The PMs who shaped India

Former IFS officer and economist Jaimini Bhagwati has moved the discourse from the idea of India to the promise of India, which also gave him the title of his book, 'The Promise of India : How Prime Ministers Nehru to Modi Shaped the Nation (1947-2019)'. The book was released in August. With highly readable and detailed chapters on the contributions of all the 11 leaders who held the office of the prime minister of India, the former bureaucrat signs off each chapter with his take on how they measure on what he calls 'the 3 Cs'—character, charisma and competence.

It would not be fair to give away even a bit of the details. The author, however, agreed to rank the top five—but ranked only four, and did not find anyone worthy of the fifth slot.

Excerpts from an interview:

Who among the people who have held the office of the prime minister of India would you rank as the top 5?

The book does not rank them, but I will rank them since you are asking me.

My only submission is that it is about those who have left a lasting impact on the country's well-being...Somebody was there for a short time, somebody for five years, (someone for)10 years like Dr. Manmohan Singh, someone for 15 like Indira Gandhi and someone for 17 years, like Jawaharlal Nehru.

Q: Who would be at the top?

In terms of impact and long-lasting value, I don't think one can go to anyone other than Jawaharlal Nehru. Till today, he overshadows every prime minister who has succeeded him, and I say this irrespective of the fact that he was there for a long time. A number of things went right, and a number of them went wrong, but I am saying net net. Perhaps, there would not have been a nation state called India today but for him at the start, immediately after the Independence. Even well before India became independent, or Tagore, in a letter to somebody, spoke about the idea of India, even under colonial Britain, the concept of a political state called India, my gut feeling is that there would not been a nation state called India but for Nehru.

At Number 2?

Former prime minister Narasimha Rao really deserves the country's gratitude because we had several economic problems before his coming on the scene as prime minister. He was one of the longest serving in terms of various positions he held—from CM of undivided Andhra Pradesh and cabinet minister with so many portfolios—Home, MEA, HRD....He served in a way that gave full expression to his ability to steer the country and the economy when it was in a major balance of payments crisis. And one could say that the same of reforms which he did – industrial licensing was let go, the EXIM was rationalised. Import duties were reduced from that time onwards by every successive government, except, funnily enough, the current government. He rationalised exchange rates which was so overvalued at that time as it is today.

Mrs (Indira) Gadhi did devaluation in 1966, but she immediately recanted because some had the very mistaken notion that a very strong rupee is a reflection of a very strong economy, which is not the case. The rupee, like everything else, should find its right value that is good for the economy.

I feel grateful that Narasimha Rao did the changes which he did with a less than absolute majority in the Lok Sabha. He had some missteps, particularly the Babri Masjid, which happened during his time, that has had quite a few negative repercussions over his years. But overall, that was the first break from some of the mistaken polices of Mrs Indira Gandhi that had strung around the economy's neck.

Who would come next?

The next person I think would be Atal Bihari Vajpayee. It has something to do with the boldness of his decisions. (For) the decision to go nuclear, one has to give credit to our nuclear scientists and engineers. Lots of people, and I too, feel that the world would be a safer place without nuclear weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction. But we are unfortunately not living in a Utopian world, and there are threats to national security. I think that was a very bold decision. A number of countries, including the USA, announced all kinds of sanctions, including economic. And he was also able to gradually get relations with the US back to normal.

It was not just about thumping his chest and saying 'I am going to have a nuke'; he showed a lot of foreign policy acumen. Since the 70s he was a member of the parliamentary delegation to the UN every year during the UN General Assembly session.

In fact, Dr. Manmohan Singh only picked up what he had done, and go to the UN and start working on the 123 Agreement. If I recall, some members of his government, including L.K. Advani, were not averse to India sending troops to Iraq for the US, but Vajpayee, in his own typical understated way, was able to keep India out of the Iraq war and yet he was able to continue to patch up with the US.

Who would rank fourth?

Now it becomes a little difficult, to think of who would be the fourth in ranking or importance for the country!

The reason why I am staying clear of Prime Minister Modi for now is because his term is not over. His record is premature particularly because he is currently the prime minister. It is premature to talk about his legacy.

I would say even though it was for a very short time, given the fact that he did two things that were very important, I would say Lal Bahadur Shastri.

Pakistan is a much smaller country but it had received a number of separate pieces of defence equipment, including fighter planes, which were way better than anything we had. Even the rifles with the jawans were of Second World War vintage...Pakistan had sophisticated weapons. Yet, Shastri was able to resist both in Kashmir. He saw the situation was getting a little grim, and he remembered that Nehru had promised in Parliament that next time Pakistan attacks us, we would take the battle to them, and the battle would also be on Pakistani soil. That is exactly what Shastri, diminutive man in the sense he was short, did. He showed great strength of character when lot of people were wondering what we could or should do, and Pakistan leaders claimed one Pathan was equal to 20 Indian soldiers. He was able to push and almost reach Lahore. That was when the world community, including both the Soviet Union and the US, tried to pressurise them and us to stop fighting, and he agreed to ceasefire. With far inferior equipment, he was able to show the morale and leadership at the top that we can win. How difficult a situation it was! Pakistan calculated that we had lost the war with China, and lost a longstanding prime minister, so now is the time to attack in Kashmir. Shastri was able to stand up to that pressure.

The other area that he gave a fillip to was agriculture—the introduction of high yielding wheat, the beginning of the green revolution, and the slogan of Jai Jawan Jai Kisan. In Tashkent at the negotiating table, he lost a little bit of what he had won in the war –the Hajipir pass—but the problem was he was under tremendous pressure from the USSR. So yes, Lal Bahadur Shastri, for a variety of reasons. Despite the fact that he was there only for a short while, I would give him marks for continuing with the same levels of probity in public life.

Title: The Promise of India: How Prime Ministers Nehru to Modi Shaped the Nation (1947-2019)

Author: Jaimini Bhagwati

Publisher: Penguin Viking

Pages: 385

Price: Rs. 799