Mariyam Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 Indira Gandhi initial part of his PM career' date= she was good, really good. ........... :cantstop:
jonas10 Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 And who is the source that told you Nehru died of STDs? Just do a simple google search Nehru and Syphilis. If thats not enough the wannabe great statesman turned down a PERMANENT UN seat, lost a war to china, didnt allow his generals to take back Azad Kashmir and his obsessions with being the first PM resulted in Pakistan.
ganeshran Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 Just do a simple google search Nehru and Syphilis. If thats not enough the wannabe great statesman turned down a PERMANENT UN seat, lost a war to china, didnt allow his generals to take back Azad Kashmir and his obsessions with being the first PM resulted in Pakistan. That Nehru died of syphillis is just hearsay repeated over and over again in blogs and online forums. That doesnt make it true. He was an idealist - His model of socialism and non alliance might not have been the best in hindsight. But that doesnt mean he didnt do anything for the country. He fought a long struggle for our freedom. The first few years of an independent nation are the most toughest. Nehru was the strong leader whom we needed during the time. Inspite of his faults , he brought stability to the country and built many of our institutions from scratch.
urbestfriend Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 :cantstop: why What he meant was she was the only man in his government :haha:
jhakati Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 Atal Bihari for me, I feel as its mentioned in one of the thread of cricket forums also we always had the inferiority complex, As an Indian we could never dream that we can be numbe rone in any thing. That was first time during Vajpayee rule that things started to turn, US and west started to recognize us as a power. For first time the word India Pakistan was not taken in a sentence but India China word came into existence, our relation with US improved. Infact its said that Vajpayee and Musharaf were vey close to solution of Kashmir. Vajpayee was also seen as non corrupt and non puppet PM, which was not heard before either Indian PM have been corrupt or puppet. Indian Railways started to gain profit, there was a boom in media, IT etc. very well said
Lurker Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Jawaharlal Nehru by far. The only statesman we have produced. Second choice would be for Indira Gandhi, probably the strongest leader we had. Then Lal Bahadur Shastri. Vajpayee comes 4th. Rajeev Gandhi 5th. Noone else matters really.
jonas10 Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Jawaharlal Nehru by far. The only statesman we have produced. Second choice would be for Indira Gandhi, probably the strongest leader we had. Then Lal Bahadur Shastri. Vajpayee comes 4th. Rajeev Gandhi 5th. Noone else matters really. Great statesman - more obsessed with being viewed a "great statesman" than doing whats right for the country. The Great statesman was outfoxed by an illiterate chinese pesant with his hind china bhai bhai BS and lost a war and Indian land. He didnt let his generals kick the Paks out of Azad Kashmir and take back the land. He didnt develop nukes when India had the capabilities and get grandfathered in with the other permanent nuclear powers. A complete and utter failure.
ganeshran Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Great statesman - more obsessed with being viewed a "great statesman" than doing whats right for the country. The Great statesman was outfoxed by an illiterate chinese pesant with his hind china bhai bhai BS and lost a war and Indian land. He didnt let his generals kick the Paks out of Azad Kashmir and take back the land. He didnt develop nukes when India had the capabilities and get grandfathered in with the other permanent nuclear powers. A complete and utter failure. This is the problem with a jingoistic interpretation of History. Mao was by no means just a peasant. He was one of the shrewdest leaders in Asia. The China war was a mistake by India - we didnt have the resources to take on the Chinese army - if aggression was the plan, then India should have waited for another decade to build up better infrastructure for the assault. The domestic pressure on Nehru to apply the forward policy was immense. The referring to the UN was a mistake by Nehru. He felt internationalizing the issue would isolate Pak and help India - that turned out to be a wrong decision with Pakistan not respecting the UN resolution that Pakistan first move its troops out of Kashmir, in order to hold the plebiscite. The Nukes point is simply untrue. Nehru was the one who asked Homi Bhabha to start the atomic program. He was the one who laid the foundation for the nuclear program. And weapons arent so easy to build that it can done in a matter of few years. It took us till 1974 to carry out a nuclear explosion, which was already after the time of Nehru and establishment of NPT. The nuclear explosion does not translate into direct capability to weaponize and deploy a nuclear warhead. That capability was achieved in the late 80s to early 90s. It was only during Narasimha Rao's time that India would have got the capability to declare itself a nuclear weapon's state and the ambiguity was ended only in 1998 by the Atal Behari Vajpayee. Nehru fought for the freedom of the country - his contribution in this can simply not be overlooked. As a prime minister he gave us stability and steered the country through rough times immediately after its inception. Nehru was not a failure.
