By Dr Arun Mitra
When technology is used to manufacture self-glorification, it undermines scientific temper, rational thinking and democratic values.
Praising oneself is a habit common to many people. But when artificial intelligence (AI) is used to stage a conversation with a deceased person who appears to shower praise on a political leader, the exercise raises serious questions about the misuse of technology, the promotion of irrational beliefs and the cultivation of a personality cult.
During the Chinmaya Amrit Mahotsav Global Sammelan, organised by the Chinmaya Mission, Prime Minister Narendra Modi interacted with Swami Chinmayananda Saraswati at Bharat Mandapam in New Delhi on 23 October 2026. Swami Chinmayananda died in 1993. The interaction used an AI-powered holographic representation, described as a “Holobot”. The Prime Minister sought its blessings, while the digital representation portrayed him as exceptionally talented and lavished praise upon him.
The issue is not whether technology can recreate the appearance or voice of a deceased person. It can have legitimate educational and cultural applications. The real concern is how it is used. Here, the interaction appeared to glorify the Prime Minister by presenting him as a person of extraordinary stature, with a deceased spiritual leader seemingly lending his authority to the exercise.
In a society where superstition and uncritical hero-worship remain widespread, such spectacles can appeal to people unwilling to question what they see. The words attributed to an AI-generated representation are not an independent endorsement by the deceased. Rather than enhancing the dignity of the office, such an exercise risks inviting ridicule and criticism of the religious traditions the Prime Minister claims to uphold.
Equally disturbing was the enthusiastic applause from an audience that included educated and influential people. This raises an uncomfortable question about our collective capacity for critical thinking. Education should cultivate reason, evidence and independent judgement, not merely produce willing participants in political spectacle.
With elections approaching in several states in 2027, such displays may become increasingly frequent. Attention is diverted from unemployment, economic inequality, public health, governance and democratic accountability towards spectacles designed to reinforce the image of an extraordinary leader.
Article 51A(h) of the Indian Constitution identifies the development of scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and reform as a fundamental duty of every citizen. Yet concerns persist about the growing acceptance of claims unsupported by scientific evidence. The consequences of hostility towards rational inquiry can be grave. Rationalists and social activists such as Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare and Gauri Lankesh were murdered, reminding us of the dangers faced by those challenging entrenched prejudices.
Soon after becoming Prime Minister, Modi addressed doctors and invoked the story of Ganesha to suggest that ancient India possessed advanced surgical capabilities, including transplanting an elephant’s head onto a human body. The claim lacked credible scientific evidence. It was disappointing that doctors applauded rather than emphasised the distinction between mythology and scientifically established fact. Respect for cultural traditions does not require abandoning scientific scrutiny.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, symbolic exercises such as chanting “Go Corona, Go”, clapping, banging utensils and switching on mobile-phone lights received considerable public attention. Such acts cannot replace testing, treatment, vaccination, adequate healthcare infrastructure and evidence-based public communication.
Other remarks attributed to Modi, including his account of making tea using gas emerging from a drain and his suggestion that cloud cover could help aircraft evade radar detection, have also prompted questions about scientific reasoning. More recently, he described himself as non-biological, suggesting that God had sent him and that he was not born in the ordinary biological sense. Whatever the intended meaning, such statements can reinforce an image of a leader placed beyond ordinary human limitations and scrutiny.
An exaggerated sense of self-importance and an insatiable desire for admiration are recognised features of narcissistic traits. People displaying them may overestimate their abilities, consider their opinions superior and react defensively to criticism. They may also surround themselves with sycophants who discourage independent thought.
However, Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is a clinical diagnosis involving a persistent pattern of grandiosity, a strong need for admiration and difficulties with empathy. Public statements alone cannot establish such a diagnosis. Nevertheless, the political consequences of excessive self-glorification and unquestioning loyalty deserve serious scrutiny.
History offers disturbing examples of authoritarian leaders, including Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, who cultivated personality cults through propaganda, mass spectacles and suppression of dissent. Such systems glorified individuals while weakening institutions, marginalising opposition and subordinating public interest to the ambitions of those in power.
The danger of a personality cult lies in treating a leader as uniquely gifted, divinely chosen or incapable of error. Criticism then becomes disloyalty, independent institutions become subservient, and dissenters are branded enemies. Accountability and reasoned debate give way to personal glorification.
Concerns about shrinking space for dissent and coercive action against protesters further underline the importance of democratic safeguards. Reports and images of students and young people facing police action at Jantar Mantar remind us that democratic rights cannot be taken for granted. A government confident in its legitimacy should listen to criticism and engage with peaceful protest.
A Prime Minister’s office demands responsibility, humility and accountability. Respect should arise from fulfilling constitutional duties, not from portraying its occupant as supernatural or beyond comparison with ordinary human beings. AI should advance education, scientific understanding, healthcare and human welfare, not manufacture the appearance of divine endorsement.
India’s democratic future depends on citizens who question authority, distinguish evidence from mythology and retain independent judgement. Blind admiration cannot substitute for informed citizenship, just as technological sophistication cannot compensate for the absence of rational thought.
The real measure of leadership is not the extravagance of praise, whether offered by living followers or an AI-generated image of someone who died decades ago. It is the ability to safeguard constitutional democracy, protect citizens’ rights, promote scientific temper and improve ordinary people’s lives. When self-glorification takes precedence over these responsibilities, the consequences extend beyond an individual and threaten the foundations of democratic public life. (IPA Service)
