Creativity as a spiritual practice

A firework explosion in Hawaii has killed at least three people and injured two dozen more. Authorities say a partygoer lit a bundle of aerial fireworks which then fell on its side, setting off crates of additional fireworks.

Lloyd Klein said Jocelyn Wildenstein was "in impeccable health" just days before her death.

President Biden and President-elect Donald Trump had starkly different reactions to the deadly New Year's Day truck attack on New Orleans' Bourbon Street. CBS News political reporter Libby Cathey has more.

The home of Jeffrey Maddrey was raided early Thursday amid a probe into allegations he traded sexual favors with an underling, the NYPD Commissioner said.

Former President Carter was widely known as a man of faith, a born-again Christian who defined himself as a progressive evangelical.

Valerie Bertinelli is the newest celebrity to become sober in 2024. After trying Dry January, the star decided to stick with a life without drinking. Elle MacPherson, Brad Pitt and Rob Lowe have also been sober for decades.

Colin Firth stars in a new Peacock series about the deadly terror attack on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Anna Schecter, senior coordinating producer for the CBS News Crime and Public Safety Unit, has a look at the investigations into Monday's New Orleans truck attack and the Tesla Cybertruck explosion outside a Trump hotel in Las Vegas.

New Orleans Pelicans personnel reacted to the terror attack on Bourbon Street that left more than a dozen dead and several more injured.

The Giants don’t have an MVP contender like Barkley, but they’re starting to get a glimpse of who a face of their franchise could be for the next decade.

"Russians have not reached the outskirts of the town," said Viktor Trehubov, a spokesperson for Ukraine's Khortytsia grouping of forces.

The Duchess of Sussex, 43, kicked off 2025 by launching her own Instagram account on January 1.

At least 15 people are dead after a man drove a truck into a Bourbon Street crowd early on New Year's Day in New Orleans. President Biden said the attacker was inspired by ISIS and the FBI is investigating the attack as an act of terrorism. CBS News reporter Nicole Valdes has more.

All new: A woman is discovered shot dead in her car with a blood covered man alive on the ground. The man says he has no memory of how he got there. Investigators unravel the strange scene. "48 Hours" correspondent Peter Van Sant reports Saturday, Jan. 4, 2025 at 10/9c on CBS and streaming on Paramount+.

Shamsud-Din Jabbar, 42, was named as the suspect in the New Year's Day attack in New Orleans who has been linked to Isis.

Ohio State avenges its loss to Oregon earlier in the season with a dominant victory in the Rose Bowl that sets up a showdown with Texas in the CFP semifinals.

Loyola High junior guard Quincy Watson keeps using his outside hoop to improve his shooting.

There are eight games between now and Feb. 4, when No. 8 Marquette visits the Garden. Eight winnable games. St. John’s will be a favorite in six of them.

Los Angeles has seen better days. Traffic is terrible, homelessness remains near record highs, and housing costs are among the worst in the country. Several years ago, these factors contributed to an alarming first: L.A.’s population started shrinking.This is no pandemic hangover. With a few exceptions, the local economy has come roaring back. Many of its major industries proved resistant to remote work—you still can’t film a movie over Zoom—and perfect year-round weather continually drew digital nomads. The quick rebound has had the paradoxical effect of kicking L.A.’s pre-pandemic problems into overdrive, by clogging freeways, eating up limited housing supply, and forcing out residents who couldn’t afford to stay.The city’s traffic and housing crises date back a century, when Los Angeles first became dependent on the automobile and exclusionary zoning. Ever since, municipalities across the country—from Las Vegas to Miami, and nearly every suburb in between—have followed L.A.’s example, prioritizing cars over public transit and segregating housing by income. Predictably, Los Angeles’s problems have become urban America’s problems.In recent years, a critical mass of state policy makers, housing reformers, and urban planners understood that L.A.’s problems are reversible, and started to lay out an alternative path for the future. The city has made massive investments in transit and—partly because of pressure from statewide pro-housing laws—experienced a surge of permitting for new homes. Even though rampant NIMBYism remains a barrier, the breadth of the city’s progress is becoming clearer: Los Angeles is gradually revamping America’s most infamous sprawl.L.A.’s quest to reinvent itself holds national implications. Savvy urban planners and policy makers are watching to see how Los Angeles addresses the issues that are intensifying in many of their own cities. They know that a congested, unaffordable future awaits if they don’t intervene.It’s often said that Los Angeles was planned around the car. But it was actually built around what was once the largest transit system in the world. In the early 20th century, the Pacific Electric Railway stitched together hundreds of historic town centers from Riverside to Venice. The rest of L.A. was subdivided into one of the largest street grids in history, marshaling growth along a coherent, interconnected pattern.Only in the 1930s did the city begin to redesign itself for driving. Freeways started carving up the grid, spewing pollution across Los Angeles. The railway closed. Walking and biking became unpleasant and unsafe. This transformation spawned today’s L.A., where car crashes kill more people than violent crime, and the average driver spends 62 hours a year sitting in traffic. It ended up being a model for suburbs across the country; the average American now spends an hour a day driving.The state of housing is equally bleak. By some measures, Los Angeles has arguably the worst housing-affordability crisis in the country. If a middle-class family ever wants to own a home, they’d better go somewhere else. The median home price in L.A. is over 10 times the median household income—more than double a healthy ratio.The many Angelenos who are locked out of homeownership are stuck paying some of America’s steepest rents. Most residents spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing; a quarter of residents spend at least half. To curb costs, many renters double or triple up, resulting in the country’s highest overcrowding rate. About 75,000 residents of Los Angeles County go without housing altogether.The housing shortage is by design: Beginning in the 1960s, policy makers tightened zoning regulations, slashing the city’s capacity by 60 percent. As a matter of law, Los Angeles could not grow. Today, building apartments is still illegal in about three-quarters of residential areas, where most land is effectively reserved for McMansions. The situation is even worse in the suburbs, where zoning allows virtually no new housing at all. The crisis has even spread to once-affordable places like Phoenix, as local growth butts up against restrictive zoning in more and more cities.Until recently, nearly every development in L.A.-adjacent cities such as Pasadena or Culver City entailed a costly environmental review and endless public hearings, both easily hijacked by NIMBYs. Impact fees increase the cost of a new housing unit by tens of thousands of dollars. For a long time, the number of permits issued across Greater Los Angeles looked more like it does in diminished cities like Detroit than in prosperous peers like Seattle.The city’s recent population decline might make you think that nobody wants to live there. But, really, Los Angeles hasn’t let anybody in.After decades of dysfunction, L.A.’s twin crises are starting to look fixable.Take transit: Los Angeles is currently building one of North America’s most ambitious rail expansions, which will rival the top systems in the country. Thanks in part to Measure M, a half-cent sales-tax increase that voters approved in 2016, the city is scheduled to open rail service to Los Angeles International Airport by the end of the decade, as well as new trains extending from West Los Angeles to East Los Angeles. In 2023, L.A. Metro completed the Regional Connector, which linked two light-rail lines, allowing for transfer-free rides across the metropolis.All this new rail will soon be supplemented by an expanded network of bus, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure. In March, a coalition led by the group Streets for All passed Measure HLA, which will add over 200 miles of bus lanes and protected bicycle lanes, and many hundreds of redesigned, pedestrian-friendly streets in the coming decades. If officials can unlock new revenue through congestion pricing—which will nudge some Angelenos out of their cars—the city might finally be able to tame traffic.The housing situation is turning around too, if in fits and starts. Recent experience shows that simply easing overly restrictive rules could unlock a lot of new home building. In 2022, Los Angeles issued more permits than it had in any of the previous 36 years. Although the average home price continues to hover around a million dollars, rents have fallen by about 5 percent compared with late 2023.A range of interventions have made this possible. Since 2017, Los Angeles has permitted nearly 35,000 accessory dwelling units—homes that were largely illegal prior to state intervention in 2017. Thanks to a newly strengthened state “fair share” law, cities across L.A. County will be required to permit thousands of new homes in coming years; Santa Monica, for example, will have to allow some 1,500 new homes over the next few years, more than the city has permitted in decades. A 2022 law green-lighting the construction of affordable housing in commercial zones has prompted Costco to agree to add 800 apartments above a planned storefront in South Los Angeles. Other state laws have eliminated parking mandates, streamlined permitting, and expedited townhouse subdivisions.Still, fixing the crisis will require much more work. By one state estimate, Greater L.A. must permit 168,000 homes each year to end the housing shortage. Even in the historically productive year of 2022, the region permitted fewer than 60,000. And in a major setback, the city council voted in December to preserve single-family zoning, which bans new apartments in nearly three-quarters of Los Angeles. (Never mind that a city-commissioned report admits that the decision will entrench segregation.)But reform continues bubbling up locally thanks to a growing YIMBY movement. Ten years ago, the idea of rolling back apartment prohibitions in Los Angeles was unthinkable; now it seems inevitable. The Transit-Oriented Communities program, part of a ballot measure that Angelenos adopted in 2016, has facilitated the construction of tens of thousands of new apartments near transit. When Mayor Karen Bass took office in 2022, she issued Executive Directive 1, speeding up permitting processes. Combined with a generous state incentive program for projects that agree to keep rents low, the initiative has attracted applications for more than 20,000 new homes and counting. At almost any public hearing, expect to bump into an Abundant Housing LA volunteer eager to share the good news.A century ago, Los Angeles pioneered an urban model that much of America made the mistake of replicating. Now, after many decades of strict zoning and car-centric growth, Los Angeles is figuring out what comes next. The city is starting to treat its dependence on automobiles by reintroducing bus lanes, bike lanes, and rail lines. Neighborhoods that had been locked up for a half century by zoning are finally growing again. Hundreds of urban areas across the country desperately require similar interventions.If history is a guide, L.A.’s ambitions might once again reshape the American city—this time for the better.

