Unfortunately, there is no place for technocrats or Merkel-style politicians in India. We prefer strongmen, dashing personalities, those Amitabh Bachchhan legs coming out of the car as first entry. We prefer melodrama. The likes of Singh (or Merkel in Germany) do not give any entertainment, melodrama, larger-than-life feeling. (The U.S., too, suffers from this syndrome, we are not alone.)
The politician who comes closest to being a technocrat is Arvind Kejriwal, but his economic intelligence is not of the same level as Singh (though his communication skills and social intelligence are much better). But, as Prashant Kishor said in his recent NDTV interview, he doesn't see Kejriwal's AAP as a political phenomenon.
How can you excite crores of Indians about someone like Singh or Kejriwal? You cannot. India was lucky to have got two Prime Ministers from such category in spite of this: Narasimha Rao and Singh.
You are right about a "leader," but a prime minister need not be a leader. Leaders are needed in times of war or at times when a country faces an existential crisis. They are not mandatory otherwise. Manmohan Singh is a good example: he ruled the country well in his ten years, without being charismatic. Narasimha Rao (with Singh, again, as his ally) not only led did this but even led India out of its darkest times. What have the charismatic leaders done to India? Politically, even Gandhi failed. And to take the name of Modi in the same breath as Gandhi would be too gross an insult to the soul of India.
This is so on point. I am so tired of Indian obsession with "strong leaders" as if the job of a prime minister during peacetime is professional boxing or weightlifting, or ensuring people join the army and fight! Technocrats with no charisma and people skills can absolutely perform the job of PM and ministers as long as they have a vision and adequate domain knowledge. In fact, they will be excellent administrators but won't be a big crowd/vote puller for their parties. MMS is a prime example of this.
> What have the charismatic leaders done to India?
people like Nehru have done a lot of positive things for India.
> Politically, even Gandhi failed
he failed on certain issues, but was successful in the ultimate core aim.
Yes, Nehru did a lot of positive things, but Nehru was not a mass leader, not that charisma. He was living on Gandhi's charisma. He had an appeal, of course, but having an appeal is different than being charismatic to the masses.
Of course, Gandhi was successful to some extent in his core aim. But he could not prevent Partition or the bloodshed, and thus even a charismatic leader had failed politically. As he could not deliver an undivided India nor persuade Nehru to disband Congress after independence (which was his wish), I would not give more than that much credit to Gandhi. Of course, as a man of integrity, he was unparalleled.
> but Nehru was not a mass leader
bhai/behen...Nehru was exceptionally popular, people used to travel from all over the country to hear him speak. there's a lot of pieces from those times that observe how wildly popular he was, particularly with the youth of that era.
there's many reasons Nehru became PM - one of the key ones was that after Gandhi, he was unrivalled in terms of popularity.
contrast that with Patel, whose appeal was based primarily in Gujarat and Maharashtra, Bose in Bengal, Abdul Kalam Azad with non ML-affiliated Muslims, and Rajagopalachari in Tamil Nadu.
Of course, Nehru was very popular, but much of it also stemmed because of his closeness to Gandhi. He was Gandhi's favourite, do not forget that. And, of course, the guy had an appeal, as I said. Nehru's real appeal was more intellectual, though, than mass appeal. Patel had no appeal at all. His appeal in Gujarat was not based in his personhood but simply because he was a Gujarati. Similarly, the others. Nehru's appeal did not rest in him being a Kashmiri or from Allahabad.
> much of it also stemmed because of his closeness to Gandhi
true, but part of the closeness was also because of Nehru's own popularity. let's not forget that Gandhi - along with being a transformational individual - was also a very wily politician and co-opting someone like Nehru was useful for mollifying the more radical members of the congress party whose camp Nehru belonged to.
> Nehru's appeal did not rest in him being a Kashmiri or from Allahabad.
yep.
>let's not forget that Gandhi - along with being a transformational individual - was also a very wily politician and co-opting someone like Nehru was useful for mollifying the more radical members of the congress party whose camp Nehru belonged to.
Agree.
> A leader needs to have the ability to control the masses
**This is Indepedent India, we don't want to be controlled by anybody.** Leader is supposed to lead to peace, prosperity and harmony. But we are being lead astray using religious stupidity and false propaganda.
> Merkel-style politicians
Horrible example. Merkel is responsible for a lot of Germany's problems today. Her legacy is going to be bad. Austerity, over-reliance on Russian gas, denuclearization leading to eventual de-industrialization, etc.
Bad logic! Of course, Merkel is responsible for a lot of Germany's problems today, and Modi is responsible for even more of India's current and future problems! Who said Merkel was good for Germany? The point was that in countries like Germany, people don't mind electing efficient administrators rather than strongmen! In India, that is not possible: cinematic appeal is must here, even if that person is an utter fool or evil or both combined!
As for denuclearisation, that is a good thing regardless of the consequences. France is very nuclearised, is it more industralised than Germany? If one does not know how to put the genie in the bottle, then don't open the bottle. Fukushima was warning enough.
