The Infectious Culture of Power Proximity : Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

 The Infectious Culture of Power Proximity

Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

The Hans India (December 14, 2025)

{Meaningful interactions with people in high offices or iconic public figures were preserved for personal memory, not publicity. Even replies to letters written to a Prime Minister or President by young citizens, often acknowledged promptly, were treasured privately in family albums} – Synoptic Note by Editor Hans India

In an age where every handshake becomes a headline and every courtesy visit turns into a photo opportunity, the line between ‘dignity and display’ is blurring alarmingly. What was once a private expression of reverence or respect has now been reduced to a public performance of proximity. From Prime Ministers quietly seeking the blessings of spiritual masters in earlier decades, to today’s culture of selfies, orchestrated media coverage, and exaggerated press notes, the society has been witnessing the steady erosion of substance in favor of optics.

This is not just about politics. It pervades bureaucracy, religion, media, and even intellectual circles. The hunger to be seen with power, rather than to serve meaningfully, has become an infectious cultural trend, one that trickles down from the highest offices to the grassroots. The consequences are more than cosmetic. Perception overtakes principle and validation replaces values. A mature democracy, however, demands humility, restraint, and focus on outcomes, not frames. History remembers what leaders stood for, not who they stood beside.

In a telling reflection of how genuine reverence transcends ceremonial optics, The New York Times reported in November 1966 that, the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and President Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan sat cross-legged before the Sringeri Pontiff, a quiet yet profound gesture of humility. Indira Gandhi when visited Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham for darshan of Jagadguru Chandrasekharendra Saraswati she sat before Him with utmost reverence. When the Pontif was on North India visit, she traveled there to seek his blessings.

PV Narasimha Rao visited Kanchi and spent time with all three Kanchi Acharyas. Rajiv Gandhi, during his visit, sat with marked reverence. These instances reflected silent dignity untainted by spectacle.

Narendra Modi, as Gujarat Chief Minister, displayed similar grace, standing respectfully beside the Shankaracharya of Kanchi during the inauguration of the Sankara Eye Hospital in October 2008. These encounters were not orchestrated for cameras but affirmed the Pontiffs’ Spiritual Gravitas, where even the highest political figures went to them, for guidance and grace. In contrast, an influential spiritual and humanitarian figure’s meeting with Prime Minister Modi at the latter’s venue recently received wide amplification on television, social and print media. While noble in intent, the event blurred the line between piety and publicity, sanctity, and stagecraft, raising a deeper question: Are we drifting from private reverence toward public performance?

Here, it is significant no note that, this contrast becomes more telling, when one recalls how earlier generations valued discretion. Meaningful interactions with people in high office or iconic public figures were preserved for personal memory, not publicity. Even replies to letters to a Prime Minister or President normally by young citizens, which were acknowledged promptly, were treasured privately in family albums. Today, the value of the moment has been replaced by the urge to exhibit it. Gratitude was once private dignity. Now it is diluted by display.

A few Congress Chief Ministers whom I personally knew in the 1980s, long before social media dictated relevance, were genuinely gratified to receive even a short note from the AICC High Command or the Prime Minister. These were carefully filed but never flaunted. One Chief Minister to whom I was PRO, preserved a congratulatory message from RK Karanjia, the legendary Blitz editor. The press release issued at that time touched on Punjab’s Critical Situation; yet without a photograph or ostentation. It was a time when leaders found satisfaction in the substance of gestures, not their exhibition. We now live in an era where the currency of proximity outweighs the value of principle, where optics dominate over substance.

What was once a respectful acknowledgment of authority has devolved into a culture of showcasing visibility over substance. From Sarpanches to Spiritual Leaders, from Corporators to Cabinet Ministers, and from regional party workers to national figures, this incomprehensible infectious culture of flaunted proximity urgently needs restraint. Political branding today has merged personal image with party lines.

Being seen, even briefly, with a Chief Minister or Prime Minister has become a prized possession. The handshake, the smile, the framed photograph, all find proudly their way to television channels, newspapers, websites, and social media giving an impression that the person photographed holds special closeness with the high office.

A routine congratulatory letter to a newly elected MLA, once a matter of personal satisfaction, now becomes front-page news. The illusion of access has overtaken the purpose of communication. A mere handshake or a casual meeting is no longer enough. Leaders and aspirants stage ‘Chance Meetings’ at public events to secure that prized photograph. MPs and Ministers release press notes announcing festival or birthday greetings from the Prime Minister, often typed by aides. Even senior bureaucrats, once dignified in restraint, now join the race. The infection has spilled from politics to bureaucracy and even into the religious domain.

Why is it that in a democracy where every individual is equal, the mere act of meeting someone in a higher position is considered worthy of publicity? The answer perhaps lies in the intersection of insecurity, ambition, and media-fueled vanity, as well as, visibility being often mistaken for credibility. 

What makes this culture truly incomprehensible, and infectious, is its sheer scale. Even heads of states without hesitation publicize their meetings with counterparts from other countries, often going to lengths to issue joint statements, despite insignificant benefits to both the countries. There is nothing inherently wrong in publicizing important meetings when they serve national, administrative, or policy-related interest. The problem begins when this act is done disproportionately and without relevance, merely to exploit the optics.

In such cases, the culture transforms into self-serving vanity rather than a communication of public interest. Even more worrisome is the mimicry this farcical culture that encourages at grassroots levels. A Panchayat member feels empowered only when photographed with the Mandal President. The Mandal President chases the ZP Chairman for a selfie, who in turn seeks the MP, who queues for a handshake with the Chief Minister, and ultimately the Prime Minister. It is an unending upward chase for recognition, rarely translating into downward responsibility.

Ironically, even journalists and intellectuals succumb. Writers once celebrated for sharp independence now proudly display photographs of ‘Courtesy Visits’ to Ministers or ‘Exclusive Meetings’ with officials. Their independence of opinion, their greatest asset, is compromised, not necessarily because they are co-opted, but because the image itself projects co-option. In the public eye, perception erodes credibility. Is this behavior symptomatic of deeper psychological needs? Perhaps. In a climate of fierce competition and diminishing ideological clarity, the hunger for validation intensifies.

Power proximity offers a shortcut to relevance. And in a world where perception outweighs reality, this shortcut becomes addictive, an opiate too tempting to resist. The antidote lies in conscious restraint. Those in positions of power must discourage glorification of access. Institutional dignity demands that public officeholders and spiritual leaders resist the temptation to convert every meeting into a photo-op. Just because a moment is captured does not mean it must be displayed. Silence often speaks more about stature than speech.

Ultimately, a mature democracy is not just about who is in power, but how power is viewed and handled. It is not about who stood next to whom in a photo, but what they stood for.

The obsession with selfies and statements, greetings and gestures, photographs, and proximity, this incomprehensible, infectious culture, needs a thoughtful introspection. A little humility and a lot of focus on real outcomes can go a long way in detoxifying public sphere from this affliction of exaggerated optics.

True leadership, influence, and grace need a legacy not a frame. When the flash fades and the frame gathers dust, what remains is never the nearness to power, but the distance one wisely kept from vanity, noise, spectacle, and shallow applause.