For many years, Representative Earl Blumenauer began each Congress by writing a personal letter to every new member of the House and hand-delivering it to their office. The letter contained all the advice he wished that he had been given in his first term.Now Blumenauer, an Oregon Democrat, has retired after 28 years in office. This month marks the last time that newcomers will get his letter, which has evolved in the nearly two decades since he drafted the first version. He shared the final letter with me last month. It focused more than I expected on the human needs of the men and women elected to represent us. This is because, Blumenauer proposed in an interview, Congress would perform better if lawmakers ate healthy, got enough exercise, made more time for family, forged deeper connections with fellow members, and took care to hire good staffers.What follows is an edited version of our interview.Conor Friedersdorf: You joined the House for the first time in 1996, and 10 years later, you wrote an orientation letter to help new colleagues. What inspired it?Earl Blumenauer: I was campaigning in North Carolina for a former professional football player named Heath Shuler––and while talking with his campaign manager, an experienced political operative, it became clear to me that even though he knew how to run a campaign, he had no idea how to help Heath set up a congressional office if he won. For the bulk of a long drive, I tried to give him a sense of what he was getting into. And when I got home, I developed two or three pages capturing that information.Starting out right is important, given the challenges they are about to face, not just as a member but as a human being, because, to be honest, Congress can be soul crushing. The job is often hectic. It's totally unpredictable. And many aspects of it are getting worse.[Read: The myth that Congress doesn’t work hard]Friedersdorf: Americans can turn on C-SPAN and see committee hearings, floor debates, and votes on bills where everyone says “yay” or “nay.” What’s hectic and unpredictable?Blumenauer: The dance of legislation is much more complicated than the Schoolhouse Rock version. It’s very hard to predict if or when many votes will be held. You’re dealing with the dynamics between the House and the Senate, the dynamic in your party––just trying to negotiate a through line with your own coalition––and, of course, there are conflicts between the parties, and the dynamic with the president. And even a single House member can upset the apple cart and blow things up if they are so inclined.The schedule can be disrupted in a heartbeat and often is. You have an appointment where you anticipate solving a problem with somebody over a nice dinner, and that gets blown up because of legislative hassles. Suddenly, you’ve got an unexpected late night of work, no opportunity to get food, and an early-morning Zoom call with a group back home. Or maybe you’re delayed on the floor, you’ve got people waiting for you at a reception, and whatever you need to accomplish is cut short because you’re rushing to catch a flight to your district, where you have obligations both professional and personal.You race around with a knot in your stomach, week after week. Will I make this meeting? This vote? This flight?Friedersdorf: You advise getting to know lots of other members. How does that help?Blumenauer: We have seen in the last couple of years sort of a guerrilla, performative approach to the legislative process, where people are more than willing to just blow things up because they are not interested in passing legislation. They’re not interested in outcomes that normal people would anticipate. They are there to get clicks, command eyeballs, and get online contributions. That introduces more uncertainty into the process. And you don’t want to waste time on something that turns out to be a sideshow or a personal vendetta. So you look to others for information. No one person knows what is happening in Congress at any given time, so relationships become very important for figuring out what will and won’t happen. Meeting new members and their staffers and spouses has helped me to understand what’s going on and who I can work with.[Read: The emerging bipartisan wokeness]Friedersdorf: I was surprised by how much of your advice would apply to someone in any high-stress job––you tell members of Congress to eat healthy, to exercise, to set aside time for family.Blumenauer: I advise people to keep healthy food at their desks because mealtime is wildly unpredictable. I advise making a habit of taking the stairs and riding a bike to work because that builds exercise you wouldn’t otherwise get into your routine. And it’s easy to get caught up in the job and neglect family if you don’t set aside family time on your calendar and instruct your staff to respect it.Friedersdorf: Following that advice would doubtless help members personally. Would it also be better for the country?Blumenauer: I strongly feel that’s the case. You’ve got a bunch of people who are far from home, inadequately nourished, overly caffeinated, perhaps drinking alcohol, often sleep deprived, cranky, and constantly plunged into uncertainty about their schedule and travel.Friedersdorf: In other words, you want well-rested, well-nourished, unharried legislators, because life stressors make reaching sound conclusions and compromises even harder than it would otherwise be? Blumenauer: Exactly. Especially if they’re not in a safe seat, they’re fundraising too. They sometimes lose track of what city they're in, going from hotel room to hotel room, all of which look the same. It takes a physical toll. And emotionally, if people are involved with leadership or intense political activities, or are just tightly wound, this can add up to outbreaks of conflict. All these things seem manageable in isolation, especially at first, but they take a cumulative toll. Unless you help people understand the dynamic that they’re entering, they won’t appreciate what they need to do to preserve their family, friendships, and health. Those kinds of struggles make you worse at your job. It is vital to humanize this process.[Read: How sleep deprivation decays the mind and body]Friedersdorf: You give your letter to Republicans and Democrats. You want members of both parties to be at their best. Why?Blumenauer: So much of what we do is not inherently partisan. I've always, from my very first political experience, looked for the things that bring people together. I started on a campaign to lower the voting age and developed relationships on both sides of the aisle for that constitutional amendment. I was struck by how powerful it is to allow people to work cooperatively.Every piece of legislation I introduce starts out as being bipartisan. We’ve got a bipartisan bicycle caucus. Animal welfare is not a partisan issue and shouldn’t be. I’ve worked assiduously to cultivate, if I can use that term, a bipartisan coalition on cannabis policy.Infrastructure didn’t used to be partisan. It was one of those things that brought people together to deliver for their districts. Some of my proudest accomplishments deal with international water, where we put together a bipartisan coalition that’s provided resources for poor people around the globe dealing with water and sanitation. It has resulted in tens of millions of lives being saved. It’s not without controversy; you’ve gotta pay for it. And sometimes it gets caught up in partisan controversy. But in the main, it doesn't.[Read: A moderate proposal]Friedersdorf: The most powerful committees in Congress have tremendous power and influence. You advise new members to avoid underrating less prestigious committees. Why?Blumenauer: I worked hard for a dozen years to get on the Ways and Means Committee, and wow, it’s been really exciting and impactful. But there are no bad committees. While working to get on Ways and Means, I was able to have an impact on the Foreign Affairs Committee, dealing with trade policy and technology. The Transportation Infrastructure Committee is profound in its impact on communities across the country. So if you want to be on the money committees where they tax and spend, that’s fine. But being on Foreign Affairs, or Veterans Affairs––because they’re not prestigious, they have more turnover. You can end up being a chair or a ranking member of a subcommittee in one or two sessions of Congress. You can develop expertise, move more legislation, get visibility, and achieve significant successes.Friedersdorf: You urge new members to invest a lot of time and effort in how they staff their new offices. How does better-than-average staffing translate into better results for members?Blumenauer: You can’t be an expert on every issue. And there is the added responsibility to represent the people at home who have problems. You must learn to empower staff to sort through issues and to help us reach out and represent constituents. We are, I think, woefully understaffed. So hiring men and women who are dedicated to being problem solvers, who are loyal to their member, loyal to the district and their oath, makes all the difference. I advise being slow and deliberate while staffing up, and moving on quickly if it’s not working. Nonperformers sap the enthusiasm of people on your team who do perform.But as Congress has gotten more performative, some members have de-emphasized staff expertise. They hire for PR skills, while doing few constituent services and hiring no policy people at all.Friedersdorf: On votes, you advise, “Don’t vote against your conscience” or your “best judgment.” You call that “one thing that you cannot explain to your family and close supporters.” What tempts members of Congress to cast votes that they can’t defend?Blumenauer: It’s how we got the Iraq War. A number of us saw very clearly this was a mistake. But in the aftermath of 9/11, the Iraq War was popular, and there was a sense among a number of members that if they didn’t go along with popular opinion, despite their reservations, they’d pay a price. A lot of foreign-policy decisions have had tragic consequences because it’s so difficult for people to cast votes on the merits and their conscience. At times, I’ve heard from other members, I admired what you did. I wish I could have done that. But the job is to do that. I make the point that the perceived political cost doesn’t really matter on a lot of such votes, because people twist, distort, or lie about your voting record anyway. So straddling difficult issues ends up not helping anyway. [Read: How to salvage Congress]Friedersdorf: If you were writing a letter to Americans about what they don’t know about Congress, what would you tell them?Blumenauer: I’d start with what we do to help people understand the basics. There are three branches of government. More than half of the public doesn’t know that. So we’ve got our work cut out for us. Another problem: The vast majority of people are not even participating in primaries. They get information through social media and grotesque advertising campaigns. And they don’t take advantage of opportunities for actually meeting candidates.I don’t have any snappy slogans or easy answers. But one way to improve things is for Congress and the 535 men and women who represent all of us to exercise their responsibilities more carefully. To be a little more sensitive to one another’s needs as human beings and to run the legislative process with that in mind. We need to model the behavior that we want to see from the political process. Identifying issues that are important but not divisive is extraordinarily rewarding. And it’s how we’re going to get through this difficult era: by focusing on things that weren’t in the crossfire of the last election.