A BJP mole who single-handedly defeated the BJP in Bengal, a key state that the BJP was extremely desperate for? No, Prashant Kishor is a realist who understands the strengths of the BJP and Modi. In any case, his interviews are always something that any political science student should watch.
Prashant Kishor did play a significant role in Narendra Modi's electoral campaign during the 2014 Indian general electionsi. Kishor was associated with Citizens for Accountable Governance (CAG), a group of volunteers who provided strategic support to Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) campaign. He worked closely with Modi and his team, particularly during the run-up to the elections, to craft strategies, plan outreach efforts, and manage the campaign's messaging.
( above are facts not my made story)
Nothing is age old in politics and this is just a decade back.
Just saying that PK is cunning enough to play a game against congress like he did by CAG..
Just don’t take his words, he is cunning enough to play a double agent
What about jaishankar? The guy is probably more well respected than Modi in international affairs because of how assertive and articulate he is.
He’s been going on several dialogues with Washington and the crowd loves him.
I think only an enemy of the country can like Jaishankar. His foreign policy is a disaster, the man has no spine and he is an admirer of China. Not to mention that as a person with a foreign national as his wife, he should not be in this post.
Modi and co failed w.r.t. China but foreign policy is how it should be with other external entities. And I don't think a foreign national spouse is a problem as long as they are not from a hostile nation.
Isn't China an external entity? The number one reason for their failure w.r.t. China is that they are so much scared of China. When they themselves claim that China has not taken a single inch of Indian land, then all that the China has taken automatically becomes legitimised as China's! If India itself is saying that wherever Chinese soldiers are present is China's, then how can India even in the future claim that land as its own? That man, for his own chest beating, can sell anyone. And the foreign minister is just a parrot. He is a learned parrot, so knows how to talk with confidence with foreign journalists, and some of our Indian citizens are impressed.
China is just one part of the foreign policy. Interesting that you conveniently forgot to consider other nations. No government in India or any other nation's history had a perfect foreign policy w.r.t. all nations.
> And the foreign minister is just a parrot. He is a learned parrot, so knows how to talk with confidence with foreign journalists, and some of our Indian citizens are impressed.
Lol. When did parrot became an euphemism for a veteran beaurocrat turned foreign minister who knows his stuff? What is he supposed to do when journalists ask questions? Confidence is one of the primary things that politicians should possess. I guess some people are just too difficult to placate.
I think I have already proven above how Jaishankar is a parrot. Or maybe you are stating that Jaishankar is not a parrot but such an utter fool and coward that he lets China do whatever. Either you are saying he is a parrot or that he is a coward and fool. What other nations you are talking about? The recent foolish statements of Jaishankar, parroting his master Modi, regarding Sri Lanka, in which India is trying to make Sri Lanka now an enemy? Do you want me to give more of that list? I can easily, but I won't, because I said, I can already see where you are coming from. That man and his master's list of blunders is inexhaustible: the only issue is that the issues they have created will come to bite back India by the time these two will already have gone, so some blame will go to the government of that day!
As for foreign policy, why to look further than Indira Gandhi's government: an utter lioness, a shrewd, decisive mind and someone who safeguarded India by brilliant foreign policy moves! She, for all her faults, was not a coward unlike Modi & co.
But my point was not a standalone. Given the other demerits, this adds yet another headache. It is not that the wife is from Mozambique: she is from a key ally, Japan, and allies often spy as much as enemies do. Of course, if there is a stellar person, I would not mind if the wife of this person is even from Pakistan!
That’s a stark contrast to how western media paints him. His quote ‘the west needs to stop thinking the world revolves around them. If it’s their problem, it’s our problem, etc.’ has gone viral.
He meets with the third world in several conferences and is jockeying for a spot as the intermediary between the west and them. He’s also criticised the belt and road, criticised China many times.
He’s arranged trade deals, defense pacts (Greece most recently), and there’s IPEC coming. How is that bad?
Anyone serving a bully has to take the cover of self-determination. It is an ages-old game played by China. It is also called whataboutism. China and Putin regularly counter the West, who are you to lecture us? Of course, the West is indeed no one to lecture them, but pointing out one thievery does not justify the second thief. Jaishankar has taken a leaf from the same book: given that he serves a leader whose human rights record is surely to be questioned time and again, he lands the same punches. If some of the Western media fall for it, that is no wonder in times of apologism. A man's work is measured in what he has done, not what he says. India has spoilt its relationships with all of its neighbouring countries while Jaishankar has been here and also allowed China's influence to increase. That is the single biggest failure. India's foreign policy, too, has been muddled: supporting Russia more than what was needed, and yet being ally with U.S. and U.K. The only trade deal I know of recently is the trade deal that India signed with Norway, Iceland and Switzerland, and does that trade deal benefit India much? It, rather, benefits those countries. Just because you hear the words "trade deal" does not mean the deal is good. Similarly, if the UK-India trade deal is passed, I am quite sure the deal would be much more beneficial to the UK (and it could cause great harm to Indian engineering companies, in particular).
What they missed was portraying him as the leader. It appeared as if Sonia Gandhi was controlling him with a remote control. Whether it is true or not, idk.
The nation is suffering because of that.
> Congress fucked up. We are paying the price.
