By WG Commander Satish Aparajit (RETD)
The idea of limiting the tenure of a Prime Minister to two terms will undoubtedly face strong opposition. But how many of us have genuinely considered it? Likely, very few. This is largely because India, as a society, is driven by personalities. Why else would figures like Nehru or Modi seek to hold on to the top post, even after they have proven themselves and achieved significant milestones? Is it purely ambition or perhaps the allure of power that keeps them attached to the position? While I don’t want to speculate or empathise with such motivations, it is worth pondering.
The question that sparked this article was a recent suggestion from a political leader that those above the age of 75 should no longer occupy central roles in politics. This leads us to ask: Will Prime Minister Modi step down when he reaches that milestone? With less than a year to go, will he retire before then, or continue? This is no simple decision, especially for someone who has risen through the ranks—from Swayamsevak to Karyakarta to one of the most popular Prime Ministers in Indian history.
It is crucial that no individual, regardless of their stature or success, should have an unchecked tenure. Extended rule often paves the way for authoritarianism. We see this in the slogans like “This is Modi’s Guarantee” or claims of a divine purpose behind his leadership. While Modi has undoubtedly made significant contributions—whether in Jammu and Kashmir, or on the global stage—there should be a limit. Even a “divine mandate”, if there is such a thing, should have boundaries.
Take the example of the United States, where Presidents are limited to two terms of four years each. This model has stood the test of time. In contrast, the 1962 India-China debacle was a result of Nehru’s unchecked rule. While Nehru moderated his approach after the event, it was too late. The framers of our Constitution laid down a visionary foundation for the country, but they overlooked one critical aspect—the tenure of the Prime Minister. Perhaps Nehru himself didn’t want term limits, as they would have directly affected him. However, he passed away during his third term, and similarly, Indira Gandhi did not survive her third tenure either.
Leaders like Nelson Mandela serve as a striking contrast. Mandela stepped down after a single five-year term, choosing not to cling to power. In Mexico, the President is limited to a single six-year term. These examples demonstrate that it is not only possible but healthy for democracies to enforce term limits on their leaders.
It is only fair that India too restricts the Prime Minister’s tenure to two terms. After two terms, leaders should step aside, allowing fresh ideas and new energy to emerge. This will prevent stagnation and encourage innovation, which is vital for the nation’s growth.
The same rule should apply to Chief Ministers as well. Leaders like Naveen Patnaik, Nitish Kumar, Shivraj Singh Chouhan, and Mamata Banerjee continue to hold office indefinitely, unless defeated in elections. This issue should have been resolved during Nehru’s era by the Congress, but as history shows, it is hard to part with power.
Though I’m no astrologer, I sense that Modi may choose to step down before he turns 75, maintaining his stature and popularity. Before he does so, he should consider leaving a lasting legacy by enacting a constitutional amendment that restricts the tenure of the Prime Minister. Such a move would ensure that India’s democracy remains vibrant and dynamic, moving beyond the limitations of any single personality.