At least the fever came on a Friday. Or at least that’s what I, an absolute fool, thought when my nine-month-old, Evan, spiked a 102-degree temperature after I picked him up from day care recently. That meant he’d have three days to recover and would be back at day care on Monday.When the fever rose to 104 on Saturday, my husband and I grew concerned, and when it persisted on Sunday, we took him to urgent care. They diagnosed Evan with an ear infection and prescribed antibiotics, which should take “a day or two” to work, the doctor said.Okay, fine; we would miss a day of work. Our jobs, thank God, are flexible about such things.Except on Tuesday, Evan still had a fever. His ear infection had not gone away, and in fact had worsened to the point that he refused to eat or drink and screamed whenever he was laid down. On Wednesday, the doctor switched him to a new antibiotic. That Friday, a mere 48 hours away, I had to go record my audiobook, in a recording session that my publisher had already booked and paid for.[Annie Lowrey: Why I can’t put down the vacuum]Before we had Evan, my husband, Rich, and I had discussed such exigencies using Fair Play, a popular system—in the form of a book and card game—for divvying up chores. It aims to help women in heterosexual relationships, who tend to take on more household cognitive and physical labor, offload tasks onto their partner. Rich was assigned researching backup child care, for whenever our son was inevitably sick and could not attend day care.The thing is, Rich never did research backup child care. Before people have kids, they don’t realize that parenting is like running a complex military operation in addition to holding down your regular job. He figured we wouldn’t need backup care, and because I was tired and pregnant and swamped with millions of other tasks, I didn’t do the research for him. So here we found ourselves.Which is why, when Rich asked me, four days into Evan’s fever, as we were syringing Tylenol into his wailing mouth at 2 a.m., “What are we gonna do?” I very reasonably responded, “I don’t know, dickhead! What the fuck are we gonna do?”I had done what the pop-feminist chore-management gurus suggested. I had tried to reduce my mental load by foisting ownership of and accountability for tasks onto my husband. The only slight hiccup in this plan is that if your husband doesn’t do the tasks, the system falls apart.The problem, as both Fair Play’s author, Eve Rodsky, and I, and probably lots of other women, see it, is the men. Our husbands or male partners, enlightened though they may be, don’t notice what needs to be done, or they forget to do it, or they don’t know how to do it. This requires the woman to act as project manager, reminding her husband to clean the baby’s humidifier or to grab the yogurt snacks, and so on and so forth, as long as you both shall live.In theory, Fair Play offers a good solution. The best-selling 2019 book, and its companion card deck, lay out all the chores a family could conceivably have—everything from buying birthday gifts to doing the dishes to taking out the trash—on 100 cards, which the couple is meant to divide. Though the resulting division might not quite be 50–50, it should feel equitable. Rodsky writes that the man in the relationship should take at least 21 cards. She told me that a popular way to keep track of who has which card is through the software program Trello.Each person is to take complete “ownership” of their card, including its “conception, planning, and execution.” The same person remembers that it’s time to clean the countertops, finds the cleaning liquid, and actually uses it.Of course, people’s definition of “clean” varies, and many women have higher standards when it comes to tidiness and caretaking. Single, childless women tend to do more housework than single, childless men. Rodsky addresses this through something called the “minimum standard of care,” or a basic level of competence for each task that both spouses agree upon in advance. This means no cramming all the Tupperware into a Jenga tower if the MSC, as it is known, calls for it to be stacked neatly. (Left mostly unresolved is what to do if you can’t agree on a minimum standard of care, or if one partner doesn’t live up to it.) You maintain this system through regular check-ins with your spouse, at which you assess how things are going and re-deal the cards if necessary.Sure, this may sound like romance by McKinsey—a friend of mine called these chore check-ins “deeply unsexy”—but hundreds of thousands of people have bought the book or card deck. Couples seem to really need a way to talk about household labor, and Rodsky offers one.Rodsky, a married mother of three based in Los Angeles, worked as a lawyer and philanthropic adviser before she developed Fair Play. She got the idea, she writes, when one day after she had hustled out the door with a bag of snacks, a FedEx package, a pair of kids’ shoes to be returned, and a client contract—literally with her hands full—her husband texted her, “I’m surprised you didn’t get blueberries.” She was doing so much, but apparently she should have been doing the blueberries too.It made her realize that despite a successful career, “I was still the she-fault parent charged with doing it all, buying the blueberries and masterminding our family’s day-to-day life while my husband … was still not much more than a ‘helper.’”For the book, she interviewed hundreds of couples and immersed herself in research about the division of household labor. She came away with a set of facts and observations that may make you want to set your bra on fire and run off to a lesbian commune. Men hate to be nagged but, Rodsky writes, when pressed in interviews, they admit that they wait for their wife to tell them what to do around the house. Countless studies show that women do much more unpaid labor—housework and child care—than men do, even when both work outside the home. Rodsky cites a study showing that after couples who claim to be egalitarian have a baby, men cut back on the amount of housework they do by five hours a week. In part because of this disparity, working women, on average, see their incomes cut in half after having children.You may be thinking “not all men,” but it’s an awful lot of men. Several studies show that women score higher on two facets of the conscientiousness personality trait: orderliness and dutifulness. In layman’s terms, this means women like things neater than men do, on average, and they pay more attention to the rules and structure of home life.Explanations for this phenomenon vary. It could be that women are socialized from girlhood to be cleaner and more organized, and are judged in adulthood for having a messy home more than men are. Socialization might have contributed to my own orderliness: My parents are immigrants who, from what I can tell, have never taken a gender-studies course. When I told my mom about the Fair Play system, she said, “That’s dog nonsense. Men don’t know what to do with kids. Especially your man.”It could be that because women bear disproportionate costs of childbearing in the form of pregnancy, birth, and in many cases breastfeeding, many feel more invested. They may pay greater attention to their children, and their various needs and proclivities, than the kids’ father does. And men tend to earn more than women, so when one person’s work has to take a hit for the kids’ sake, it’s usually the woman’s. Rodsky quotes one father as saying, “I’m so proud of how well my wife balances work with her family life.” Her family life.I heard about Fair Play during the pandemic, and I thought it could help settle the chore wars that had been simmering between Rich and me for years already. Within a few weeks, we’d read the book, bought the cards, and scheduled a weekly check-in on our Google Calendars. It worked for a while. But after I got pregnant, I suddenly felt the need to, for example, research the difference between strollers and “travel systems,” while Rich did not. We thus found it virtually impossible to play fairly for more than a few weeks at a time. After Evan was born, it didn’t seem possible at all.To name just a few of 10,000 examples: Rich was in charge of cleaning the floors, but he forgot to do it unless I asked. We hired a cleaning lady. He forgot to pay the cleaning lady. The cleaning lady texted me to ask about getting paid. I would task him with taking Evan to a doctor appointment (which I had made), and he would forget the diaper bag. Mentally, I willed Evan to have a huge blowout in the waiting room, just to teach him a lesson.Perhaps these are personal foibles, specific to me and my husband. But the broader system—and indeed, any system of this kind—seems like it would crumble for any couple operating under the pressures of modern life, especially if you don’t live near family.Let’s say you’re holding the “dinner” card, but you really need help with the execution part—peeling the potatoes—because you got stuck on a work call. According to Rodsky, what you’re supposed to do in this case is ask for help from “someone in your village other than your partner.” The problem, of course, is that I, and so many other moms, don’t have a village. My parents live a flight away. Rich’s parents are dead. We have no other family nearby, and we have to drive an hour to see most of our friends. Often, I’m “assigning” Rich tasks, even if they’re technically my “job,” because I’m literally holding a crying baby and no one else is available to help.Rodsky herself seems deeply empathetic to people who don’t have the money or time to maintain a perfectly run household. She grew up with a single mother, so financially pinched that they used trash bags as luggage. She told me that when she would go into the kitchen at night to get her disabled brother some water, she would close her eyes for a second to allow the cockroaches time to scatter off the piles of dirty dishes.On our call, Rodsky suggested that one solution might be thinking of your village as a neighbor or even a friendly security guard at a local store—two individuals her own mother relied on for occasional help when she was a girl. But I don’t know my neighbors or my local shopkeepers well enough to do this.Rich and I have also struggled with the minimum standard of care. At one point, Rich tried to convince me that floors don’t actually need mopping. They can just be dirty! Rodsky suggests that, in situations like these, you should “collaborate on what is reasonable within your own home,” ultimately reverting to a “reasonable person” standard from jurisprudence. But the problem is that in our home, and in many others, there is no judge or jury. We are prosecutor and defense attorney, and there’s no verdict in sight.A recent study of the Fair Play system conducted by researchers at the University of Southern California found that the system did work—at least among the couples who actually applied it. When participants in the study completed the Fair Play program and divided the household labor more equitably, their mental health improved, their burnout decreased, and their relationship quality improved. But here’s the rub: Only about a quarter of the participants actually completed the Fair Play program. Darby Saxbe, a USC psychologist and an author of the study, told me that participants might have dropped out because they didn’t pay for or even actively seek out the program; they were offered it. Or perhaps being overwhelmed with parenting and domestic labor didn’t leave a lot of time for divvying up parenting and domestic labor. Still, Saxbe thinks the program is worth considering, especially before couples have kids. “We know domestic labor is a huge reason that a lot of women initiate divorce and separation, but we don’t have a lot of great solutions,” she told me.Allison Daminger, a sociologist at the University of Wisconsin who studies the division of household labor, told me Fair Play is the program she tends to refer people to when they tell her they’re struggling with chore management. But people who seek it out, she said, often struggle with “overload, maybe some conflict in the relationship.” These are the very things that become hurdles to doing Fair Play.I asked Rodsky what to do if your partner just doesn’t do his cards—the issue that my husband and I keep running into. Rodsky told me this can mean that the partner who does do their cards has poor boundaries. “They haven’t really done that internal work yet to really understand what a boundary means,” she says. “What are they willing to accept?” Rodsky says that for her, setting a boundary meant telling her husband, “I’m not willing to live like that anymore.”But I am willing to live this way. I’m not getting divorced, because there is too much work to do. Right now a helper is worse than a co-pilot, but it’s better than nothing. And, well, when we’re not screaming at each other about Clorox wipes, we do like each other.Daminger also suggested doing some “deep work” to understand why a (hypothetical) husband (but actually mine) wasn’t doing his fair share. It could be that “you and your partner have very different underlying goals and intentions,” Daminger said. “And I think if that’s the case, then systems for dividing up tasks better are probably not going to be effective.”[Joe Pinsker: The gender researcher’s guide to an equal marriage]When reached for comment, Rich called this article “very good” and “delightful,” but admitted that he has “a vastly different thinking pattern around what is clean and what isn’t clean.” Then he pointed out that he, unbidden, cleans “both sides of the garbage-disposal cover.” Then we got into a fight about how often he initiates Swiffering without being asked.The more I talked with Rodsky and Daminger, the worse I felt. I felt bad for having an imperfect husband and an imperfect life. Why didn’t I know my neighbor well enough for her to be my village? Why did I marry a sloppy guy who doesn’t Swiffer? Why did I have a baby if I don’t have good boundaries, or even a Trello account? I came away with the conclusion that Rich and I are just not very compatible in this way, and that to approach compatibility would take a whopping amount of couple’s therapy that we don’t have time for right now.Instead, our strategy is not one that Rodsky would like. I bark out orders, and Rich kinda-sorta fulfills them, most of the time. He doesn’t understand Evan’s needs the way I do, and it would be too hard for me to explain them to him. I’m pickier and cleaner than he is, and it will probably always be this way. Rodsky referred to this kind of thinking as being “complicit in your own oppression.” I call it getting our kid to middle school in one piece.There is another element to it, though. During that frightening, feverish week, I spent hours swabbing Evan’s forehead with a cold washcloth and, because it hurt his ears to nurse, giving him sips of breast milk from a cup—his first-ever drink from something other than a bottle. I had to admit that part of me liked cuddling him and easing his distress—even if it was technically Rich’s turn to be on duty. It was mental, emotional, and physical labor that didn’t pay and that I, on some level, enjoyed. It wasn’t fair. But life rarely is.