Mariyam Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Only Vajapayee. Nehru - didnt get back azad kashmir, lost a war to china slept around with died of a std. Indira - Golden temple disaster...turned the most loyal indians - the sikhs against the country. Rajiv - Mr clean - thoroughly corrupt - brought that succubus Italian and her son on the country. I can see that you are against the Gandhis in general, and you state some reasons for it. I can understand that. What I cannot understand is : Why are you judging ex-PMs only on the basis of where they have failed? You should be judging them on the basis of their achievements also. Doesn't that sound logical to you? Let me give you an example: If I were to ask you, who is the better batsman: Sachin or Bradman? Would you reply: Sachin is the better batsman because he got duck out only 17 times but Bradman scored a duck 33 times and is hence worse? Would you employ this kind of reasoning?? Be fair. Judge the ex-PMs, by their good as well as by their bad. Vajpayeeji also messed up with respect to the hijacking. You don't mention that. He was a great poet. :hatsoff:
Roshanrocks Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 I dont know who the best prime minister of India ever was....But i do know who the most under-rated prime minster was... he wasnt handsome by any stretch of the imagination, he wasnt a poet.... but he did a few things which change the face of India..... Mr. P V Narasimha Rao Please read the following article from Swaminomics (Swaminathan S Ankleshwar Aiyar) link Twenty years ago, Narasimha Rao became Prime Minister and initiated economic reforms that transformed India. The Congress party doesn’t want to remember him: it is based entirely on loyalty to the Gandhi family, and Rao was not a family member. But the nation should remember Rao as the man who changed India, and the world too. In June 1991, India was seen globally as a bottomless pit for foreign aid. It had exhausted an IMF loan taken six months earlier and so was desperate. Nobody imagined that, 20 years later, India would be called an emerging superpower, backed by the US to join the UN Security Council, and poised to overtake China as the world’s fastest growing economy. For three decades after Independence, India followed inward looking socialist policies aiming at public sector dominance. The licence-permit raj mandated government clearance to produce, import or innovate. If you were productive enough to create something new or produce more from existing machinery, you faced imprisonment for the dreadful crime of exceeding licensed capacity. Socialism reached its zenith in the garibi hatao phase of Indira Gandhi (1969-77), when several industries were nationalized and income tax went up to 97.75%. This produced neither fast growth nor social justice. GDP growth remained stuck at 3.5% per year, half the rate in Japan and the Asian tigers. India’s social indicators were dismal, often worse than in Africa. Poverty did not fall at all despite three decades of independence. In the 1980s, creeping economic liberalization plus a government-spending spree saw GDP growth rise to 5.5%. But the spending spree was based on unsustainable foreign borrowing, and ended in tears in 1991. When Rao assumed office, the once-admired Soviet model was collapsing. Meanwhile, Deng had transformed China through market-oriented reforms. Rao opted for market reforms too. He was no free market ideologue like Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher: he talked of the middle path. His model was Willy Brandt of Germany. His master stroke was to appoint Manmohan Singh as finance minister. Rao wanted a non-political reformer at the centre of decision-making, who could be backed or dumped as required. He presented Singh as the spearhead of reform while he himself advocated a middle path. Yet, ultimately, it was his vision that Singh executed. In his first month in office, the rupee was devalued. There followed the virtual abolition of industrial licensing and MRTP clearance. At one stroke, the biggest hurdles to industrial expansion disappeared. Who was the industry minister who initiated these revolutionary reforms? Narasimha Rao himself! He held the industry portfolio too. Yet he did not want draw attention to himself. So he ingeniously made the delicensing announcement on the morning of the day Manmohan Singh was presenting his first Budget. The media clubbed the Budget and delicensing stories together as one composite reform story. In the public mind, Manmohan Singh was seen as the liberalizer, while Rao stayed in the background. Singh initiated the gradual reduction of import duties, income tax and corporate tax. Foreign investment was gradually liberalized. Imports of technology were freed. Yet the overall government approach was anything but radically reformist. When bank staff threatened to go on strike, Rao assured them that there would be no bank privatization or staff reforms. When farmers threatened to take to the streets, Rao assured them there would be no opening up of Indian agriculture. The IMF and World Bank believed that when a country went bust, that was the best time for painful reforms like labour reforms. However, Rao took the very opposite line. He focused on reforms that would produce the least mass losers (such as industrial delicensing) and yet produced 7.5% growth in the mid-1990s. These gave reforms a good name, and ensured their continuance even when Opposition parties later came to power. In the 2000s, the cumulative effect of gradual reform finally made India an 8.5% miracle growth economy. Rao got no glory for this. He had lost the 1996 election amidst charges of buying the support of JMM legislators. This led to his exit as Congress chief. Although he was eventually exonerated by the courts, he died a political nobody. How unjust! He deserves a high place in economic history for challenging the Bank-IMF approach on painful austerity, and focusing instead on a few key changes that produced fast growth with minimum pain. The World Bank itself later changed its policy and started targeting “binding constraints” (like industrial licensing). Manmohan Singh said repeatedly that he could have achieved nothing without Rao’s backing. Today, 20 years after the start of India’s economic miracle, let us toast India’s most underrated Prime Minister — Narasimha Rao.