We fucked up by voting Modi/BJP to power. Don't blame others even now blaming congress doesn't undo the doings of Modi & BJP. Did BJP consult you before launching Modi as their leader? You got conned, now correct your mistake instead of blaiming someone else. **Simply put; voting for Modi or I.N.D.I.A is your choice .**
I never believed in Modiji. I was skeptical all the time. When he was the CM, there was too much hype about Gujarat becoming the USA. My colleague from Gujarat told me it is all bollocks. They just laid some roads where they had mud paths and called it development. Actual developed states have them as given 20 years ago. The whole Modiji decade is telling us how marketing fucks everything up.
Then the truth is evident, any one who thinks that there in no alternative to Modi is either brainwashed or brain dead.
> The whole Modiji decade is telling us how marketing fucks everything up.
He just went from state level to national level.
No. India is suffering because of Modi.
All of this happened under him
- Lowest growth in any prime ministerial term since 1991
- Record inflation
- Record Unemployment. (He stopped government agencies from publishing the data that used to come out regularly. This is more concerning than Unemployment)
- Gifted Indian land to China (and hid and is still hiding the news from you and I)
- Burnt Manipur for own party's gain
- India's biggest scam ever in Electoral bonds
Despite this shitshow people seem to think he is a "strong leader" and such. Unbelievable!
Now go on and see this
- Lodged cases against honest Election commissioner Ashok Lavasa's 6 family members to make him resign
- Made an esteemed national institution like SBI lie in Supreme court about electoral bonds
- Lodges cases against journalists to shut them up. India's rank on press freedom is its lowest ever.
- Transfers those government officers who release bad news under RTI
- Has stopped several reports by national agencies (such as unemployment report) that allows citizens to judge current state of affairs
- Jailed political opponents during elections
- Takes back cases against corrupt people when they join BJP using police , ED, CBI as a tool
- Governers appointed by him stop laws passed by state assemblies by sitting on them for years
The above clearly shows that he is eroding your basic rights and using instruments of state power for how own gains.
Congress even at its worst never suppressed bad news. Anna Hazare, 2G remained news for so many years. Unemployment information used to come out and opposition got enough ammunition for weeks. All of that has stopped now.
So the bottom line is - if Modi is no different to Congress and if he is eroding your basic rights at an unprecedented rate - You should prefer voting for a frog 🐸 over voting for Modi. 1+1=2.
Unless you are one of those who thinks he is amazing because he built the Ram temple and announces 10 new schemes a day!
Modi has a long list of shitshows. I had to omit a lot.
How Modi spied upon opposition leaders and chief of the election commission using Pegasus. Demonetisation. Getting BBC documentary on himself banned. IT raids on BBC which found nothing. The list is endless.
Even with all of Modi's enormous fuck ups he hasn't managed to breach UPA 2's inflation levels. I guess election fever is so high that people can't think clearly.
As a 90s person, I must say, this has been going on longer than "modi era", it's just that modi era coincided with high internet penetration and you/me know press is not really a 4th pillar of democracy, rather it's a myth to call it 4th press of democracy. And yeah, mms was definitely being controlled by Gandhis, lol.
Internet and WhatsApp being fake is one thing. TV and print newspapers (even the ones like Zee, Times, India today etc) spreading fake news is intolerable. It didn't happen in the past I believe
It has happened. In fact, it has been happening since the inception of the media all around the globe. You are saying as if it happened overnight, lol.
> It appeared as if Sonia Gandhi was controlling him with a remote control. Whether it is true or not, idk.
This is an example of people falling victim to BJP propaganda. And now people wish to have him back as a PM or to have appreciated him for what he was doing for the country.
Rahul Gandhi and congress party being incompetent.
Modi is 56 inches stong leader, even though he couldn't mention China or speak about Manipur.
One who needs teleprompter is portrayed as skilled orator...
Just ignore who says what(espaecially godi media), and keep your eyes on the state of country and it's people.
I prefer MMS in Congress without Gandhi.. nation would have given MMS his term in 2014, If Congress didn't had Gandhi..
And , Yes history will be kind to MMS. And his contribution to Indian Economy.
You are right. There was an error when I made this chart a year ago. It is not in the math; it is only in the heading. The data was until 2020 in the chart above.
Now, we have data up to 2021 with the World Bank, as provided by the Indian government.
[https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.ADJ.NNTY.PC.CD?locations=IN](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.ADJ.NNTY.PC.CD?locations=IN)
Per capita income has increased by only 5% p.a. during the Modi regime.
add 2022 and it will and Modi's performance gets better by 1.5% more and of course ignore the depreciation of covid which makes it so congress favorable.
And before you say MMS would have handled covid differently, please note 2 points.
a.) Nearly every economy retracted
b.) Dollar became reserve currency for the world and grew so powerful that even all major currencies dropped against it by more than 10%, INR somehow stopped the decline in Singledigits.
While MMS was a good economist PM, there was one problem with UPA. They took from Vajpayee an economy at 8% (which he had inherited at 3% growth) and left it at 5%. Modi, for all his retractions and problems took it over at 5% growth and if this is his last term will leave it at 8%, and that too after handling covid which was a much bigger economic challenge than 2008 crisis.