If you were to ask me about the lowest point of my life as a parent, I could pinpoint it almost to the day. It was in early March 2021. The United Kingdom was a couple of months into its third and longest COVID lockdown. I had been living in the country for more than a year, but having arrived just a few months before the outbreak, I still felt like a stranger in town. My kids were 2 and 3 years old, and my youngest was going through a screaming phase. I was overwhelmed, depressed, and crushingly lonely. Something had to change.“Household mixing” was, at the time, strictly prohibited. But tucked into the lockdown guidelines was a provision allowing parents to form a child-care bubble with one other family. So I sent a message to a WhatsApp group of local parents I’d been added to, asking if anyone was interested in forming such a bubble. Mercifully, a couple took me up on the offer—and they happened to live around the corner. Like us, they’d recently moved from the United States and had no family or friends to draw on for support. And like us, they had two young daughters. After a brief video call, we decided to take turns watching each other’s children for a few hours one evening a week.It was, in hindsight, an audacious way to go about arranging child care. We didn’t really know these people. We had done no vetting and spoken little about what the children would do or eat while they were in the other household’s care. The expectation certainly wasn’t for either family to prepare special activities or entertainment for the kids—just to keep them alive for a few hours.I didn’t presume that this desperation-induced pact would outlast the pandemic. But I was wrong about that. We’ve continued our “baby swap,” as we’ve come to call it, in an almost entirely unbroken pattern for nearly three years. In fact, it has grown: Now four families are involved. Two nights a week, one family takes all the children for three hours, giving the other parents an evening off. Even outside these formal arrangements, it has become fairly routine for us to watch one another’s kids as needed, for one-off Fridays or random overnights. A few months ago, while I was stirring a big pot of mac and cheese for the six kids scurrying around me, ranging in age from 2 to 7, I realized that, quite unintentionally, I’d built something like the proverbial “village” that so many modern parents go without.[Read: What adults lost when kids stopped playing in the street]Over time, I’ve concluded that the success of this laid-back setup isn’t a coincidence; our village thrives not despite the comically low expectations we have for one another, but because of them. And this, in turn, clarified something unexpected for me: The hovering, “intensive” approach to parenting that has steadily come to dominate American, and to some extent British, family life is simply incompatible with village building. You can try to micromanage your child’s care—whether they eat sugar, whether they get screen time, whether someone insists that a child apologize after snatching another kid’s toy—or you can have reliable community help with child care. But you can’t have both.The term intensive parenting perhaps conjures images of achievement-obsessed parents drilling their 2-year-olds on their ABCs or pushing their 4-year-olds to take daily violin lessons. Here, I’m using the term a bit more broadly to encapsulate the tendency among many modern parents to assign outsize importance to any particular decision a parent or other caregiver makes. It reflects a highly deterministic view of child-rearing—one that offers parents little room for error. And these days, it comes in a variety of flavors. Some parents are neurotic about validating their kids’ emotions or guarding their individuality; others fixate on maximizing their career potential. Even those who repudiate overly achievement-focused parenting can become intensive about not pushing their kids, as if nudging a child to give soccer a try will somehow compromise their emotional development.I believe that parenting, and parenting well, is important. It’s good to thoughtfully consider children’s needs. Taken to the extreme, though, the intensive approach can foreclose opportunities for community support. This is true in the simple sense that if your child’s schedule is jam-packed with enrichment activities, then it will be much harder for you and your would-be villagers to find time to help one another. (This was, no doubt, one reason it was so easy to coordinate baby swapping during the pandemic—we weren’t running around doing other things.) But it’s also true in a deeper sense: Inflating the importance of parental decisions assumes a degree of control over a child’s environment that is out of step with village life.If you want to rely on your community, you have to rely on the community you’ve got. As the anonymous writer of the newsletter Cartoons Hate Her recently pointed out, parents who pine for a village cannot expect it to be “a bespoke neighborhood you might curate in The Sims”; traditionally, villages just consisted of “the people around us.” And you can’t expect to assert the same control you might in a paid babysitting arrangement. When I hire a sitter, we have a shared understanding that I’m still in charge—that I’m paying them to come into my home and largely replicate my systems of care. Money also helps cordon off the boundaries of an exchange: Once the service has been provided and the money handed over, each party can walk away knowing they’re settled up. But that’s not how “village” reciprocity works.[Read: Don’t tell America the babysitter’s dead]A village agreement is, in its way, transactional; our baby swap certainly involves a trade. But the nature of the deal is quite different. I’m not hiring the families around me to replicate all my household systems; I’m asking them to make room for my kids within their households for an evening, with the understanding that I’ll do the same for them.Allowing each household to largely carry on doing its own thing makes the whole situation feel more relaxed. This arrangement is also better aligned with the real goal of village building: to forge a network of relationships defined by a sense of community obligation. In such a scenario, asking other households for help without settling up feels ordinary, because you’ll be in one another’s lives the next week and the week after that. The beauty of raising kids in a village is that, eventually, looking out for one another’s children starts to feel less like a series of one-off favors and more like an ordinary part of life.Inevitably, building a village means developing trust. That means loosening up a bit, letting go of both judgments and self-consciousness about the varying ways that people live with and care for children. The kids in my little village can be quite frank about how our households differ. They don’t hesitate to let me know that my home is the messy house. And it’s something of a running joke that I pretty much never serve them anything but pasta. My husband and I are sticklers about “please” and “thank you” and basically never let the kids watch TV. Other families have their own rules and rituals. For this whole thing to work, I have to have faith that each household has its own sensible systems for managing manners, conflict, and screen time, and that whatever those systems are, they will not break my children.Of course, I wouldn’t leave my kids with just anyone. Trusting people doesn’t mean never setting boundaries or never asking that accommodations be made for a child who needs them. But it does often mean accepting that other people will manage your child’s needs in ways that you wouldn’t. This can be a nerve-racking experience. It can also be an enriching and enlightening one. Handing off your children, relaxing your grip, might help chip away at the fears that make you think you need to control everything, and can show you that your children will adapt and thrive in a variety of settings. A village, that is, can provide one of the greatest gifts that anyone can offer parents: the reassurance that the path to raising healthy, well-adjusted kids isn’t as narrow as you think.

Georgia and Notre Dame prepare to play in the Sugar Bowl on Thursday after the game was postponed due to a terror attack on Bourbon Street in New Orleans.

Game Science CEO and Black Myth Wukong producer Feng Ji  says the Xbox Series S' lackluster hardware is to blame for the game skipping Microsoft's consoles.

Officials said the drone was not armed, but the police report listed "potential national security implications" as one significance of its recovery.

On January 1, a regulation capping how much the appraised value of some Texas homes can increase annually came into effect.

The FBI is searching for potential accomplices to Shamsud-Din Jabbar, who was killed by police in a shootout after ramming his truck into a New Orleans crowd.

Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox.

China is aiming to hit 60,000 kilometers of high-speed railways by the end of the decade.

Authorities said the immigration agent appeared to have suffered a fatal head injury.

Critics allege certificate-of-need laws are anticompetitive, but the health care industry contends they’re vital to a system not governed by the usual tenets of a free-market economy.

The alleged attacks took place in the nightclub area of the city of Nadi, home to the international airport, officials said.

President Joe Biden is bestowing the second highest civilian medal on Liz Cheney and Bennie Thompson.

Front Row Motorsports announced a major expansion to a three-car team for the 2025 NASCAR Cup Series amid ongoing antitrust litigation against NASCAR.

To effectively reduce and prevent the rare violence perpetrated by girls, we must understand that it requires multifaceted interventions that are tailored to their psychological, neurological, and social risks and strengths—that interventions need to be designed for her.

