Study: Modi vs. Wild: Celebritized Politics and the Mediations of a Spiritual Strongman (DOI: 10.1353/cj.2024.a919187)
When Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi appeared on "Man vs. Wild" with survivalist Bear Grylls, the setting looked far removed from conventional politics. There were tiger tracks, rain, mud and a makeshift spear. Grylls warned of the dangers of the wilderness. Modi appeared calm.
For University of Michigan media scholar Swapnil Rai, that contrast is precisely what makes the episode worth studying. Rai, an associate professor of film, television and media, examines the appearance in her essay, "Modi vs. Wild: Celebritized Politics and the Mediations of a Spiritual Strongman," published in the Journal of Cinema and Media Studies. She argues that the episode offers a window into what she calls "celebritized politics"-a political culture in which the tools, formats and values of celebrity become part of how leaders construct authority and present themselves to the public.
Rai's interest is not simply that the prime minister of India appeared on an entertainment program. What matters, she argues, is what a format such as reality television makes possible. Unlike a campaign speech or formal interview, "Man vs. Wild" places its subjects in an apparently unscripted environment. Viewers watch them walk, talk, react and tell personal stories. The political figure appears less like someone delivering a message and more like someone being revealed. That distinction is powerful.
In Rai's reading, the episode contributed to a shift in Modi's public persona. Earlier political imagery around him often emphasized physical strength and masculinity. On "Man vs. Wild," another quality becomes prominent: asceticism. Modi speaks about his childhood, his relationship with nature, and periods of spiritual seeking. Personal ambition is presented as secondary to service. Rai describes the resulting image as that of a "spiritual strongman"-a leader presented as powerful but detached from ordinary desires, comfortable with hardship and connected to something larger than himself.
The effect then becomes more than visibility. Celebrity culture can give political leaders another vocabulary for authority: authenticity, intimacy, courage, exceptionalism and personal virtue. A leader is no longer asking an audience only to agree with a political argument. Audiences are also being invited to form an impression of who that person is.
When politics becomes personal
The "Man vs. Wild" appearance is part of a much larger media ecosystem. Modi has appeared alongside Bollywood stars and international celebrities and has cultivated a highly visible presence across digital and social media. Rai argues that such encounters allow political leaders to occupy some of the same cultural spaces as entertainers and other public personalities. Those spaces can be particularly effective because they do not always look political. An adventure program, celebrity interview or social media image can appear more intimate and less calculated than an election rally. Yet those appearances still communicate ideas about leadership.
Images suggest courage. Personal stories create intimacy. Celebrity associations confer status. Repeated performances turn particular qualities into familiar parts of a leader's public identity. The political message, in other words, does not always have to arrive as an argument. Sometimes it arrives as a feeling about who a leader is. For Rai, this is part of a broader transformation in political communication. Celebrity culture does not sit outside politics. Increasingly, its conventions help shape how political authority is understood globally, whether it is New York mayor Mamdani's celebritized rap performances, Michigan U.S. Senate candidate Abdul Al-Sayed dancing in a cowboy hat, or Balendar Shah, a former rap singer who is now Nepal's elected Prime Minister. In Modi's case, Rai argues, celebrity and spirituality have become closely intertwined.
From Hindutva to what Rai calls 'Moditva'
Rai is interested in how repeated performances of Modi as an ascetic, spiritual and exceptional figure can influence not only perceptions of the politician but also public understandings of religion. In her work, Rai describes this as a movement from Hindutva toward what she calls "Moditva"-her term for a political and cultural formation increasingly organized around Modi himself.
"There are aspects of the religion that are fundamentally not even the religion, but because of how Modi has wanted to project or push a certain kind of politics, they have changed," Rai said.
For her, the significance lies in the process: Political power does not simply invoke religion. It selects particular elements of religious practice, amplifies them and presents them as representative of a much more diverse tradition.
Rai sees this process in Modi's own political image. Despite his background outside the traditionally priestly Brahmin caste, she argues, Modi can be represented through media performance as something approaching a spiritual authority-a political leader whose legitimacy draws not only from elections or governance but also from the suggestion of personal discipline, sacrifice and religious authenticity.
"It's taking things that meant something and rebranding them to suit his sort of personal political purposes," Rai said.
The distinction is important to her argument. Rai is not equating Hinduism with the politics of the Modi government. Rather, she argues that the global image of Hinduism itself can be altered when a highly visible political leader repeatedly becomes one of its most recognizable public representatives.
A global performance
Modi's political communication has long addressed international audiences, including the Indian diaspora. Large overseas appearances place his political persona within a global media environment. For Rai, that global dimension changes the stakes. The same performances that help construct a political identity at home can also shape how India, Hinduism and Hindu nationalism are understood abroad. Political branding can travel across borders, while the distinctions between a religion, a political ideology and an individual leader may become increasingly difficult for outside audiences to recognize.
That can produce both identification and backlash. Rai argues that this is one reason the study of popular media matters to politics. Reality television, celebrity appearances and social media are not peripheral to political life simply because they are entertaining. They are where ideas about leadership, nation, masculinity, spirituality and belonging are made visible, and emotionally persuasive.
Her analysis also complicates the familiar idea of the political "strongman." Strength does not always have to be communicated through aggression. It can be conveyed through calmness, restraint, sacrifice or apparent indifference to personal comfort. In the wilderness setting of "Man vs. Wild," the ascetic and the strongman can become part of the same image. That image can be especially powerful because it feels personal. Viewers are not simply told that a leader is courageous, disciplined or selfless. They are invited to watch him appear to demonstrate those qualities.
For Rai, that is what makes celebrity culture so consequential to contemporary politics. It is useful not because it stands apart from politics, but because it shows how difficult that separation has become. A television adventure can construct authority. A celebrity encounter can communicate political meaning. A personal story can help shape a national image. And when repeated enough, they influence how a political leader is seen, and how the ideas, identities, and traditions associated with that leader are understood.