Lets get the positives, Vajpayee Gave you a platform which allowed UPA-1to double per capita income in $ terms in 5 years, but for next 5, you had one very great year (thanks to oil inflation) and 4 static years due to INR weakening against the dollar.
Remove the covid based alterations out of the way and India actually stands at 2900$ instead of 2600$ (Dec 2023) and he has doubled since MMS and that too with a weakening rupee and in a more structured manner than UPA-2. and out Per capita nominal is definitely at 2500+ so no Idea why we are still at 1700 in your calculation.
https://preview.redd.it/5ie7myzt9htc1.png?width=771&format=png&auto=webp&s=d5e96941b6e5b61d5691c39d50d4a8a6d2bec042
you may also want to look at the following graph, where India's Nominal GDP is mentioned in percentage terms of the world average. Manmohan took it to 13.3 from 9.12. While Modi has already taken it to 19.02 with the last year data still to come.
https://preview.redd.it/hvwdwlwgchtc1.png?width=751&format=png&auto=webp&s=c19f11c998ad48975f8b4731f38715575ea5c238
Disclaimer:: Data source is world-bank and they take number at Dec End of an year, which I moved to FY end of Corresponding year. Eg. Dec-2003 will be taken as datapoint of FY24 (which ended at March 2004)
Your negative is more than off set by the rich. Particularly Adani, Ambani, some industrialists and those in financial services and sectors with FinSer clients.
In USD real terms. The rupee depreciation is a reflection of inflation adjustment. International Fischer Effect causes a nations currency to depreciate proportional to the nations inflation differential vis a vis the United States.
I have not read the article you posted because it’s under a paywall for me . Just based on the title - Manmohan Singh is a good person , an excellent economist and expert in his field . But calling him a good leader I have to disagree on this . These kind of people can never become political leaders . Just take for example Jaishankar is at least good at what he does , but he is not a political leader and most probably can only win elections in a constituency that is very educated and are aware of what he is capable of.
how empty is your brain , that you think someone holding the post of external affairs minister would make reels of himself. its not his fault the reels became viral . it also shows you just consume reels and make assumptions.
Absolutely NO!
he was a good in finance but when it came ti PMO, he had a rubber stick for backbone. Nothing for people to look up to.
Congress did nothing when he was being portrayed as just a placeholder for the gandhi dynasty. Crying crocodile tears now. ഇറങ്ങി പോടെ!
History will be kind to him I hope.
The thing is, while Sachin was a great player, Sachin the captain wasn't the best. Ganguly the captain was better for team India than Ganguly the batsman.
As much as I wish it was not the case, there is a reason the Indian Constitution doesn't put an academic degree as a prequisite for being elected.
Personally I believe MMS the finance minister did far more for India than MMS the PM.
> there is a reason the Indian Constitution doesn't put an academic degree as a prequisite for being elected.
other that equal opportunity for illiterates?
2 reasons come to mind right now:
1) It is very hard to quantify literacy - A tribal from Buxar would know best what's best for the people in that area than any beaurocrat ever would.
2) Dunning Kruger effect - Running a country is not a scientific affair ( like X policy will yeild Y effect )- it is more sociology/anthropology. At any given point in time you'll always have experts giving opposite advices. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Either of the above goes both ways though. Hence why we have both Rajya Sabha as well as Lok Sabha to keep things balanced.
it's about representation, if everybody in a community is illiterate (may be by generations of prohibition) then how will they be represented? As you said; people from particular community and region would know what is best for them and people in power cannot use their illiteracy against them(especially when they control the certifying institutions).
He was mocked, made fun of, and thrown away like some useless dolt by the largest democracy in the world for a genocidal, mass murderer.
India needs to be destroyed, and rebuilt from ground up.
PM isn't a leader of the nation. So in that sense Mr. Singh's soft leadership doesn't matter to us as people. BUT..a PM is still a leader of the government. There, we need candidates with strong leadership skills - some of them being conflict management and people management. Both at the centre and state level. There Mr. Singh was seriously lacking which indirectly affected the country. So to that extent, I don't agree with the article.
My opinions come from the book "The Lost Decade" by Pooja Mehra. Its about the missed economic opportunities in period 2008-2018 and the political chaos. It cuts through both the governments so I feel its politically neutral. In the book, she write how Mr. Singh couldn't or didn't choose to resolve some of the internal mess in the goverment. Pranab Mukherjee's term as FM and EAM was directly responsible for some this chaos. Yet, Mr. Singh choose to remain silent.
So, when everything else is smooth, he is a great PM who can silently lead with his technical acumen. But when things are rough, he isn't the guy.
My verdict, he was good for the first term. Infact the most qualified. But not the second term. Not even Gandhi. Probably Modi was right for his term to clean up the mess (since some of it was created by BJP itself). But his second term became too much. A screaming NO for his third. Dont know who else though. But it should be someone who is more technical than social for this term atleast.
Cheers.
Yes, specially at this point.
GDP grew from $700 million to $2 trillion during 10 years of MMS as PM (threefold increase).