On a winter afternoon in January 2024, Prime Minister Narendra Modi stood before a podium, gazing out at a handpicked audience of the Indian elite: billionaires, Bollywood actors, cricket stars, nationalist politicians.Modi had come to the north-central city of Ayodhya, in the state of Uttar Pradesh, to consecrate the still-unfinished temple behind him, with its seven shrines, 160-foot-high dome, and baby-faced statue of the Hindu god Ram, carved in black stone and covered in jewels. He did not mention the fact that the temple was being built on a contested site where Hindu radicals had torn down a 16th-century mosque three decades earlier, setting off years of protests and legal struggle.Instead, Modi described the temple as an emblem of India’s present and future greatness—its rising economic might, its growing navy, its moon missions, and, most of all, its immense human energy and potential. The temple signified India’s historic triumph over the “mentality of slavery,” he said. This nation of nearly 1.5 billion was shedding its old secular creed and, despite the fact that 200 million of its citizens are Muslim, being reborn as a land of Hindu-nationalist ideals. “The generations after a thousand years will remember our nation-building efforts today,” he told the crowd.Among the tens of millions of Indians who watched that speech on TV was 42-year-old Luv Shukla, who lives on the edge of a small town about a three-hour drive from Ayodhya. I met him on a hot day in June, and we chatted while sitting in plastic chairs outside the tiny electronics shop he has run since he was 16.Shukla has supported Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party since it rose to power in 2014. He was drawn to Modi’s confidence and his talk of making India an explicitly Hindu country. But in 2024, for the first time in his life, he voted for the opposition, helping deliver an electoral setback late last spring that changed the narrative of Indian politics. Instead of the sweeping victory Modi had predicted, his party lost its majority in the lower house of India’s Parliament—just a few months after that triumphant speech at the new Ayodhya temple. Modi had done everything he could to bend the system in his favor, and that made the reversal all the more surprising. His government had frozen bank accounts of the main opposition party—a tax-return issue, it was alleged—and launched prosecutions of many opposition candidates, turning India’s justice system into a political tool.Modi would remain prime minister, but with only 240 of the 543 seats in Parliament, he would be dependent on coalition partners. An especially shocking loss for the BJP was Uttar Pradesh, the country’s most populous state, long considered a bulwark for Modi and his party.I asked Shukla why he had lost faith in Modi. One reason, he said, was “animals.” When I looked confused, he pointed helpfully to the street, where a huge cow was meandering down the middle of the road. “Look, here’s an animal coming now.” It took me a moment to realize what he was talking about. The BJP’s preoccupation with protecting cows—for Hindus, a symbol of divine beneficence—was driving people crazy. No one was allowed to touch them anymore, Shukla said. They wandered at will, eating crops and fodder. Cows had even become a source of corruption, he claimed; funds have been set up to protect cows, Shukla said, but “the money disappears.” This is what Modi’s rhetoric about building a Hindu nation often amounts to at the local level, especially in villages that have no Muslims to blame.Shukla moved on from cows to the government’s more basic failures. Small-business owners like him were most affected by the Modi government’s mistakes, such as the surprise decision in 2016 to cancel large-currency banknotes, a misguided effort to curtail money laundering that left ordinary people desperate for cash. The mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic caused staggering losses of life and income. Many small firms folded, and others had to let go of workers. At the same time, Modi’s grand promises about being India’s “Development Man” remained unfulfilled. The schools were a mess. The local hospital was a joke.Shukla was getting angrier. He stood up, saying he had something to show me. We walked across the street, past a brightly painted Hindu temple—by far the best-maintained building in the village—and approached an abandoned house with a rusted bed frame beside it. Nearby was a ruined ambulance, its tires rotting into the dust. The building was supposed to be a maternity hospital, Shukla said, but the government had never followed through. He kicked the building’s broken door. “Useless,” he said.India has been living on hype. Its leaders manufacture bigger promises every year: India as an economic titan, a spiritual leader, a world power capable of standing alongside China, Russia, Europe, and America. Modi’s enablers describe him as a “civilizational figure”—someone who stands above politics, who will use his country’s demographic weight to rewrite the rules of the global economy. This kind of chest-thumping is often picked up on in the West, where leaders such as President Joe Biden and France’s Emmanuel Macron have expressed a desire for a reliable and prosperous Indian ally. Even Modi’s abundant critics have focused mostly on his Muslim-baiting and his democratic backsliding, as if prepared to concede what they see as his managerial skill.But the election results and their aftermath hint at a crack in Modi’s populist facade and a spreading discontent with his economic and political record. India’s growth has been heavily weighted toward the wealthy, who have become exponentially richer on Modi’s watch. Those who have benefited most are a small cadre of billionaire friends to whom Modi has granted special access for years. That practice was cast in a new light in November, when American prosecutors indicted the industrialist Gautam Adani—India’s second-richest man and a close Modi ally—for his role in a multibillion-dollar bribery-and-fraud scheme. (His company has denied the charges, calling them baseless.) The accusation revived fears about opacity and cronyism—the specter of “India Inc.”—that Modi had promised to address a decade ago.At the same time, eight in 10 Indians live in poverty. Extraordinary numbers are out of work; one estimate puts unemployment among those ages 15 to 24 at more than 45 percent (though other estimates run lower). Instead of moving from farms to seek employment in cities, as people in other developing countries have done, many Indians—unable to find factory or service jobs—are making the trek in reverse, even as farm income stagnates and drought turns fields into deserts. Modi often says he wants India to be a developed country by 2047, a century after it gained its independence from Britain. But by several key social measures, it is falling behind neighbors such as Bangladesh and Nepal.Saadat Hasan Manto, one of the Indian subcontinent’s great literary figures in the first half of the 20th century, once wrote that India has “too few leaders and too many stuntmen.” Many Indians appear to be tiring of Modi’s showmanship and growing frustrated with his failures. They may be proud of India’s fabled economic growth, but it hasn’t reached them. During the weeks I spent traveling in India last year, I detected levels of frustration and anger that were noticeably different from what I’d heard on earlier visits—about lost jobs, failed schools, poisoned air and water.India is—among many other things—an experiment, the largest such experiment in the world, and one with urgent relevance for many other countries. The Modi years have made India into a testing ground for the following question: What, in the long run, exerts greater sway on the electorate—the lure of demagoguery, or the reality of deteriorating living conditions?Mahendra Tripathi remembers the first time he saw Narendra Modi. It was January 14, 1992, and the future prime minister was in Ayodhya with a group of young Hindu nationalists standing outside the mosque known as Babri Masjid. A movement had been gathering for years to remove the mosque, which was widely said to have been built on the site of an older Hindu temple. Energy was in the air, often charged with violence, and Tripathi—then a young news photographer—wanted to capture it.Something about Modi attracted Tripathi’s notice, even though “he was nobody at that time,” he told me. Perhaps it was his dress or the way he carried himself. Modi has always been intensely conscious of the impression he makes. Even at the age of 6 or 7, he was deliberate about what he wore and “spent a lot of time in grooming,” his uncle told a biographer. His ego and charisma were evident early on; he liked acting in school plays but insisted on having the lead role.[From the April 2009 issue: Robert D. Kaplan on Narendra Modi, India’s new face]Tripathi remembers taking Modi’s picture and asking him when he would come back to Ayodhya. Modi replied that he would come back when the temple was built. “He kept his promise,” Tripathi told me.Back in 1992, Modi was a party worker in the RSS, India’s first and most influential Hindu-nationalist group (the acronym stands for Hindi words meaning “national volunteer association”). The RSS was founded in 1925 in an effort to overcome the Hindu weakness and disunity that had, its founders felt, allowed India to be colonized by the British and other invaders over the centuries. The RSS aimed to impose discipline and military rigor on a growing army of Hindu recruits, along with a uniform: black forage cap, white shirt, khaki shorts. It later gave birth to an array of linked groups—including the BJP—with the shared goal of spreading Hindutva, or Hinduness, as the glue of a new nation. A central part of that nationalist ideal was the exclusion of Muslims, who were tacitly cast as latecomers to and usurpers of a Hindu realm.Less than a year after Modi’s first visit to Ayodhya, Tripathi was standing in the same spot when a crowd led by Hindu zealots climbed the dome of Babri Masjid and destroyed it with sledgehammers and axes. Tripathi sympathized, but the mob was seething with rage and thousands strong, and he was lucky to get out alive. His photography studio, not far away, was demolished. “Everything was being broken down,” he told me.Modi wasn’t there on the big day, and he is said to have resented missing the Ayodhya moment. But he got his own moment 10 years later, on a day that would prove just as important to the transformation of Indian politics.On February 27, 2002, a train carrying Hindu pilgrims home from Ayodhya caught fire in the western state of Gujarat. Fifty-nine pilgrims were killed, and rumors quickly spread that Muslims had caused the fire. In the pogroms that followed, more than 1,000 people were butchered, most of them Muslim. Modi had just become the chief minister, meaning governor, of Gujarat, and he was accused of telling the police to stand back and let the rioters teach the Muslims a lesson. Although he denied the allegations—and was ultimately cleared of wrongdoing after a decade of legal inquiries—he never expressed regret for what happened. His defiance in the face of pressure for his removal by opposition politicians made him a hero among many Hindus and gave him a national political profile.Narendra Modi in Ahmadabad in 2007, after reelection as chief minister of Gujarat (Ajit Solanki / AP)Modi’s timing was impeccable: India’s old order had been crumbling for years. Its founding ideology had been defined in the 1940s by Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s brilliant first prime minister, who famously called his country an “ancient palimpsest” of its many cultures and traditions. Nehru wanted an alternative to the tribal mindset that had led to the partition of the country along religious lines in 1947, when about 1 million people—estimates vary widely—were killed in sectarian violence as they fled across the new borders between India and Pakistan. Separating the two nations by religion served as a way out for the exhausted British. To Nehru, it was a betrayal of India’s greatest gift. His India would define itself through diversity; through a grand, maternal embrace of all its discordant parts. Even today, the Indian rupee note declares its value in 17 different languages. Nehru’s patriotism was the high-minded vision of a Cambridge graduate who hoped to set India on a unique path—benignly secular and socialist, proudly nonaligned in the binary world of the Cold War.By the turn of the 21st century, this ideal was a relic. India’s leaders had already begun appealing to either Hindu or Muslim communal feelings as a way to get votes. A new capitalist ethic was rising, a consequence of the 1991 decision to embrace the free market and abolish the “license Raj”—heavy-handed economic management by government bureaucrats that had stifled Indian business for decades. The elite had become richer and more isolated from the rest of the country, putting added strain on the old Gandhian ideals of austerity and simplicity.