A statement by self-styled spiritual leader Jagatguru Paramhans Acharya has triggered public debate and official pushback after he alleged on January 30 that former US President Donald Trump used a “tantra-mantra vashikaran” spell to influence Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decisions. The claim, aired in a video address and amplified across social media platforms, cited what Acharya described as insights gained through meditation and a purported tip attributed to Defence Minister Rajnath Singh.Acharya offered no documentary evidence to support the assertion, which blends supernatural explanations with contemporary geopolitics. He suggested that decisions taken by the Prime Minister reflected external spiritual influence, a contention that has been dismissed by political figures and policy analysts as unfounded. The Defence Minister’s office did not endorse the claim, and senior government officials privately described the allegation as baseless.
The episode highlights how fringe narratives can gain traction in a digital media environment where provocative claims circulate rapidly. Analysts note that invoking the names of high-profile leaders tends to magnify attention, even when the underlying assertion lacks credibility. Political observers stressed that foreign policy and domestic governance decisions are shaped by institutional processes, cabinet deliberations and strategic assessments, not occult practices.
Legal experts pointed out that attributing policy outcomes to supernatural manipulation risks misleading the public and could attract scrutiny under laws addressing misinformation and defamation, particularly when statements are framed as fact rather than belief. While freedom of expression protects religious opinion, the threshold shifts when claims purport to describe real-world actions by named individuals without substantiation.
Acharya, who has previously made controversial remarks on social and political issues, defended his comments as spiritual interpretation rather than political accusation. Supporters argued that religious figures are entitled to express metaphysical views, though critics countered that presenting such views as explanations for state decisions crosses into disinformation. Fact-checkers emphasised that no credible evidence links ritual practices to decision-making by elected leaders.
The controversy also reflects a broader pattern in which spiritual or pseudo-scientific explanations are used to frame complex political developments. Scholars of religion and society note that such narratives often resonate during periods of heightened political polarisation, offering simple explanations for multifaceted policy choices. They caution, however, that conflating belief with governance can erode public understanding of how institutions function.
Opposition figures seized on the remark to demand clarity, urging authorities to rebut falsehoods swiftly to prevent their spread. Some called for social media platforms to apply existing policies on misleading content, particularly when claims involve public office holders. Platform moderators face ongoing challenges in balancing content moderation with free speech, especially where religious language is involved.
From a diplomatic perspective, commentators said the allegation risks trivialising relations between New Delhi and Washington by framing them through an occult lens. Bilateral engagement between the two countries is anchored in trade, defence cooperation, technology partnerships and shared strategic interests, all documented through formal agreements and public statements. Suggesting mystical interference detracts from substantive debate on policy direction.
Communication specialists observed that sensational claims often overshadow factual reporting, compelling newsrooms to cover the allegation while simultaneously debunking it. This dynamic can inadvertently amplify the original statement, a phenomenon sometimes described as the “oxygen of publicity”. Editors therefore face a dilemma in deciding how to report such assertions responsibly.
Within hours of the video circulating, multiple independent verifications found no record of the Defence Minister making any such comment. Individuals familiar with his public engagements said the attribution was false. The absence of corroboration underscores the importance of cross-checking claims, particularly when they invoke senior officials.