Modi’s 2005 pluralist statement contrasts with later campaign rhetoric scrutinised by the Election Commission

A viral Instagram reel resurfaces a genuine 2005 Seedhi Baat interview in which then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi said he was “not at all” against Islam and added that a Hindu who is against Islam is not a Hindu because Hindu tradition teaches respect for all religions.

The clip is authentic, but the public-interest record is broader than the meme-style “CM Modi / PM Modi” contrast. Modi has continued at times to say that he does not oppose Islam or Muslims. At the same time, later election campaigning has included rhetoric that explicitly or implicitly cast Muslims as a political out-group, drawing complaints and formal Election Commission directions against campaigning along religious or communal lines. The documented record therefore establishes a contrast in public rhetoric across time; it does not by itself prove a change in private belief, a hidden motive, or that every later statement was legally adjudicated as unlawful.

What the 2005 interview establishes

In the 2005 interview with journalist Prabhu Chawla, Modi said in Hindi that he was not against Islamic thought. When Chawla asked in English whether he was against Islam, Modi replied, “Not at all.” He then said that if a Hindu is against Islam, “he is not a Hindu,” because Hinduism teaches that all religions are equal.

India Today’s archive identifies the interview as a Seedhi Baat conversation published in the April 11, 2005 issue. Scroll later identified the same resurfaced clip as Modi speaking to Chawla in 2005. The Instagram reel posted in September 2025 therefore uses genuine archival footage, even though its caption supplies its own political interpretation.

The later record is more complicated than a simple reversal

The reel implies that Modi’s position as Prime Minister is the opposite of what he said as Chief Minister. That conclusion needs qualification. In a television interview during the 2024 general election, Modi again said that he and his party were not opposed to Islam or Muslims. That is evidence of continuity in his stated self-description.

But other 2024 campaign remarks sit in tension with the inclusive principle expressed in 2005. At a rally in Banswara, Rajasthan, Modi referred to Muslims while alleging that a Congress government would redistribute wealth to “infiltrators” and people who have “more children.” Congress denied the redistribution claim and complained to the Election Commission. Reuters and other contemporaneous reporting documented the remarks and the political dispute around them.

The Election Commission subsequently directed the BJP president to ensure that star campaigners refrained from campaigning methods or utterances along religious or communal lines and from statements that could divide society. The Commission issued parallel directions to the Congress over separate complaints, so the intervention was not a legal judgment against Modi alone. It nevertheless provides an institutional standard relevant to assessing the later campaign discourse.

What the evidence means

The verified 2005 quotation remains important because it records a clear public principle: opposition to Islam was presented as incompatible with Modi’s understanding of Hinduism. The later record shows that this principle cannot be treated as a complete description of all of his subsequent campaign rhetoric. Conversely, later controversial speeches do not by themselves prove that the 2005 statement was insincere or that Modi’s private beliefs changed.

The defensible finding is therefore narrower and more useful than the reel’s implied personality verdict: Modi’s public rhetoric contains both explicit statements of religious inclusion and later election language that drew institutional concern for communal division. That tension matters because senior political speech shapes the standards of democratic campaigning, and the Election Commission’s Model Code specifically asks parties and candidates not to aggravate religious differences or seek political advantage through communal appeals.

Limits

This record compares documented public statements and institutional responses. It does not establish motive, psychological belief, or a general causal effect on communal relations. Nor does the Election Commission’s direction amount to a court finding that a particular speech was criminal or illegal.