“The truth is we were an effete, hopeless bunch,” wrote Tavleen Singh, a columnist and an avowed member of what she herself called “the old, colonised ruling class,” in a harsh self-assessment published in April. “We spoke no Indian language well, but this did not matter to us. We were proud of speaking English well. In our drawing rooms we sneered at those who dared enter without speaking good English. And at those whose table manners were not embellished with western refinement.”Modi was one of those unrefined outsiders. He had grown up poor, the son of a tea seller from one of the lower tiers of the country’s hierarchical caste system, which still weighs heavily on the life chances of most Indians. That background gave him an unusual street credibility within the BJP, whose original support base lay with upper-caste Hindus. He presented himself as an ascetic figure who rose before dawn and worked until late at night, a man with no wife or children whose only loyalty was to India. (Modi does in fact have a wife—he was married as a teenager in a family-arranged ceremony—but he left her almost immediately afterward and has always described himself as single.)It was a winning formula: Millions of poor and middle-class Indians greeted him like an avenging hero, and not just because of his lowly origins or his gifts as a speaker. The old BJP rallying cry—that Hindus were under attack—had a strong ring of truth in the 2000s, when Islamist terrorists carried out deadly bombings across India. Modi’s immense and sustained popularity is partly about his ability to project a kind of Churchillian defiance in the face of these threats.Modi became prime minister in 2014 amid a popular movement against corruption, saying he would clean house and fulfill India’s great economic promise. Many liberals were receptive, despite their unease with his triumphalist Hindu rhetoric. There was no denying that the Indian National Congress—the party of Nehru and his daughter, Indira Gandhi, which had dominated Indian politics since independence—was corrupt. And Modi had gained a reputation for managerial competence in Gujarat, where he’d been governor for more than 10 years. He had streamlined regulations and worked to lure big-business owners with what he and his proxies advertised as the “Gujarat model.” He promised to do the same for the entire country.Modi has some real achievements to his credit. His government’s road-building blitz has transformed the landscape over the past decade, adding thousands of miles of highway every year; the figure for smaller roads is many times greater. I can remember the days when driving across India was a bit like heading out to sea: You’d stock the car with gas and provisions—uncertain when you’d find a gas station or a place to eat—and set off with a vague sense that you were taking your life into your hands. Nowadays, an Indian road trip is remarkable for its ordinariness.The BJP has also taken steps to democratize information technology. In a small village in northern India, I saw people paying for produce by holding up their smartphone to a QR code stuck on a vendor’s wooden wagon. The payment system involves minimal merchant fees and has removed the middlemen who used to take a cut. Every Indian with a phone now has access to a virtual “DigiLocker” where their identity and tax documents can be stored, a useful innovation.Some of Modi’s defenders argue that he has renewed the country’s politics. Swapan Dasgupta, a conservative journalist and former BJP lawmaker, told me that Modi had made use of Hindutva not just to demonize his enemies but to mobilize Indians politically and to deepen the country’s democracy. “The gap between rulers and ruled has narrowed,” he said. “There is now a vernacular elite.”Modi often gets credit for raising his country’s profile and being an effective ambassador for what he and his allies call Brand India. There may be some truth in this, though it’s hard to know what the term means. There was much talk of India as a leader of the global South when it hosted the G20 summit in 2023, a frenzy of publicity and Davos-style schmoozing with a reported budget of $100 million. Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar has taken brand-building to a new level, having published two books full of vaporous cant about “civilizational resurgence” and “the message of the Indo-Pacific.” He and others talk up India’s role as a partner to the United States in its competition with China—though they never make clear what India can do to help. India is a nuclear power, but its weak military has been humiliated by Chinese troops on the two countries’ shared Himalayan border.Modi’s determination to cut a bigger global figure has its ugly and violent side. In 2023, Indian-government officials allegedly organized the assassination of a Sikh-independence activist in Canada and plotted to kill a Sikh leader in the United States, according to U.S. and Canadian officials. The boldness of the plot was a dark reflection of India’s rising economic weight in the West, despite the farcical denouement: An American informant had unwittingly been hired as a hit man. In mid-October of last year, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expelled top Indian diplomats, including the ambassador, saying that the Indian government had orchestrated a campaign of violence inside his country. (India’s government, which regards the two Sikhs as terrorists, has denied the accusations; Canada has also said it has no evidence that Modi was involved in or aware of any plot.)[Read: How Modi made himself look weak]Three years ago, India became the world’s fifth-largest economy, surpassing its former colonial master, the United Kingdom. Yet by early 2024, even as Modi was declaring the dawn of a glorious new era, unsettling rumbles could be heard. Foreign direct investment in India had dropped by an astonishing 43 percent in the preceding year, partly thanks to high borrowing costs and unease about the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. Out-of-work men could be seen trekking along the brand-new highways, part of the movement from cities to farms that began during the pandemic. The magnitude of the unemployment problem could not be hidden.Much of this story arc would have been familiar to anyone who had taken a close look at the “Gujarat model.” Although the state’s GDP rose during Modi’s decade-long tenure, the number of people without jobs held steady. Modi focused on big companies, but small and medium-size enterprises, which make up the backbone of India’s economy, did not fare as well. The obsession with growth appears to have masked a neglect of health, literacy, and the environment. In his book Price of the Modi Years, the journalist Aakar Patel notes that Gujarat’s rate of child malnutrition was one of the highest in India. While Modi was governor, the Central Pollution Control Board declared Gujarat to be the country’s most polluted state. A study of 18 Indian states and territories placed the rate of school attendance for students in rural areas of Gujarat at the very bottom. The “Gujarat model” has indeed been applied to the entire country.The school principal agreed to meet me at her home, in a small town in Uttar Pradesh. She was middle-aged, with an aura of faded glamour; she had been a model in her youth, and photographs of her as a young woman hung on the wall. She had spent her life in this same town, never marrying, devoting herself to teaching and to the care of her dead brother’s children.She had insisted that I not disclose her name, and I soon understood why. Her school district, she said, has nearly 700 teaching positions allocated to it by the government. But not even 200 are filled. Her own school, she said, has six teachers for 700 students. Many subjects do not get taught at all, and the school’s internet doesn’t work. Students, she said, lack phones or computers and must go to internet cafés to do their homework. She, too, is forced to go to internet cafés to handle the government’s burdensome reporting requirements, which must be done online. “All this rests on my shoulders,” she said. Little of this dysfunction is visible from the outside, because the school allows students to graduate despite the enormous gaps in their education.Sacred cows block traffic in the holy city of Varanasi, on the Ganges, in Uttar Pradesh. (Mark Henley / Redux)The endemic corruption of the school system is another obstacle. If a child makes a small mistake on an online form, “to get it fixed, you have to pay a bribe.”According to India’s Annual Status of Education Report, an independent analysis, most 14-to-18-year-olds in rural regions were still struggling with basic division in 2023, and about a quarter of them with basic reading. Some 30 percent of all students appear to drop out of high school.“It’s a moral failure of the political leadership,” says Ashoka Mody, who spent decades with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and who published a polemic about India’s developmental gaps last year titled India Is Broken. The book is densely documented and shot through with anger. One of its recurrent themes is the disparity between India and East Asian societies, which have seen mass primary education as a precondition to industrial growth and large-scale employment.Narendra Modi has been in power for a decade, with his BJP allies running many of India’s state governments. The schools have only gotten worse. Modi’s educational priorities appear to be mostly ideological. History textbooks have been rewritten to include more Hindu-nationalist figures, praise Modi’s own initiatives, and minimize contributions by Indian Muslims. In 2023, India cut a number of science topics from tenth-grade textbooks. You won’t find Darwin’s theory of evolution, the periodic table of elements, or the Pythagorean theorem.Even when Indian students attend a decent school, the system often fails them. In a tiny rural village called Bhushari, in Uttar Pradesh, I met a 19-year-old man who said he was spending two to three years studying full-time for civil-service exams. “I’m trying to get a government job,” he said, as we sat sipping cool drinks on the earthen floor of his family’s reception room. “The youth of India—we all want a government job. Families prefer their kids to get a government job; they think this is more reliable, because you cannot get fired.” You are also more likely to be able to get married if you have a government job.For those who pass the exam, the relative dearth of government jobs can make new-hiring calls look like a crumb thrown into a lake full of starving fish. As Foreign Affairs has reported, in early 2023, the state government in Madhya Pradesh posted 6,000 low-level government jobs and quickly received more than 1.2 million applications. The volume hinted at the inflation of academic pedigree in India: There were 1,000 people with Ph.D.s, 85,000 graduates of college engineering programs, 100,000 people with business degrees, and about 180,000 people with other graduate degrees. The civil-service bottleneck puts enormous pressure on exams, and it’s hardly surprising that cheating has become an issue. Last June, the government canceled the results of an exam that had been taken by 900,000 aspiring academics in more than 300 cities, citing suspicions that the answers had been leaked onto the dark web.Those who fail the test or don’t get the job have few options, and many end up in what economists call “the informal sector”—as vendors, day laborers, tuk-tuk drivers, and an endless array of other ill-paid roles. There aren’t many manufacturing jobs, because China drained them away decades ago.The young man I met in Bhushari had been, in one sense, lucky. His father is the village sarpanch, or headman, and the family owns valuable farmland. If not for that, he would not have had the freedom to study for so long. He had spent his entire life in a village of some 2,900 people. He didn’t want to be a farmer in a place where drought is a constant threat, and where temperatures get hotter every year.As my car thumped out of Bhushari on a pitted road, I saw cracked brown fields spreading to the horizon in all directions. People talked about the year’s record-breaking heat wave everywhere I went. Farmers told me the local wells and aquifers were drying up. The annual monsoons have become more erratic. Temperatures reached 121 degrees Fahrenheit