akshayxyz Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 I can only talk of my lifetime. And the answer is Dr.Manmohan Singh. It takes guts and intelligence to tackle India in its current growth phase' date= to take action against an alliance partner, to consolidate India's position as a Global Superpower and yet tackle the daily allegations that he has to. I am surprised how no one sees this part. I am not claiming that Dr. Manmohan is best, but he certainly is leading through one of the toughest phases.
1983-2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 I am surprised how no one sees this part. I am not claiming that Dr. Manmohan is best, but he certainly is leading through one of the toughest phases. the opposition will always call him sonia's puppet but I agree he is a silent killer, he lives the life of a simplicity, gets on with his job and avoids being a media wh0r3
1983-2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 no one has voted for Morarji Desai :cantstop: In 1978, the former Prime Minister of India, Morarji Desai, a longtime practitioner of urine therapy, spoke to Dan Rather on 60 Minutes about urine therapy. Desai stated that urine therapy was the perfect medical solution for the millions of Indians who cannot afford medical treatment. http://www.webcitation.org/5qsj22uyt
mishra Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 shastri ji jai jawan,jai kishan +1 He died is mysterious circumstance. If we had him for full term :((
Sachin=GOD Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 the opposition will always call him sonia's puppet but I agree he is a silent killer' date=' he lives the life of a simplicity, gets on with his job and avoids being a media wh0r3[/quote'] Dr Manmohan Singh is not a leader. He is simply an administrator.
mishra Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Dr Manmohan Singh is not a leader. He is simply an administrator. Mods please change MMS with Sonia Ji. :haha:
Sachin=GOD Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Mods please change MMS with Sonia Ji. :haha: :giggle:
Lurker Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Great statesman - more obsessed with being viewed a "great statesman" than doing whats right for the country. Really? You are gonna question Jawaharlal Nehru's status as a statesman?? Here is a food for thought. Whenever there is a commentary on why India is different to Pakistan today one of first answers is almost always because India was blessed to have a leader like Nehru and Pakistan with Jinnah, and the latter died early as well. Many of India's success today can be traced back to Nehru. Who do you think started IITs, for example?? Since 40-50 years of their existence amidst all these PMs that followed him, including non-Congress, we have barely managed to double that number. Most of the insititutions of India, from Legal to Industrial can be traced to this man. You think Democracy was something that AB Vajpayee nourished in India? Or that Indians were always democratic in nature? Lets give credit where its due. In the initial faces of India, a decade and half which laid down the platform, we have a statesman who built the nation ground up. And yes I do not disagree with his mistake against China, although you may be the only person on planet who thinks Mao was a peasant. Even the staunchest anti-communists republicans wont say that.
Clarke Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Wow, this place is fond of Chacha Nehru or something .. got a question or two for those who believe he's the best we ever had. First up, what's with the license raj ? How many years/decades of economic crunch did we have to face before our leaders realized something was inherently wrong in the ultra-socialist red tape model the country was running on. If we are going to attribute our centers of excellence (IITs/IIMs/AIIMS etc) to Nehru, shall we hold him responsible for the lost decades ? I'm sure folks here heard of the expression 'Hindu rate of growth' .. who's fault was that ? By the way, the centers of excellence benefited majorly from foreign assistance, be it Soviet/American/West German or New Zealand of all countries. Lurker, the comparison with Pakistan is completely flawed in this matter. Their economy was doing better than ours in the initial years & their current state has more to do with Zia than Jinnah or Ayub. Democracy by itself isn't the ultimate prize when a substantial portion of our country has greater poverty than Sub-Saharan Africa 64 years after independence. We could & should have achieved much more if Nehru & co. were indeed the best we had. Which is why i value MMS despite his stance on a number of matters such as reservation & corruption. Edit : Shastriji is doing well ? Some here love ceasefire agreements with Pak or what, Nehru & then Shastri
Recommended Posts