My March '09 post on India's Top 5 Prime Ministers (click here) seems to have been quite a success - it now shows up at No. 5 on google if one searches 'Best PM of India'. This was at a time when Manmohan Singh was going into the 2009 elections, and was soon to be followed by his crowning jewel, the 2009 victory.
It's been a long time, and I see two reasons to revisit the ranking - (1) the apparent failures of Singh during UPA-2 (2) my own increased knowledge of earlier Prime Ministers' tenures. There is another reason to re-look at it. I have been wondering how to judge a Prime Minister. In Indian democracy where the executive is clearly subservient to the legislature, how does one judge a Prime Minister independently of the legislature? For example, who can argue that if Singh could take his own decisions, he would not have allowed FDI (and hence sent a strong signal to investors) much earlier in his tenure? How would Vajpayee have been different had he not had to context with the TDP or JD(U)? I firmly believe that it is impossible to demarcate a Prime Minister from the legislature he heads, and hence I will not attempt to do that. The Prime Minister thus becomes symbolic of the administration and governance of his/her times. Therefore, here is a more recent (and hopefully more nuanced) list.
1. Atal Bihari Vajpayee
Vajpayee still tops my list. In my opinion, his three biggest contributions were as follows - (1) demonstrated that a multi-party coalition could work as well, if not better, than single-party rule (2) a clear understanding that infrastructure was India's achilles' heal, and an ambitious program to overcome it, for example through the Golden Quadrilateral program (3) an elevation in India's global profile by nuclear testing, Kargil and a more open engagement with the US. I had previously noted internal security and corruption as the weak points of his tenure - there is ample reason to reassess that now. Am I then saying that Vajpayee's tenure was perfect? Far from it. But modern India owes a lot to Vajpayee, and hence he is still on top of my list.
2. Jawaharlal Nehru
What perplexes me is the general disregard that we have for our first Prime Minister. We love to find faults in everything that Nehru did - and China and the economy are probably on top of that list. Here are my more recent thoughts. (1) I had listed foreign policy as a failure in Nehru's time. I believe I was wrong. Nehru placed India firmly as a thought and action leader among the newly independent countries of the world. I cannot think of anything after that which would have contributed to the general goodwill we seem to enjoy (2) I do not see the relevance of the Chinese defeat. How did it fundamentally change us? Even today, we are militarily far behind the Chinese, they will probably still defeat us in war. Why blame Nehru for something that is true even today (3) Nehru can barely be blamed for the 'Hindu rate of growth'. For a country to raise its per capita income growth from ~0% for close to 50 years, to even 1-2% p.a. is a great deal! Moreoever, Nehru's India was not the socialist pariah that we've come to hate. His regime was apparently far more tolerant of private industries. The reason I don't place him at No. 1 is that much more could have been done - (1) democracy was threatened several times - Kerala, Kashmir (2) education and healthcare could have been given a greater focus, especially given his own socialist leanings.
3. Manmohan Singh
Okay, let's put this on the table. I do not believe that Manmohan Singh's years have, in any way, been a failure. Economic growth has slowed, alright. With the world in recession, it was supposed to slow in any case; plus a savings-fueled growth engine will at some point run out of steam. Plus, at ~5%, it is still as much as India grew during Vajpayee's tenue. Second, corruption is rampant. I have no view on whether corruption at the lowest levels have increased or not - given that many household-level services have been privatised, I would like to believe that it has reduced. Certainly, corruption at the top echelons have increased, and this is also a natural progression of growth - economic opportunities have increased, new sectors are being opened and hence corruption will increase. I am not condoning it, just saying that it isn't right to blame just him. (3) Inflation is high. I agree. But do I see it as unusual in historical perspective? Except perhaps Vajpayee's reign (which I am told had low inflation), I don't see it as unusual. So, after defending Singh, I must explain why he's still at No. 3 on my list. We have to understand that Singh was at the helm of a new India. Growth for India is now a given. With the worst possible climate, we're still clocking >5% p.a. We've grown at 9% p.a. for several years, and there's only a bit faster that we can ever hope to grow. India needed new things, and Singh's Government has provided that. (1) Information. The Right to Information act is truly iconic. It gave a new dimension and new meaning to democracy. India is truly moving towards more participatory democracy, and the RTI is part of that. Would so many anti-establishment movements have been possible without the information that the RTI provides? Perhaps not (2) Rural economy. Rural wages had been stagnant during Vajpayee's tenure - growth had bypassed rural India (which is reflected in the fact that Vajpayee lost in 2004). Rural wages picked up during Singh's tenure through the NREGA. One might argue about its more deleterious effects, or call it a temporary life support; but one certainly can't deny the increasing prosperity it has brought (3) Several more such legislation or programs - the RTE, RSBY etc. Singh has laid the foundations for a more inclusive India, no matter how shaky that foundation is.
-----------------------------------
So the top 3 is still the same, then why the need for this post? Because I wanted to make the point that this list is now capped at 3. My opinion of Indira Gandhi has nosedived, and it is surprising to me that she tops every public poll of best PM. India's turn towards draconian pseudo-socialism started in her tenure. It is alleged that socialism was only a political instrument for her. After all, she was thrust at the top by a right-wing coterie, and hence turn to socialism was an attempt to out-manoeuvre them. Democracy was a major victim of her tenure. Not just the emergency, but the hints of communalism that have been alleged in her last tenure - also, the seeds of dynastic politics. Foreign policy, which I viewed as her strong point, was probably most felt only in India's immediate neighbourhood. I had earlier fallen prey to the nationalistic jingoism around the Bangladesh war and nuclear tests - but I don't see how that contributed to our development in the long run (though it certainly did benefit my Bengali brethren in Bangladesh). I do not see any major developments outside of the subcontinent. I will hopefully see the brighter side of her tenure someday; till then, that's all folks!
No comments:
Post a Comment