when I was in Delhi, and there were frequent news reports about water shortages and people dying of heat exposure. Sometimes it was hard to tell which was worse, the heat or the smog. Of the world’s 100 most polluted cities, 83 are in India, according to 2023 data from the environmental group IQAir.India’s environmental problems are among the most serious on the planet, but they have not been high priorities during Modi’s decade in power. He has shown occasional interest in the condition of the Ganges, India’s most famous river, which is sacred to Hindus. It is also one of the most polluted rivers on Earth, with stretches that are ecological dead zones. Modi’s electoral district includes Varanasi, a riverside city and an ancient pilgrimage site. Last spring, the BJP mounted elaborate campaign spectacles over the river, with 1,000 drones performing a light show to spell out, in Hindi, the slogan “Modi Government, Once Again.” During a trip to Varanasi in late May, Modi made a surprise visit to an electronics engineer named Vishwambhar Nath Mishra, who has led efforts for decades to clean up the Ganges. The visit did not go well.Mishra told me about the encounter when I went to see him, about a week later. It was night when I arrived in Varanasi, and I walked a mile along the darkened Ganges, past burning funeral pyres, Hindu priests performing rituals, and scattered children and dogs. Mishra’s air-conditioned office was a relief. He runs an environmental NGO founded by his father and is also the mahant, or head priest, of one of Varanasi’s best-known Hindu temples, a title that has been passed down from father to eldest son in an unbroken line stretching back 400 years. This blend of sacred and secular authority is unusual, and earns him wide respect.On the day of Modi’s visit, Mishra complained to him about the government’s failure to prevent cities and towns from dumping raw sewage into the Ganges. The river absorbs close to 100 million gallons of it a day. Its waters are a greenish toxic brew. Mishra reminded Modi that he’d given him the same lecture in 2013, shortly before Modi first took office as prime minister, and that nothing had been done. Modi does not like to be chastised. He told Mishra he would come back after the election, and then went on his way.Mishra, meanwhile, continues to monitor the river like a doctor with a dying patient. He told me that around the time of Modi’s visit, samples from one spot contained 88 million fecal coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters of water—176,000 times the maximum amount that India allows for a Class B river, which is considered safe for bathing.But as many as 50,000 people bathe daily in the river, Mishra told me. I myself saw hundreds of people swimming in it. Many Indians drink from the Ganges, including Mishra himself: It is one of his duties as a priest.The city of Ayodhya—where Modi inaugurated the new Hindu temple—is a near-perfect emblem of Modi’s rule: It has been reshaped into an advertisement at the expense of its residents. The government wants to make Ayodhya into a tourism and pilgrimage site for Hindus worldwide and has thrown enormous sums of money at the project, building wide roads, an airport, a train station. But in the city’s old neighborhoods, nothing seems to have changed apart from new street signs that have been posted incongruously on decaying buildings and market stalls. Tens of thousands of locals have seen their homes and workplaces demolished. Many are furious at the Modi government. One of them is Mahendra Tripathi, the man who photographed Modi in Ayodhya back in 1992. He is now jobless at the age of 65, having lost his office to the urban renovations last year.“My livelihood was destroyed twice,” he told me, first by the rioters who destroyed Babri Masjid, in 1992, and a second time by the government that replaced it with the temple. “Now I’m old and don’t have the energy to start again.”On a boulevard that leads to the city’s Lucknow gate, I met a middle-aged man selling snacks in front of a one-room shop. He told me the shop was all that was left of his family’s four-story house, which had included a much larger grocery store and upstairs rooms for his children and their families. The road needed to be widened, government officials had told him. The demolition had left him and his family with nowhere to live and no livelihood until they’d managed to reopen a shrunken version of their shop. “Not a single BJP worker came to check on us since the demolition,” he said. His wife stood alongside him, misery stamped on her face.A few doors down, a man was sitting on the floor of a tiny apartment. He was cutting and folding newspapers, to be sold to vendors as food wrappers. At his feet was a little bowl of homemade glue that he used to dab each folded paper before pressing its side together. He told me he had been making his living this way for 25 years. He was 60 years old, he said. Before the demolition, he’d had enough space to live with his family; now there was barely enough room for him to sit down. It was about 110 degrees outside, and the apartment’s metal door was half open. “My house used to go all the way to that white strip,” he said, pointing to the middle of the road. “Now this is all I have.”Later that day, I drove past another side effect of Modi’s big temple: a vast, improvised landfill, built to accommodate the construction and demolition debris. Clouds of dust and pale smoke hung in the air above its lumpy surface. As we drove toward the landfill, the dust enveloped us, seeming almost to create its own weather system. In the dim landscape, I saw shacks where families were living, and a mill where people were grinding wheat. During monsoon season, the whole area becomes a flood zone. It seemed to go on for miles.A flooded street in Vijayawada, in southern India, in 2024. Annual monsoons have become more erratic, and India’s environmental problems are among the most serious on the planet. (Vijaya Bhaskar / AFP / Getty)Modi’s reputation is built partly on stage presence. His rallies have drawn as many as 800,000 people. On giant screens, his magnified image towers over the crowd. People who have been in a room with him sometime speak of an overpowering aura, as if he were a rock star or the pope.Almost as impressive is Modi’s ability to deploy—or inspire—an entire industry of social-media fans and public-relations professionals who get the message out on a daily basis, telling Indians how Modi has made them respected in the world and defended their Hindu faith from attack by Muslims, “sickularists,” and “anti-nationals.” Some of these people are television personalities, such as Arnab Goswami, a kind of Indian Tucker Carlson. Others are anonymous warriors in a campaign to label the Muslim film stars of Bollywood as terrorists. Many of them work as trolls on social media, where the BJP has aggressively promoted its message even as it censors its critics. (India’s significant market share—it has more Facebook and YouTube users than any other country—has allowed the Modi government to bully tech companies into removing oppositional content.) Others make movies or sing songs.Kavi Singh is a star of the genre known as Hindutva pop, a mixture of jingoism and danceable beats. Her signature style is unusually androgynous for India: a man’s Nehru-style jacket and tunic, with a multicolored turban wrapped around her head. Her long hair flows over her shoulders.Singh made her debut during a moment of national crisis. In early 2019, a suicide bomber in a car rammed a convoy of Indian paramilitary police in the northern district of Pulwama, killing more than 40 people. An Islamist terrorist group based in Pakistan claimed responsibility. The attack—followed by accusations of intelligence failures—was a humiliation for Modi, who had cast himself as a more aggressive protector of India than his predecessors. The next day, while the country was still overcome by grief and anger, a song appeared on Indian WhatsApp groups, sung by a strident female voice. The lyrics put the blame not on Pakistani terrorists but on India’s own Muslims:The enemies are among us but we blame the neighborThe one who is secretly carrying a knife; finish off that traitorIf our own hadn’t helped carry this attackPulwama wouldn’t have seen the blood of our bravehearts spilledThe song went viral, and was followed by a video version in which Singh performs at a studio microphone, her singing interspersed with footage of gun-toting Indian soldiers and grieving families. She began churning out new songs with impressive regularity.I met Singh at a guesthouse in the state of Haryana, about two hours north of Delhi. She wore her trademark outfit in shades of saffron, the color worn by Hindu saints and ascetics. Singh said she believes that the Hindu god Ram gives her signs. She seemed to claim credit for one of Modi’s most controversial acts—the 2019 decision to revoke Kashmir’s semiautonomous status and lay claim to the Muslim-majority province, an old source of conflict between India and Pakistan. “Everybody listens to me,” she said. “I know that Prime Minister Modi listens to my songs.”A rice paddy in the state of Haryana. Lack of work has driven many Indians from cities to farms, even as farm income stagnates and drought turns fields into deserts. (Prakash Singh / Bloomberg / Getty)It was hard to tell whether Singh was naive about the ways her music has been used, or just preferred to shrug it off. After the Pulwama suicide bombing, Kashmiri Muslims were attacked all over the country.When I met Singh, she was making final preparations for a long journey on foot—known as a yatra—to help unify Hindus in the aftermath of Modi’s election setback. Her plan was to start in the northern pilgrimage town of Haridwar and walk southward for six months or a year with her entourage, blasting her music from loudspeakers every step of the way. Did she expect her yatra to meet with protests and critics? “Absolutely” there would be protests, she said. “They will try to assault us as well.” The way she said it made me wonder if that was exactly the point.Modi’s defenders sometimes note that large-scale communal violence has declined since the 2002 Gujarat riots. But one type of violence that has not declined is the lynching of ordinary Muslims.One morning, after driving from the smog of Delhi into the great belt of farmland to the east, I met a man who narrowly survived a lynch mob in 2018. He is a Muslim farmer named Samayadeen who has spent his entire life—nearly 70 years, he reckons—in the same settlement, a tiny cluster of mud-and-brick houses surrounded by green fields of mustard, wheat, and sugarcane. After we shook hands, he led the way, limping visibly, into the open-air courtyard of his house, where he lay down on a string bed and apologized for his slowness. A buffalo dozed comfortably in the mud on the far side of the little enclosure.Six years ago, Samayadeen was gathering fodder with another man on his farm when they heard noises in the distance. A lone figure was running toward them, chased by a crowd of about two dozen men. As Samayadeen watched, the mob caught up to its prey and started beating him mercilessly with sticks.Samayadeen’s companion ran off in terror. But Samayadeen recognized the victim, a fellow Muslim named Qasim. He hurried over and tried to stop the attackers. They turned on Samayadeen as well, accusing both men of killing cows.Eventually, the attackers dragged the men to their own village, where other men arrived to continue the beating in front of a Hindu temple. Samayadeen recognized some of them. When the police finally showed up, they had to fight off the mob before they could drive the injured men to a hospital. It was too late for Qasim, who died soon afterward of his injuries.What is most striking about the lynchings of the past decade is not so much their scale—several dozen people—as the government’s attitude. Modi and many of his BJP allies have spent years demonizing cow-killers while at the same time downplaying lynching reports. In some cases, local officials have treated suspected murderers as heroes.Samayadeen’s case might have gone nowhere, even with a good lawyer on his side, if not for the help of a journalist who went undercover to record video footage of a man who admitted that he’d incited the mob to kill Muslims. After that tape was admitted as evidence, a number of the attackers were indicted and ultimately convicted.As he told me this story, Samayadeen emphasized repeatedly that all the people who had made his case a success—the man who’d helped him bring it, the lawyer who’d represented him, the judge who’d handed down the decision—were Hindus. “What I’m trying to say is that all the Hindu mentality is not