Who has been the best Prime Minister of India

[Lurker]

First up' date=' 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 '[b']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.

You have aptly hit upon this in your subsequent paragraph but somehow those thoughts seem to be at odd with each other. Post Independence India was not exactly a very rich state. We had our economy in shambles, there was little money in exchequer and whatever we had was looted by the British. In such a scenario what would have been the better option - Market driven Capitalism OR Society beneficial Socialism?? I would vote for the latter.

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.

Half baked. Sure Zia took it down the toilet but it was right after Jinnah that Democracy went down the toilet in Pakistan and Armed Forces became the biggest driver and their biggest drive was compete against India. The systematic collapse of other institutions helped create the aura of only power left..completely at odds with India where Judiciary, Excecutive, Legal heck even stuff like Stock Market and lately Election Commission have flourished

[Clarke]

You have aptly hit upon this in your subsequent paragraph but somehow those thoughts seem to be at odd with each other.

I'm blaming our current poverty levels on lack of economic opportunity/growth between 1947 & 1991 which was a result of the policies initiated under Nehru.

Post Independence India was not exactly a very rich state. We had our economy in shambles, there was little money in exchequer and whatever we had was looted by the British. In such a scenario what would have been the better option - Market driven Capitalism OR Society beneficial Socialism?? I would vote for the latter.

That's putting a positive spin (the actual practice being a corrupt red taped bureaucracy) to something that did not work out at all. We did not have to pursue extremes in either case, governments in the western nations weren't exactly small & neither was their economic system full on laissez-faire. Someone like Nixon could propose the EPA which is called a job killer these days by the right wingers. The regulated capitalistic market system worked bloody well and should have been the preferred path. It was post Nehru that the country with the most arable land in the world was self sufficient in terms of food, courtesy the help of the free marketers. That alone should disqualify Chachaji from this poll as per my reckoning.

Half baked. Sure Zia took it down the toilet but it was right after Jinnah that Democracy went down the toilet in Pakistan and Armed Forces became the biggest driver and their biggest drive was compete against India. The systematic collapse of other institutions helped create the aura of only power left..completely at odds with India where Judiciary, Excecutive, Legal heck even stuff like Stock Market and lately Election Commission have flourished

We will deviate from the topic if we're continue on Pakistan, but could i propose South Korea as a benchmark instead for the sake of comparison, although that wouldn't work well for Nehru i guess :P I believe you're praising our political/social structure far beyond what it actually deserves; judiciary for instance isn't efficient and that's when it functions. My primary complain though is the economic policies of Nehru/Shastri and some others, they must have been real stubborn to not learn from the world around them.

[Lurker]

I'm blaming our current poverty levels on lack of economic opportunity/growth between 1947 & 1991 which was a result of the policies initiated under Nehru.

You are holding Nehru responsible for 44 years of policies? Even though he was at the helm for way less than half of it? There is something inherently wrong there.

That's putting a positive spin (the actual practice being a corrupt red taped bureaucracy) to something that did not work out at all. We did not have to pursue extremes in either case, governments in the western nations weren't exactly small & neither was their economic system full on laissez-faire. Someone like Nixon could propose the EPA which is called a job killer these days by the right wingers. The regulated capitalistic market system worked bloody well and should have been the preferred path.

And thats perfectly fine. This time - 40s to 70s - is the era where many countries came into existence and they tried different philosphies, some worked others did not. India was not alone in the experimentation. If you want to argue that Socialism may not be the best idea today then I am on board since we have a vibrant market etc. If you want to argue that capitalism would have been a boon in 1947 then you are obviously incorrect.

We will deviate from the topic if we're continue on Pakistan, but could i propose South Korea as a benchmark instead for the sake of comparison, although that wouldn't work well for Nehru i guess.

Comparison with Pakistan is pertinent than comparison with Korea. Both the nation were created at the same time, they used to be one nation and were ruled by the same country. Comparison with Korea, or Japan, is obviously not going to be the same. Heck 64 years after Independence we still can not compare with South Korea today, how can you compare it in 40s and 50s?

I believe you're praising our political/social structure far beyond what it actually deserves; judiciary for instance isn't efficient and that's when it functions.

That may be true but sure it seems to be the only country in the entire region who seems to be functioning right. I dare say between Europe and Eastern Asia (Japan, Korea etc) how many countries do you think can boast of institutions that India has today? xxx

[Clarke]

You are holding Nehru responsible for 44 years of policies? Even though he was at the helm for way less than half of it? There is something inherently wrong there.

