Best Indian PM so far?

[madhav]

Who do you think has been the best Indian Prime Minister so far?

I like Nehru the best because of his secular, non-religious approach to governance as well as the good foreign relations which India enjoyed during his reign. His only blemish was the dismissal of a democratically elected government in Kerala. Also, he enjoyed a national and international stature which has not been matched by any PM since.

Any thoughts about this topic?

[Ajita Kamal]

(09-Apr-2011, 01:35 AM)madhav Wrote: Who do you think has been the best Indian Prime Minister so far?

I like Nehru the best because of his secular, non-religious approach to governance as well as the good foreign relations which India enjoyed during his reign. His only blemish was the dismissal of a democratically elected government in Kerala. Also, he enjoyed a national and international stature which has not been matched by any PM since.

Any thoughts about this topic?

I agree with you. Lots of people have a problem with Nehru because of the fact that he was president for a real long time and because of his central-planning focus and protectionism of local industry, but I think those were necessary at that time in India's history. Without the Nehru administration's strong support of centralized-planning and protectionism India would have not developed any domestic industry in competition with the West. Arguably the first 2 decades of independent India were sufficient for this type of governance, and the market should have been guardedly opened up right after with proper incentives to specific areas of industry. I would blame the Indira Gandhi's administration for not doing so in a careful and well-regulated manner. The Nehru years had created sufficient social and economic capital and infrastructure to begin harnessing the potential for competition by the time Indira Gandhi came to power. Unfortunately, none of the administrations since Nehru have demonstrated his foresight. However, those were very different times, and Nehru was uniquely qualified. I doubt if he could make as significant an impact today.

[madhav]

(12-Apr-2011, 12:35 PM)Ajita Kamal Wrote: I agree with you. Lots of people have a problem with Nehru because of the fact that he was president for a real long time and because of his central-planning focus and protectionism of local industry, but I think those were necessary at that time in India's history.

Nehru was an adherent of Fabian socialism which was very popular in the mid-twentieth century, with the Labour Party of UK being its most prominent proponents.

Quote:Without the Nehru administration's strong support of centralized-planning and protectionism India would have not developed any domestic industry in competition with the West. Arguably the first 2 decades of independent India were sufficient for this type of governance, and the market should have been guardedly opened up right after with proper incentives to specific areas of industry.

I don't think Nehru's purpose in creating a centralized and protectionist system for the Indian economy was to compete with the West. Though India was very close to the Soviet Union (which was the reason why Soviet style 5 year plans were introduced), for the reason that the Soviet Union needed a strong partner in the sub-continent to counter-balance the US's sponsorship of Pakistan, there were always many western companies which were allowed to flourish during Nehru's time. It was Indira with her crazy dictatorial ideas who drove out all so-called "western" firms, but I see this more of a political move on her part to retain and increase her power, than an economic one.

Quote: I would blame the Indira Gandhi's administration for not doing so in a careful and well-regulated manner.

One must take care not to judge historical events such as the ones in the 1970s through current day lenses. It is important to understand that the world was different back then. The Soviet Union during Indira's time appeared to be the leading superpower in the world and their ideology of state-ownership of everything was the equivalent of today's free market ideology. To the Indian political establishment of those days, state-ownership was the equivalent of today's free market liberal drives of the 1990s under Narasimha Rao.

Quote: The Nehru years had created sufficient social and economic capital and infrastructure to begin harnessing the potential for competition by the time Indira Gandhi came to power. Unfortunately, none of the administrations since Nehru have demonstrated his foresight. However, those were very different times, and Nehru was uniquely qualified. I doubt if he could make as significant an impact today.

Actually, for me, on reading about India's history since independence, it becomes amply clear that the time before and after Nehru's reign represented a significant break in Indian politics. The rise of regional and religious chauvinistic politics was pretty much completely after Nehru's time and was a response to Indira's dictatorial policies. So, though one cannot really separate out economics from either social or economic issues, I see Nehru's main contributions as more in the social and political field than in economics.

Nehru was the only atheist Prime Minister of India and he represented a form of secular and inclusive politics which is impossible to find in India today.

[arvindiyer]

To complement the critique of the legacy of Nehruvian socialism begun in this thread, here is an essay which examines the historical influences on Nehruvian secularism, critically looking at some of its internal contradictions that are often missed in the typically less erudite cultural nationalist disavowals of the same.

The full article can be read here:
Why Partition?, Perry Anderson, London Review of Books, Vol. 34 No. 14 · 19 July 2012
pages 11-19

The legacy of Nehruvian secularism according to the article bears the indelible stamp of lowly origins such as these:
(i) An implicit acceptance of Hinduism's monopoly of catholicity narrative and taking for granted this romanticized reading of cultural continuity as an unshakeable basis for national integration led to a costly underestimation of fissiparous tendencies and compromised due preparedness during Partition negotiations.
(ii) The handling of the committee report investigating how the weeklong 'Hyderabad Police Action' towards the integration of the Nizam's dominions to the Union of India had involved excesses and civilian casualties resembling total war, would be considered less than exemplary in contrast with the vocal worldwide human rights advocacy of the early post-Independence Indian leadership.

[bringsmiles]

Since I was not present in those era of Nehru -Gandhi period. They have done well with the long duration of time when they were leaders.

But after 90's its been a PVN and Vajpayee who actually took country in to the 21st century. With lot of troubles they bought hope and development process to kick start.