like that,” he said, referring to the mob that tried to kill him.Samayadeen’s comment about varieties of the Hindu mentality came to mind as I flew to Tamil Nadu, at the bottom of the subcontinent, 1,000 miles south of Delhi. Tamil Nadu’s leaders have long been openly contemptuous of Hindu nationalism, and their governing philosophy represents a powerful alternative to Modi’s worldview. They have put much greater emphasis on mass education and health care, and the south is today the most prosperous part of India. Bangalore and Hyderabad—two of its largest cities—host the country’s IT hubs.Modi has been trying for years to make political inroads in the south. In May, as the election campaign came to an end, Indian news channels began broadcasting a striking image over a chyron that read Breaking News. It was Modi, eyes closed, sitting on a stone floor with his legs crossed and his palms pressed together. He had traveled to a seaside sanctuary on the southern tip of Tamil Nadu to spend 45 hours in ekantvas, or solitary retreat. The images showed him in saffron robes, subsisting (as the news channels reported) only on coconut water. But Modi’s meditation wasn’t actually solitary; he was being filmed from multiple angles.This stunt was the culmination of a campaign during which Modi hinted more than once that he had attained divine status. “When my mother was alive, I used to think I was born biologically,” he told a TV news interviewer in May. “After her demise, when I look at my experiences, I am convinced that I was sent by God.” Later that month, he said that he received commands from God, though he admitted that “I cannot dial him directly to ask what’s next.”But the south has not been receptive terrain for Brand Modi. In Chennai, the city once called Madras, I met with one of Modi’s most eloquent adversaries—Palanivel Thiaga Rajan, known to everyone as PTR. Now 58, he holds a degree from MIT and worked as a banker in New York and Singapore before returning to his native Tamil Nadu. He made his name running the state’s finance ministry, and now leads the state’s IT efforts. PTR met me at his office, in a gated compound that possessed an air of faded colonial grandeur. His family has been prominent in Tamil Nadu for hundreds of years.[Read: India is starting to see through Modi’s nationalist myth]The south’s priorities are the inverse of Modi’s, PTR told me. They are rooted in decisions made a century ago, when southern leaders—even before India’s independence—began passing progressive reforms including compulsory education for both sexes, women’s right to vote and hold office, and affirmative action for members of historically disadvantaged castes. The motives for those reforms may have been political, but the effect was to create a springboard for greater prosperity, as in Singapore and other East Asian countries. While northern India has pursued a zero-sum model of growth, the southern states have tried to ensure that “the pie grows because everybody is vested in the system,” PTR said. “Everybody’s got access to the basic things,” such as jobs, decent schools, and health care.When I asked about Modi’s economic stewardship, PTR was withering. He walked me through all the mistakes Modi has made, starting with his much-lamented decision in 2016 to “demonetize” the country’s highest-currency banknotes. PTR’s eyes rolled as he considered the effects of this blunder, calling it “one of the staggering catastrophes of economic policy in the history of the world.”PTR also deplored the way Modi has personalized his office and concentrated power in Delhi at the expense of the states. India was already more centralized than other large democracies such as the United States, thanks to the authors of its 1949 constitution. Modi’s brand of nationalism is rooted in the idea that India’s size and diversity call for an even stronger hand and a more unifying creed, but in practical terms that has made the task of government much harder: The average member in India’s 543-seat Parliament now has about 2.6 million constituents. It would make more sense, PTR said, to acknowledge regional differences and delegate more authority to the states.Listening to PTR, one can easily get the sense of a road not taken—a way to steer all of India on a less divisive course. Unfortunately, the south is less an alternative than a rival. Its economic philosophy goes alongside a distinctly southern religious and cultural identity that is almost as aggressive as Modi’s. The two visions are so divergent that it is easy to see why there were calls for a separate southern nation called Dravidistan when India became independent.This cultural rift became apparent when I asked PTR about Modi’s promotion of Hindutva. The subject makes him visibly angry. “I believe that Tamil Nadu is the most Hindu-practicing state in the country,” he said, noting that the state government alone manages some 35,000 temples. All told, he went on, “there are probably 600,000 temples of noticeable size and maybe a million temples of all sizes.” PTR gestured at the red pottu on his forehead, a symbol of Hindu devotion. But the south’s version of Hinduism, he said, is “antithetical to the notion of a muscular Hindutva.” The southern tradition is rooted partly in a century-old revolt against the privileges granted to Brahmans, the priestly caste that sits at the top of Hinduism’s ancient social hierarchy.Modi’s challenges in winning over the south are not just about Hinduism. The people of Tamil Nadu are mostly ethnic Tamils, and many see themselves as the original inhabitants of a region that has faced discrimination from the north. The BJP did not win a single parliamentary seat in Tamil Nadu last year, despite Modi’s efforts.When I arrived in India, the election was still under way. The BJP platform was ostensibly that of a political party with hundreds of parliamentary candidates, but its title was “Modi’s Guarantee.” From the moment I arrived in India, at the Delhi airport, I couldn’t avoid Modi’s image—in life-size cardboard cutouts, in huge murals on city walls, in stickers on doors and windows, on roadside billboards. BJP supporters walked around with paper Modi masks wrapped over their face, giving the eerie impression of an army of clones.Even when you looked at your phone you’d see him, asking for your vote in Hindi, in Urdu, in half a dozen other languages he doesn’t even speak; his voice had been copied and transfigured by AI programming. The opposition talked constantly about him too, adding to the widespread sense that the entire election was a referendum on the 10-year reign of Narendra Modi.The election took place over six weeks, like a slow-moving tsunami, and the results started coming in on the morning of June 4. Modi was already doing far worse than he and his party had expected. Projections were giving the BJP fewer than 200 seats, a steep drop from its previous total of 303, and a result that would spell the end of its parliamentary majority. Modi’s continued rule would depend on the cooperation of coalition allies.At about noon, I sat in on an editorial meeting in Delhi of The Hindu, one of India’s few remaining independent newspapers. The mood was buoyant. There had been a betting pool on the election, and as one editor read out the names of the winners, there was laughter and cheering. I heard a flurry of hot takes: “It’s about hubris; he’ll have to tone it down.” “It’s a huge sigh of relief for India’s Muslims.” “Coalition politics is back.” The political editor said she wanted a story on what the BJP got wrong, and someone joked that it would be too long to fit in the paper.A little later, I made my way over to the headquarters of the Congress Party, on Akbar Road. A raucous outdoor party was under way, with a thick crowd of members and guests milling around in a state of bliss. The Congress Party and its opposition allies had lost, but were behaving as if they’d won a historic victory. Partly, this was because Modi and his party had done everything they could to tilt the election in their favor, and everyone knew it. Opposition politicians had faced a wildly disproportionate number of investigations. In some cases, political figures who switched to the BJP saw their charges abruptly dropped.To some extent, Modi had himself to blame for the way the election results were interpreted. He had said early on that he expected to win 400 seats, a supermajority that could grant him the power to change the constitution. Had this happened, Hindutva might well have been enshrined as the country’s new ruling ideology.[Read: The humbling of Narendra Modi]Modi’s narrow victory felt like a rebuke. But opinion varied on what it meant. Caste seems to have played a role, especially in northern India. Modi’s party has always been vulnerable to defections by low-caste Hindus, who feel the party is still wedded to upper-caste privilege, and many Dalits, once more commonly known as untouchables, appear to have shifted their votes to the opposition.Another prevalent view was that Modi had taken his divisive, anti-Muslim religious rhetoric too far. He may also have overplayed the god-man role. During the initiation of the Ayodhya temple last January, he’d violated protocol by performing religious rites himself.Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, where Modi last year consecrated a Hindu temple on the site of a mosque destroyed in 1992 (Biplov Bhuyan / Sopa Images / Getty)In the days and weeks after the election, many Indians were too overwhelmed by happiness and relief to worry about the details. Modi was no longer invulnerable. He would have to compromise, people said, if he wanted to keep his job.[Read: Many Indians don’t trust their elections anymore]But Modi is not used to compromise. He is very good at dividing Indians to suit his political needs, and he is probably too old to change. In some ways, he is a more authentic product of India’s democracy than any of his Congress Party predecessors, with their patrician pedigrees. His departure—he will be 78 during the next general election, and is not expected to run again—will not change the country’s structural vulnerability to populist strongmen. India may be more susceptible to the politics of identity and division than other countries precisely because, as PTR told me, it is so immense and so diverse. It is more a continent than a country, as the British liked to say—a self-serving point, but one that has grown even more apt since their departure.Modi’s legacy may be decided by those who no longer chant his name. Indian democracy will face its most important test in the small towns and villages where the bulk of the population still lives. One of the people I met in Uttar Pradesh, a 51-year-old farmer, told me that he’d voted for Modi, but a decade of BJP rule had soured him on politics. The party had “played the drums of zero tolerance for corruption,” he said, but had not paid attention to the people’s needs, and corruption had only grown worse.“Hindutva,” he said, “stands for a religion with the most humbleness, the most virtues, the best upbringing, the good culture we have that doesn’t exist anywhere else.” He paused a moment. “There is no party that really stands for that,” he said, “and there won’t be one.”This article appears in the February 2025 print edition with the headline “Modi’s Failure.” When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

A life with regular time for connection and glorious, unproductive leisure is a great goal for 2025, explains Adam Chandler.

Short of going to management, how do I get her off my back?

Explore the celestial wonders of 2025 with our guide to eclipses, meteor showers, and planetary events.

Two products sold in Walmart stores were recalled by producers in December.

Public health officials have warned that new mutations of bird flu with human flu could have dangerous consequences.

The fashion designer revealed to AFP on Wednesday that his longtime love passed away of a pulmonary embolism while in a Parisian palace.

State officials plan to complete the bollard replacement project by February to ensure pedestrian safety during the Super Bowl.

The move was the latest escalation in the back and forth between Beijing and Washington over products considered vital to national security.

Chandler, a Navy medic, is the third Pearl Harbor survivor to die in the past few weeks; only 15 others are still living.

Investigators are exploring possible links to the New Orleans attack suspect, Shamsud-Din Jabbar.

Under Vladimir Putin's orders, Russia and China will work together on AI development, and this could further power Moscow's war.

Rep. Derrick Van Orden criticizes Rep. Chip Roy for not getting on board to support House Speaker Mike Johnson to remain speaker.