He has to have a fraction of the blame, 17 years is no small time. Which is why i do not follow Shastri's popularity either as indicated in previous replies.

And thats perfectly fine. This time - 40s to 70s - is the era where many countries came into existence and they tried different philosphies, some worked others did not. India was not alone in the experimentation. If you want to argue that Socialism may not be the best idea today then I am on board since we have a vibrant market etc. If you want to argue that capitalism would have been a boon in 1947 then you are obviously incorrect.

In hindsight, i understand the appeal of Socialism when India gained Independence, it sounded pleasing in our landscape. My grudge is, it took us a bloody long time to learn from the world around us. The effects of those policies have hurt Indians real bad and the dark shadows haunt many of our citizens to this day. Why do you say that capitalism would have been a failure in 1947 ? The policies we pursued then led to our reliance on foreign aid & scarcity of food. I'm not saying we should have been free marketers from day one but why did we have to wait for near bankruptcy to pursue open markets as an option ?

Comparison with Pakistan is pertinent than comparison with Korea. Both the nation were created at the same time, they used to be one nation and were ruled by the same country. Comparison with Korea, or Japan, is obviously not going to be the same. Heck 64 years after Independence we still can not compare with South Korea today, how can you compare it in 40s and 50s? That may be true but sure it seems to be the only country in the entire region who seems to be functioning right. I dare say between Europe and Eastern Asia (Japan, Korea etc) how many countries do you think can boast of institutions that India has today? xxx

I was comparing Korea in purely economic terms since they too were freed from Japanese occupation in 1945 and did not possess much in terms of mineral wealth. They too had a nasty neighbor to deal with. Their governance in the sixties did contribute towards their economic growth. I will agree, that's another region and not the most direct of comparisons. Between Europe & Eastern Asia, we certainly have political freedom of the highest order. The problem is, i hate to repeat it time & again, economic opportunity. We also have the highest number of undernourished citizens in the world.

[jonas10]

Nehru was a rich socialist obsessed with USSR's system and policies and use to joking brag in private he was "the last englishman to rule India". The guy wanted a british general even after independence to lead India. He had a serious gora complex. If we had Sadar Patel instead we would be a much larger country area wise followed the US's policies and got assistance from the US and probably be a developed nation by now. Please spare me the usual he started IITS. You seriously have low standards Lurker. Sadar Patel = Modi of the 40s/50s. Nehru = origin of black money of the 40s/50s.

[Lurker]

He has to have a fraction of the blame' date=' 17 years is no small time. [/quote'] Sure. So long as you are equally willing to bestow upon his the fraction of accolodates ranging from IITs, Statistical Institutes, Planning Commission etc. I dont think it is quite as simplistic as what you are suggesting. The funny thing about History is people tend to look at the final result and judge everything else from it. What you are perhaps conviently forgetting is the West did not become what it is today till about early 80s. By most account US, for example, in 60-70s was a country of excess turmoil where issues ranging from Hippies to Nixon Watergate to Black Panthers to Vietnam was tearing the country apart. On the other hand Russia was not a bankrupt country(yet) and still led the world in Arms (and Sports). One of the great things about Nehru was his staunch beleif in Non Aligned Movement. To me it remains one of those world organization that could have made a huge difference if not scuttled by the power grabs of US-USSR. Because Capitalism by definition is survival of fittest in the market. And do you think India was a country of fits? We had been robbed by everyone from British to the zamindaars etc. It would have been a bloodbath with people out on street for food. By the by the scarcity of food was addressed by Green Revolution, again something that could be traced atleast partly to Nehru. Like you said its not a direct of comparisons. Different region, different mentors, heck different birth rate. An issue oft forgotten these days is the birth rate we had in 50s 60s and later on till family planning was established. We grew from 350 odd million to 700 million within 50 years of Indepence. That by itself slowed us down immensly, still is if you ask me

[surajmal]

There has been no "best" prime minister. Title Should be "Who has been the least worst Prime Minister of India"? And that goes to Vajpayee. While I respect the man's intellect, I think he was too soft on too many issues. I'm sure if he had been given more chances (especially when he was a bit younger) as a PM, he would have done well. But for what he accomplished, he gets a C. Rest of the PMs get an F (Indira gets an A in her handling of the Pakis but for the economy, internal politics of India and other social issues like education : F)

[pinkfreud]

Edit : Shastriji is doing well ? Some here love ceasefire agreements with Pak or what' date=' Nehru & then Shastri [/quote'] +1, though I think Shastri was a decent PM. Nehru was one of our worst PMs imo. Everything that's happening in Kashmir is courtesy the beloved Chacha.