Who has been the India's worst and best PM?

Posted by Himanshu Sachdeva
Published in Times of India, by Mr. Vikas Singh - Monday May 11, 2009

In a few days, India will have a new Prime Minister. It's as good a time as any to take stock of the men -- and one woman -- who have served us. Who's been the best PM India's had, and who's done the most damage?

Jawaharlal Nehru:

• India suffered heavily because of his misplaced sense of idealism over Kashmir, resulting in a problem that troubles us to this day, and his naivete over China.
• But the fact is that much that is good about India today, including world-class institutes of higher learning, our space programme and the widespread use of English that gives India a competitive advantage in a globalised world, are the result of his vision.
• Unlike many other colonized countries that got freedom at the same time as India and promptly become tinpot dictatorships, India is still a vibrant democracy – and that is surely Nehru’s biggest achievement
• I think he deserves the title of our best PM ever.

Indira Gandhi:

• The Emergency was arguably the worst assault ever on Indian democracy.
• Much of the ills that plague our politics, including corruption, criminalization and the degradation of institutions like the Presidency, first flourished in her tenure.
• And she encouraged cynical misuse of religion -- the rise of Bhindranwale was originally encouraged by the Congress in a bid to embarrass the Akali Dal.
  On the positive side,
• She did lead India to one of its finest hours -- victory in the 1971 war. She was also in charge when India conducted the Pokhran tests. And she held India together during a deeply turbulent time.
  

Rajiv Gandhi:

• The 1984 Sikh riots and the Bofors scam will always remain blots on his record.
• So will his clumsy efforts to woo Muslim fundamentalists through the Shah Bano case while courting the Hindu right wing through his decision to open the locked Ayodhya gates.
• Rajiv was the first to talk of taking India into the 21st century, and he did a fair bit to help us get there.
• His contribution in triggering the country’s IT and communications revolution has not got the credit it deserved. Nor have his other worthy initiatives, like panchayati raj. His tragically early death left many wondering what might have been.

Narasimha Rao:

• Slumbered through the demolition of the Babri mosque and was plagued with charges of graft and buying support in Parliament, but played an important role, as the godfather of India's much-needed economic reforms.
• Had the sense to induct Manmohan Singh as finance minister and back him to a large extent; is also significant as the first non-Gandhi to complete a five-year term.
  

A B Vajpayee:

• The first non-Congress PM to complete at least full tenure, which marked an important landmark in Indian politics. His failure to do anything as Gujarat burned is a negative mark against him.
• Also, even though the BJP flaunts its anti-terror credentials, the fact remains that Vajpayee presided over one of the most humiliating moments in Indian history: the escorting of three terrorists to Kandahar by Jaswant Singh in exchange for hostages.
• But Vajpayee's tenure also saw India turn an initial setback into a proud victory at Kargil. He finally took India openly nuclear.
• And despite gloomy predictions to the contrary, the economy didn't collapse under the weight of the sanctions that followed.
• Ultimately, the US came around to India's N-programme and the economy boomed during Vajpayee's last years.
• The irony is, the BJP's proud claim of India Shining boomeranged on it in the 2004 elections.
  

Manmohan Singh:

His critics deride him as India's weakest PM ever. But the way he pushed through the N-deal with the US in the face of overwhelming political opposition would seem to believe that charge.

• The economy didn't do as spectacularly under him as his past record as finance minister had led one to hope. But it stayed on an even keel till it hit the speed breaker of the global recession.
• His biggest failure, perhaps, was that his government seemed to be a mute spectator as India reeled under a string of terror serial blasts, and it finally took a 26/11 to shake it out of its stupor.

As you might have noticed, only those PMs has been looked upon who completed at least one, or more, full terms in office.

Whats your take on this?