Originally Posted by
raj2rif
Dear Members,
While considering the achievements of any Prime Minister or picking up the best, certain things needs to be considered. The tenure of course is one of the factors. A short tenure sometimes is better than a long tenure, for one is likely to be exposed more in a long tenure, while in a short tenure, the true character of a person is less likely to be assessed. To this effect both Mr. Nehru and Mrs. Indira Gandhi have the disadvantage, for they had the much longer tenures and hence the exposures of their weaknesses and opportunities for them to do something.
Another most important factor that we should consider is the type of majority their party enjoyed in the parliament for that gave them the opportunity to do what they thought was right or what could be considered the decision of their own. In cases of Mr. Bajpai, Mr. Narsimha Rao, the credit must be given to them to work on a coalition government which is probably the most difficult task for any leader. It is important for them to keep the diverse (more often than not the bunch of opportunists who care more personal and party interests then the national interests) group of MPs together on a national issue and sometimes even have to compromise on some issues to keep the government in power.
Regarding Lal Bahadur Shastri Ji, he had a very truncated tenure during which he did some excellent work in leading the nation through 1965 War, and bringing in the Green Revolution. His slogan of “Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan” really made him popular. But when we look at the real facilities his government provided to either Jawan or Kisan, is again a matter of discussion. My problem with Shastri Ji is the Tashkand Accord. Returning our captured areas in Kashmir specially the “Hazipir Pass” was his biggest blunder. May be that cost him his life. So while, the heart may say that he was the best, the mind says otherwise.
Mr. Nehru enjoyed the powerful majority and the goodwill of the people for his contribution during the independence movement. His was the most difficult task of building a nation that had been a colony for centuries. Creating the new infrastructure, and keeping the two main groups of the society Hindus and Muslim together after the hatred of the partition was probably his biggest challenge. He started the industrialization of the country which was his best contribution. His handling the foreign policy, China War, the Reservation issue was below average I would say. I think he was too socialist and that probably did not go well in national building. He and his successors till the arrival of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi neglected probably the most important issue of “Education”. It was Mr. Rajiv Gandhi who established the national education policy. Overall I would say, to me Mr. Nehru turned out to be an average leader.
Mrs. Indira Gandhi started extremely well, not bowing to either internal or external pressure. On the nationalization issue she even risked the division of her own party. She handled the 1971 war extremely well, though she was extremely lucky to have a brilliant person at the helm of military affairs in FM Manekshaw. My only problem with Mrs. Gandhi has been her dictatorial functioning. While she was probably the most efficient PM we have had, she destroyed the basic fabric of democracy within her own party, and criminalized the politics. Her getting her political opponent out of her way by hook or crook was probably her biggest undoing. Be it the Samastipur Kand, or bringing up Bhindrawale to tame Giani Zail Singh and Darbara Singh she ensured no ever grew up in Congress to challenge her authority. Taking the family planning issue head on was a good thing that she started. If it was not implemented in the letter and spirit that she probably intended to is another issue. But then failure of a policy is as much PM’s baby as the credit for the success of a policy. So instead of grooming the younger leadership, she curbed it and in fact instilled the culture of one person show. The Simla agreement though made the Kashmir issue a bilateral issue, but not including the clause of making all earlier resolutions on the subject null and void was failure. Further she was in much strong bargaining power then what we actually settled for at Simla. Her second tenure was marred with the Operation Blue Star. I think she was bold enough to send the army into the golden temple. People have different view on the subject, but purely from the security point of view, I think it was a right decision.
Morarji Desai, I guess was handicapped of having an extremely diverse group of people in his party. They differed ideologically and hence the problem. There were a few ambitious people within the party and his entire tenure I would say was devoted to just keep the party together. Having the two deputy PM was the most foolish thing one could do in my opinion. Prohibition was another failed policy. His contribution was starting the “Food for Work” scheme, which was followed by successive PM’s. Since Atal Behari Ji was part of his cabinet, I am not sure whose brain child it was, but the fact of the matter is that it started in his time.
Mr. Rajiv Gandhi truly believed in modernization. I think his first reaction to any problem was honest and for the nation. He changed his stance couple of times under the pressure of the stalwarts of his party was his weakness. Probably his inexperienced in the government was his biggest problem. He inherited a party of corrupt politicians with a lot of public sympathy. I would say to that extent he did well in his tenure. He had probably the best majority in the parliament and hence the biggest advantage. I think he would qualify for little better than average. His handling of Srilanka crisis was probably poor.
Mr. V P Singh started on a very clean image. His opening the Mandal was a bold move, but the handling of the situation was extremely poor. I think he is the single PM whom some people probably hate. I would not like to discuss him any further.
I think finding the right person for the right job, is one of the biggest attribute of leadership. Letting people do their job is another big quality. To this extent Mr. Narsimha Rao stands out. He was the first PM who led the coalition government to its full five year term. I don’t know he handled the Babri Masjid issue very well, or for that matter the 1993 riots. I would say opening up the economy (even if was under pressure due to balance of payment) was a big decision. Many including BJP said that he would sell the country to foreign powers turned out to be false fears. While I did not have a personal liking for the man (may be due to his appearance) as a leader he did well. He was the first non Gandhi/Nehru family PM from Congress who was also the party President and did the full tenure. To me he deserves the better rating then the most discussed.
Mr. Bajpai probably was the most likeable PM after Mr. Shastri and probably Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. The reason is simple the clean image. He handled the Kargil well, but what after that. I would not give him the credit for the Nuclear explosion, for that program was going on much earlier. Each PM has a contribution to it with maximum credit going to Mrs. Indira Gandhi. I don’t think Mr. Bajpai handled the situation after attach on our Parliamentary very well. We moved the entire military, we laid the mines, and then we came back. One thing he did well was to continue the process started during Mr. Narsimha Rao’s time. He was very gracious even to his opponent both inside his own party and with opposition. Inspite of all this, I think to me overall he comes only after Mr. Narsimha Rao.
I have tried to analyze each PM within the short span of space and time, and you can pick up whomever you want as the best. They all did something good and something bad. Who is the best depends on the single most factor of personal perception about the situations and their handling by these leaders.
....
Find latest started threads
).
Originally Posted by jakhar77
Reply With Quote
