Replying to Sbarrkum got me thinking; instead of relitigating India-Pakistan, a more interesting question: across 14 India Prime Ministers, who actually did the job best?
Simple question. Hard answer.
Make the case. What criteria matters most to you?
- Economic stewardship
- Institutional integrity
- Foreign policy judgment
- Social cohesion
- Crisis management
No slogans. No party loyalty. Just reasoning.
Moderated for substance. Indian-centred perspectives prioritised.
A few facts after the jump.
Who were the Woman & Men: 14 Prime Ministers, 13 Hindu, 13 men, 13 upper caste, 13 Aryan — yet the exceptions are telling: Manmohan Singh (Sikh), Indira Gandhi (woman), and Narendra Modi (OBC) each broke a different ceiling. Three came from the same family (Nehru, Indira, Rajiv). The majority served under Congress; only two PMs have come from BJP; Vajpayee and Modi.
Tenures: Nehru served the longest at 17 years. Two PMs died in office — Nehru (natural causes, 1964) and Shastri (Tashkent, 1966, the day after signing the peace accord with Pakistan, circumstances remain disputed). Indira Gandhi was assassinated in office by her own bodyguards in 1984; Rajiv was assassinated in 1991 but after leaving office, during an election campaign. The shortest substantive tenure belongs to Charan Singh, who served five months and never once faced Parliament.
Regional representation has been heavily skewed toward the Hindi heartland and UP in particular; Nehru, Shastri, Indira, Rajiv, Vajpayee, Charan Singh, VP Singh, Chandra Shekhar (though of course the Nehru-Gandhis were famously Kashmiri Pandits rather than UPites per se, Kabir’s distant cousins so to speak). Narasimha Rao was the first and only South Indian PM, striking given the south’s economic and demographic weight.
On Brahmins: five of fourteen were Brahmin, but three of those five were Nehru-Gandhi dynasty; so really only two independent Brahmin PMs. More dynastic than caste, as it turns out.
The Congress paradox: the party that built its identity around social inclusion produced the most dynastic, upper-caste-dominated succession in Indian political history. BJP, rhetorically the party of Hindu consolidation, elevated India’s first OBC Prime Minister.
A footnote on geography and genetics: even the sole South Indian PM was a Brahmin; arguably the most Aryanised of Dravidians. Not a single PM has been unambiguously Dravidian.
For me, there is no question. The answer is Pandit Nehru.
It is because of Pandit Nehru that India is a constitutionally secular state. This is very impressive–especially given that there had just been a violent Partition and Pakistan had been created explicitly as a homeland for Muslims. The Hindu Mahasabha argued that India should be a constitutionally Hindu state but Pandit Nehru shut that down.
Despite whatever criticisms one can make of Indian secularism (even under Congress), this was the right decision in principle and certainly gave India the “moral high ground” over Pakistan.
If Quaid-e-Azam had not died within one year of Pakistan’s creation, he may have been able to set the foundations of Pakistan just as Pandit Nehru was able to set the foundations of the Republic of India.
On the point of Indira being the only woman PM: It is interesting that in all three countries that arose from British India, the only women leaders have been either the daughters or wives of male leaders (Indira, Benazir, Sheikh Hasina and Khalida Zia). Patriarchy is certainly something that unites South Asia.
I don’t think Benazir could have become PM had she not been Bhutto’s daughter. Similarly, I don’t think Maryam Nawaz would even have a chance of becoming PM had she not been Nawaz Sharif’s daughter.
Indira did sort of neutralise Pakistan as a threat tbf especially on the Eastern Wing so there is that..
very few leaders have been able to comprehensively ground their enemy neighbours so successfully
but even so BB & MN have personal charisma, like Indira
Definitely, the fact that Mrs. Gandhi was able to break Pakistan was a big success for her.
On the other hand she was responsible for the “Emergency” which is a deeply problematic episode in India’s history.
Sikhs also probably have a very different perspective on Indira.
My point regarding BB and MN was that Pakistan is a deeply patriarchal country. And there are many Muslims who believe that a woman cannot lead a political party. So the fact that BB became PM (twice) was largely due to the fact that her father had treated her as his heir while he was alive.
MN is clearly Nawaz Sharif’s heir. He’s made it very clear to his brother that his job is only to hold the fort until Maryam is ready to take over.
“Concerns about Imran’s health echo across UK Parliament”
https://www.dawn.com/news/1975881/concerns-about-imrans-health-echo-across-uk-parliament
I don’t like Imran at all and I will defer to Pak Fauj if they consider him a national security threat. However–like every other prisoner– he is entitled to medical care.
Speculation in Pakistan is that a deal is in the air. Just as Mian Sahab was allowed to go to England on the pretext of his health, IK may be allowed to leave Pakistan for medical treatment. However, it doesn’t look like IK is willing to take such a deal since a lot of his political reputation rests on his “resistance” to the hybrid regime.
Mian Sahab was smart and decided to live to fight another day.