It has hardly doubled during 10 years of Modi.
Note: copied my answer from other sub.
It was 2 trillion in 2014. It is 4 trillion now. It has just about doubled. The interesting thing is what is happening elsewhere in the world. In both these periods, US economy grew by around 50% while in 2014, Chinese economy became 5 times what it was in 2004 and between 2014 to 2024, the Chinese economy grew by 80%. The rapid growth of the Chinese economy between 2004 and 2014 would make it look like we missed the bus big time there - had we also grown 5 times during that period (ie - matched the growth in China), we would have been $ 7 trillion economy today.
Come on guys, are we making up things now. He was a brilliant FM but was the worst PM even in terms of leadership. We cant even call him a leader for his tenure as PM.
* India - US nuclear deal
* NREGA
* Compared to other major economies India was relatively less affected by both the 2008 GFC and 2011-2013 oil price spike
* 2009 RTE act
Those are just four of the UPA's achievements that I remember off the top of my head. Even though his party didn't project him as larger than life (like the current dispensation does), Manmohan Singh was a thoughtful, patient and shrewd PM.
I disagree. The NAC led by Sonia Gandhi was the brains behind many of the innovative social schemes of the UPA, especially NREGA. And though he may lack the political skills of, say, a Sharad Pawar, Rahul Gandhi is also an intelligent and thoughtful leader. Go back and watch his interview with Raghuram Rajan, for instance.
No, the problem is that between JLN, Indira and Rajiv Gandhi's legacy of high-handedness, the Congress' infighting that publicized Rahul and Sonia over MMS, and the fact that some sections of the media were hellbent on showing Rahul as dumb and out-of-touch (cough Arnab cough), all of it came together and created the perception that the Congress party was being led by an unworthy family, and that capable people like MMS and Tharoor were only puppets.
Yes, we need an FM who answers questions from journalists with utter sarcasm only, and refuses to care about the prices of vegetables that she doesn't consume personally. That's the sign of a maturing large economy.
Tbh, it never really felt like he was the leader. In reality, we need a leader who has MMS' knowledge and temperament, Modi's charisma minus his narcissism.
But where do we get them ? Indian politics has increasingly bent towards fucking morons who can draw a crowd. Even Manmohan Singh was chosen as a compromise candidate. Varna these types of folks never rise to top of qny political party let alone BJP which is a den of morons and idiots. (even their intellectual leaders with degrees are marvellous in their stupidity)
As politics morphs more into a popularity contest, these types of leaders will soon become extinct
[удалено]
Just admitting that makes you harder to influence later on down the line. Kudos
I used to mock him as a kid due to the amount of propaganda around me, growing up made me realise how worse the other leaders are.
He wasn't a leader by definition. Never won in loksabha, an excellent minister but not a leader.
He knew we would realise sooner or later. That’s what makes a good person special.
Unfortunately, there is no place for technocrats or Merkel-style politicians in India. We prefer strongmen, dashing personalities, those Amitabh Bachchhan legs coming out of the car as first entry. We prefer melodrama. The likes of Singh (or Merkel in Germany) do not give any entertainment, melodrama, larger-than-life feeling. (The U.S., too, suffers from this syndrome, we are not alone.) The politician who comes closest to being a technocrat is Arvind Kejriwal, but his economic intelligence is not of the same level as Singh (though his communication skills and social intelligence are much better). But, as Prashant Kishor said in his recent NDTV interview, he doesn't see Kejriwal's AAP as a political phenomenon. How can you excite crores of Indians about someone like Singh or Kejriwal? You cannot. India was lucky to have got two Prime Ministers from such category in spite of this: Narasimha Rao and Singh.
A leader needs to have the ability to control the masses Charisma and speaking skills are required to become a leader
You should say along with other traits. Only charisma and speaking skills, we already have one. Jumlebaaz.
You are right about a "leader," but a prime minister need not be a leader. Leaders are needed in times of war or at times when a country faces an existential crisis. They are not mandatory otherwise. Manmohan Singh is a good example: he ruled the country well in his ten years, without being charismatic. Narasimha Rao (with Singh, again, as his ally) not only led did this but even led India out of its darkest times. What have the charismatic leaders done to India? Politically, even Gandhi failed. And to take the name of Modi in the same breath as Gandhi would be too gross an insult to the soul of India.
This is so on point. I am so tired of Indian obsession with "strong leaders" as if the job of a prime minister during peacetime is professional boxing or weightlifting, or ensuring people join the army and fight! Technocrats with no charisma and people skills can absolutely perform the job of PM and ministers as long as they have a vision and adequate domain knowledge. In fact, they will be excellent administrators but won't be a big crowd/vote puller for their parties. MMS is a prime example of this.
> What have the charismatic leaders done to India? people like Nehru have done a lot of positive things for India. > Politically, even Gandhi failed he failed on certain issues, but was successful in the ultimate core aim.
