That worries me a great deal.

Q/ Before the BJP came to power, you were quite hopeful. When did you feel that things weren’t going the right way?

Everybody says it is because Modi kicked my son (Aatish Taseer) out. But if you look at my columns, I was critical of him even before that.

I was hopeful that he would reverse the electoral feudalism and socialism, let India breathe, let small businesses rise. I became disappointed economically. I believe in liberal democracy and free markets, and he delivered neither. He made India illiberal.

I was disappointed even towards the end of his first term, because he didn't do what he set out to do. Instead of free markets, he created a few oligarchs.

And then there is Aatish being kicked out. He isn’t even allowed a normal visa. I am 76 years old and I can’t see my son unless I go to New York. And for what? He wrote an article in which he was more critical of Rahul Gandhi than of Narendra Modi. The headline was written by the editor at Time. Nobody bothered to read the article, because these people don't read.

Q/ In a previous interview with The WEEK, Aatish mentioned he couldn’t visit his grandmother.

She was very close to him. When she died (in 2024), Modi wrote me a letter saying, “I know the worth of a mother.” In my reply, I said, “Give my son an ordinary visa.” There was no response.

So these signs of illiberal behaviour really worried me.

And it all came together, with demonetisation and then the response to Covid. The human suffering was immense. The way he imposed the lockdown, he didn’t think people would suffer this much.

Q/ But are there any particular politicians you drew from for this character?

Many. Narcissism is something they all have in common, whether it was Indira Gandhi or Yogi Adityanath. So the book is a warning, in a way.

Q/ Are the other characters—Naresh Khanna and Amit Singh—too, based on people you have observed?

Amit Singh is loosely a combination of Vinod Khanna and Amitabh Bachchan.

Rajesh Khanna was my MP here in New Delhi, and I was fascinated by what the link is between cinema and politics.

With Naresh, I wanted him to represent the opposite of what is going on, which is liberal democracy and free markets. I believe India has been held back because those two things haven’t happened.

Q/ The book is about the rise of a new party, the Parivartan Party, an alternative to both the ruling party and the opposition. How do you look at the genesis of the Cockroach Janta Party?

That is what fascinated me. I didn’t even know the Cockroach Janta Party was on the horizon, and here I was writing about young people coming together to form a new political party.

But the Cockroach Janta Party has to get its act together. Right now, it is becoming a rebel for any old cause. Don’t fall into the government’s trap. Modi is a very clever politician. They say he has managed to keep Rahul Gandhi away from power by maligning him, and Rahul doesn't help himself much either.

Q/ How do you look at the crackdown on the protest called by the CJP on October 10? Some compared it to Emergency.

The Emergency did not turn Delhi into a military encampment, not even on the first day when Gandhi arrested all the politicians. I was horrified by what I saw: paramilitaries at Jantar Mantar. It is insane. I actually asked someone closer to Modi than I am whether somebody is trying to harm him by giving him this kind of advice.

Q/ Do you think the BJP is facing its most challenging time?

The prime minister certainly is. The party is a much bigger entity, and would probably find a way. In Modi’s personal case, I have never seen him so weak. I thought it was almost sad that he joined Instagram, because he suddenly discovered this generation lives on it. Then to see those sad little selfies and little speeches.

The young voted for Modi. They thought he would change things: better schools, easier college admissions. Instead of fixing the problems—his chief ministers rule most of India—he concentrated on bigger things like airports, which also need to be built. But he has done almost nothing other than Swachh Bharat and Ujjwala, where he actually understood what people need and made a huge difference. Then he seems to have meandered off. You can build as many airports as you want, but if people are too uneducated or badly educated to get a proper job, what’s the point?

If people are educated enough, they can communicate with the world. In the time of AI, we have already lost a decade, because it all started on his watch, and we are way behind. Where are these children going to compete if they leave school barely able to read and write?

Q/ Has a lot of time been also spent on issues like changing the curriculum, focusing on what one eats and so on?

Too much time has been spent on that. We are the second-largest exporter of beef, after Brazil, so it is hypocritical to judge someone by what they eat, and everything they judge people for is what Muslims do.

Q/ You are also quite critical of the opposition.

As Prashant Kishor calls them, they are potted plants. Most of these heirs have never done a real job. They inherit political parties and constituencies, and as a result a lot of young people who should have been in public life were kept out to keep these heirs in place. And I find none of them, the whole lot, impressive. They are really mediocre. All they like is the glamour of being in politics.

I did a piece last week saying let the cockroaches do the protesting, but let’s get an alternative from the Congress. Let’s find out how we should be dealing with the Election Commission, how we can put guardrails on the Enforcement Directorate. That’s what we should expect from the main opposition party, and there is no sign of it. You don’t come to power by collecting crowds in the street. You have to do the hard work, too, and they have no agenda.

Q/ In your book, one can read a certain urgency around defeating Guruji. Do you hold the same view around contemporary politics?

I think no politician, no prime minister, should have more than two terms, and I would really like to see that change made.

Q/ The book ends with Naresh being shot, and it is a very ambiguous ending. Why end it like that? Is there a sequel planned?

I haven’t thought about a sequel. But I wanted it ambiguous. I didn’t want to kill him, because he is my favourite character. He represents all that is decent in a politician.

Q/ Is there any politician today who comes close to Naresh Khanna?

Prashant Kishor.

Q/ Is Guruji in your book based on the prime minister?

Are you saying the prime minister is a theocratic autocrat?

I believe the next one who comes, if we carry on down this road, will be a theocratic autocrat.

But all political novels come from real things, otherwise what is the point of writing them? I am reflecting on the way India already is.

But I am not saying he is a theocratic autocrat.

THE ACTOR

Author: Tavleen Singh

Publisher: HarperCollins India

Price: Rs699; Pages: 328