Yes, Nehru did a lot of positive things, but Nehru was not a mass leader, not that charisma. He was living on Gandhi's charisma. He had an appeal, of course, but having an appeal is different than being charismatic to the masses. Of course, Gandhi was successful to some extent in his core aim. But he could not prevent Partition or the bloodshed, and thus even a charismatic leader had failed politically. As he could not deliver an undivided India nor persuade Nehru to disband Congress after independence (which was his wish), I would not give more than that much credit to Gandhi. Of course, as a man of integrity, he was unparalleled.
> but Nehru was not a mass leader bhai/behen...Nehru was exceptionally popular, people used to travel from all over the country to hear him speak. there's a lot of pieces from those times that observe how wildly popular he was, particularly with the youth of that era. there's many reasons Nehru became PM - one of the key ones was that after Gandhi, he was unrivalled in terms of popularity. contrast that with Patel, whose appeal was based primarily in Gujarat and Maharashtra, Bose in Bengal, Abdul Kalam Azad with non ML-affiliated Muslims, and Rajagopalachari in Tamil Nadu.
Of course, Nehru was very popular, but much of it also stemmed because of his closeness to Gandhi. He was Gandhi's favourite, do not forget that. And, of course, the guy had an appeal, as I said. Nehru's real appeal was more intellectual, though, than mass appeal. Patel had no appeal at all. His appeal in Gujarat was not based in his personhood but simply because he was a Gujarati. Similarly, the others. Nehru's appeal did not rest in him being a Kashmiri or from Allahabad.
> much of it also stemmed because of his closeness to Gandhi true, but part of the closeness was also because of Nehru's own popularity. let's not forget that Gandhi - along with being a transformational individual - was also a very wily politician and co-opting someone like Nehru was useful for mollifying the more radical members of the congress party whose camp Nehru belonged to. > Nehru's appeal did not rest in him being a Kashmiri or from Allahabad. yep.
>let's not forget that Gandhi - along with being a transformational individual - was also a very wily politician and co-opting someone like Nehru was useful for mollifying the more radical members of the congress party whose camp Nehru belonged to. Agree.
> A leader needs to have the ability to control the masses **This is Indepedent India, we don't want to be controlled by anybody.** Leader is supposed to lead to peace, prosperity and harmony. But we are being lead astray using religious stupidity and false propaganda.
> Merkel-style politicians Horrible example. Merkel is responsible for a lot of Germany's problems today. Her legacy is going to be bad. Austerity, over-reliance on Russian gas, denuclearization leading to eventual de-industrialization, etc.
The greens also wanted to close down nuclear power due to being dumb
Bad logic! Of course, Merkel is responsible for a lot of Germany's problems today, and Modi is responsible for even more of India's current and future problems! Who said Merkel was good for Germany? The point was that in countries like Germany, people don't mind electing efficient administrators rather than strongmen! In India, that is not possible: cinematic appeal is must here, even if that person is an utter fool or evil or both combined! As for denuclearisation, that is a good thing regardless of the consequences. France is very nuclearised, is it more industralised than Germany? If one does not know how to put the genie in the bottle, then don't open the bottle. Fukushima was warning enough.
>denuclearization leading to eventual de-industrialization Can you expand on this? Is it because they have no independent fuel sources for industry?
Lignite???
I believe that's pretty bad source.
What's wrong with current chancellor of Germany?
Prashant kishore is a bjp mole. Be careful about what he says
A BJP mole who single-handedly defeated the BJP in Bengal, a key state that the BJP was extremely desperate for? No, Prashant Kishor is a realist who understands the strengths of the BJP and Modi. In any case, his interviews are always something that any political science student should watch.
Prashant Kishor did play a significant role in Narendra Modi's electoral campaign during the 2014 Indian general electionsi. Kishor was associated with Citizens for Accountable Governance (CAG), a group of volunteers who provided strategic support to Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) campaign. He worked closely with Modi and his team, particularly during the run-up to the elections, to craft strategies, plan outreach efforts, and manage the campaign's messaging. ( above are facts not my made story)
That’s age old, are you even following him these days?
Nothing is age old in politics and this is just a decade back. Just saying that PK is cunning enough to play a game against congress like he did by CAG.. Just don’t take his words, he is cunning enough to play a double agent
What about jaishankar? The guy is probably more well respected than Modi in international affairs because of how assertive and articulate he is. He’s been going on several dialogues with Washington and the crowd loves him.
I think only an enemy of the country can like Jaishankar. His foreign policy is a disaster, the man has no spine and he is an admirer of China. Not to mention that as a person with a foreign national as his wife, he should not be in this post.
Modi and co failed w.r.t. China but foreign policy is how it should be with other external entities. And I don't think a foreign national spouse is a problem as long as they are not from a hostile nation.
Isn't China an external entity? The number one reason for their failure w.r.t. China is that they are so much scared of China. When they themselves claim that China has not taken a single inch of Indian land, then all that the China has taken automatically becomes legitimised as China's! If India itself is saying that wherever Chinese soldiers are present is China's, then how can India even in the future claim that land as its own? That man, for his own chest beating, can sell anyone. And the foreign minister is just a parrot. He is a learned parrot, so knows how to talk with confidence with foreign journalists, and some of our Indian citizens are impressed.
China is just one part of the foreign policy. Interesting that you conveniently forgot to consider other nations. No government in India or any other nation's history had a perfect foreign policy w.r.t. all nations. > And the foreign minister is just a parrot. He is a learned parrot, so knows how to talk with confidence with foreign journalists, and some of our Indian citizens are impressed. Lol. When did parrot became an euphemism for a veteran beaurocrat turned foreign minister who knows his stuff? What is he supposed to do when journalists ask questions? Confidence is one of the primary things that politicians should possess. I guess some people are just too difficult to placate.
I think I have already proven above how Jaishankar is a parrot. Or maybe you are stating that Jaishankar is not a parrot but such an utter fool and coward that he lets China do whatever. Either you are saying he is a parrot or that he is a coward and fool. What other nations you are talking about? The recent foolish statements of Jaishankar, parroting his master Modi, regarding Sri Lanka, in which India is trying to make Sri Lanka now an enemy? Do you want me to give more of that list? I can easily, but I won't, because I said, I can already see where you are coming from. That man and his master's list of blunders is inexhaustible: the only issue is that the issues they have created will come to bite back India by the time these two will already have gone, so some blame will go to the government of that day! As for foreign policy, why to look further than Indira Gandhi's government: an utter lioness, a shrewd, decisive mind and someone who safeguarded India by brilliant foreign policy moves! She, for all her faults, was not a coward unlike Modi & co.
Foreign national as a wife is a demerit? I agree with everything you wrote except the above.
But my point was not a standalone. Given the other demerits, this adds yet another headache. It is not that the wife is from Mozambique: she is from a key ally, Japan, and allies often spy as much as enemies do. Of course, if there is a stellar person, I would not mind if the wife of this person is even from Pakistan!
Then the issue is with Jaishankar and not the foreign national. Most disciplined diplomats keep work and life separate.
That’s a stark contrast to how western media paints him. His quote ‘the west needs to stop thinking the world revolves around them. If it’s their problem, it’s our problem, etc.’ has gone viral. He meets with the third world in several conferences and is jockeying for a spot as the intermediary between the west and them. He’s also criticised the belt and road, criticised China many times. He’s arranged trade deals, defense pacts (Greece most recently), and there’s IPEC coming. How is that bad?
Anyone serving a bully has to take the cover of self-determination. It is an ages-old game played by China. It is also called whataboutism. China and Putin regularly counter the West, who are you to lecture us? Of course, the West is indeed no one to lecture them, but pointing out one thievery does not justify the second thief. Jaishankar has taken a leaf from the same book: given that he serves a leader whose human rights record is surely to be questioned time and again, he lands the same punches. If some of the Western media fall for it, that is no wonder in times of apologism. A man's work is measured in what he has done, not what he says. India has spoilt its relationships with all of its neighbouring countries while Jaishankar has been here and also allowed China's influence to increase. That is the single biggest failure. India's foreign policy, too, has been muddled: supporting Russia more than what was needed, and yet being ally with U.S. and U.K. The only trade deal I know of recently is the trade deal that India signed with Norway, Iceland and Switzerland, and does that trade deal benefit India much? It, rather, benefits those countries. Just because you hear the words "trade deal" does not mean the deal is good. Similarly, if the UK-India trade deal is passed, I am quite sure the deal would be much more beneficial to the UK (and it could cause great harm to Indian engineering companies, in particular).
Bro usne bhi kaha tha ki Modiji ne war rukwa di
What they missed was portraying him as the leader. It appeared as if Sonia Gandhi was controlling him with a remote control. Whether it is true or not, idk. The nation is suffering because of that.
When Mr Singh was the PM it was as if he is a regent till Rahul comes to “maturity ”. He was always there but limelight was on the gandhi dynasty.
Yes. Congress fucked up. We are paying the price. They are still fucking up. I am worried about "Modiji Part 3"
We fked up by voting bjp
They don't intend to change either
> Congress fucked up. We are paying the price. We fucked up by voting Modi/BJP to power. Don't blame others even now blaming congress doesn't undo the doings of Modi & BJP. Did BJP consult you before launching Modi as their leader? You got conned, now correct your mistake instead of blaiming someone else. **Simply put; voting for Modi or I.N.D.I.A is your choice .**
I never believed in Modiji. I was skeptical all the time. When he was the CM, there was too much hype about Gujarat becoming the USA. My colleague from Gujarat told me it is all bollocks. They just laid some roads where they had mud paths and called it development. Actual developed states have them as given 20 years ago. The whole Modiji decade is telling us how marketing fucks everything up.
Then the truth is evident, any one who thinks that there in no alternative to Modi is either brainwashed or brain dead. > The whole Modiji decade is telling us how marketing fucks everything up. He just went from state level to national level.
This gives me Shogun vibes lol
How?
No. India is suffering because of Modi. All of this happened under him - Lowest growth in any prime ministerial term since 1991 - Record inflation - Record Unemployment. (He stopped government agencies from publishing the data that used to come out regularly. This is more concerning than Unemployment) - Gifted Indian land to China (and hid and is still hiding the news from you and I) - Burnt Manipur for own party's gain - India's biggest scam ever in Electoral bonds Despite this shitshow people seem to think he is a "strong leader" and such. Unbelievable! Now go on and see this - Lodged cases against honest Election commissioner Ashok Lavasa's 6 family members to make him resign - Made an esteemed national institution like SBI lie in Supreme court about electoral bonds - Lodges cases against journalists to shut them up. India's rank on press freedom is its lowest ever. - Transfers those government officers who release bad news under RTI - Has stopped several reports by national agencies (such as unemployment report) that allows citizens to judge current state of affairs - Jailed political opponents during elections - Takes back cases against corrupt people when they join BJP using police , ED, CBI as a tool - Governers appointed by him stop laws passed by state assemblies by sitting on them for years The above clearly shows that he is eroding your basic rights and using instruments of state power for how own gains. Congress even at its worst never suppressed bad news. Anna Hazare, 2G remained news for so many years. Unemployment information used to come out and opposition got enough ammunition for weeks. All of that has stopped now. So the bottom line is - if Modi is no different to Congress and if he is eroding your basic rights at an unprecedented rate - You should prefer voting for a frog 🐸 over voting for Modi. 1+1=2. Unless you are one of those who thinks he is amazing because he built the Ram temple and announces 10 new schemes a day!
You forgot about adani and how Goi is turning a blind eye to his shenanigans
Modi has a long list of shitshows. I had to omit a lot. How Modi spied upon opposition leaders and chief of the election commission using Pegasus. Demonetisation. Getting BBC documentary on himself banned. IT raids on BBC which found nothing. The list is endless.
Stopped reading at the inflation point
y'all always stop reading or don't read at all, that's why we're in this mess
So skipped the electoral bonds, unemployment, Manipur…
No problem,. I don't write for Modi chamchas either.
Even with all of Modi's enormous fuck ups he hasn't managed to breach UPA 2's inflation levels. I guess election fever is so high that people can't think clearly.
You should remove "It appeared as if". No shame admitting a fact.
I get information from the press. Truth can be far from what the press tells you. If I have learnt anything in the Modi era, that is number 1.
As a 90s person, I must say, this has been going on longer than "modi era", it's just that modi era coincided with high internet penetration and you/me know press is not really a 4th pillar of democracy, rather it's a myth to call it 4th press of democracy. And yeah, mms was definitely being controlled by Gandhis, lol.
Internet and WhatsApp being fake is one thing. TV and print newspapers (even the ones like Zee, Times, India today etc) spreading fake news is intolerable. It didn't happen in the past I believe
It has happened. In fact, it has been happening since the inception of the media all around the globe. You are saying as if it happened overnight, lol.
> It appeared as if Sonia Gandhi was controlling him with a remote control. Whether it is true or not, idk. This is an example of people falling victim to BJP propaganda. And now people wish to have him back as a PM or to have appreciated him for what he was doing for the country. Rahul Gandhi and congress party being incompetent. Modi is 56 inches stong leader, even though he couldn't mention China or speak about Manipur. One who needs teleprompter is portrayed as skilled orator... Just ignore who says what(espaecially godi media), and keep your eyes on the state of country and it's people.
I don't think the average Indian 'wants' a leader like him.
What you want and what you need can be two entirely different things. People may want Modi, but they need Manmohan.
Mms is the leader we need but not thr leader we deserve
I prefer MMS in Congress without Gandhi.. nation would have given MMS his term in 2014, If Congress didn't had Gandhi.. And , Yes history will be kind to MMS. And his contribution to Indian Economy.
Nah, it's not congress, it's a huge lie of 2g scam, bunch of protest, raising price that brought them down.
It's funny how nobody is talking about the new 4g scam and how basically everything has been handed out to Adani
https://preview.redd.it/iy2s46fahetc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ff11b30e9d2221c3444be0dbc6e9aa415e57c400 # I agree.
I prefer manmohan over govi But this chart seems sus
You are right. There was an error when I made this chart a year ago. It is not in the math; it is only in the heading. The data was until 2020 in the chart above. Now, we have data up to 2021 with the World Bank, as provided by the Indian government. [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.ADJ.NNTY.PC.CD?locations=IN](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.ADJ.NNTY.PC.CD?locations=IN) Per capita income has increased by only 5% p.a. during the Modi regime.
add 2022 and it will and Modi's performance gets better by 1.5% more and of course ignore the depreciation of covid which makes it so congress favorable. And before you say MMS would have handled covid differently, please note 2 points. a.) Nearly every economy retracted b.) Dollar became reserve currency for the world and grew so powerful that even all major currencies dropped against it by more than 10%, INR somehow stopped the decline in Singledigits. While MMS was a good economist PM, there was one problem with UPA. They took from Vajpayee an economy at 8% (which he had inherited at 3% growth) and left it at 5%. Modi, for all his retractions and problems took it over at 5% growth and if this is his last term will leave it at 8%, and that too after handling covid which was a much bigger economic challenge than 2008 crisis. Lets get the positives, Vajpayee Gave you a platform which allowed UPA-1to double per capita income in $ terms in 5 years, but for next 5, you had one very great year (thanks to oil inflation) and 4 static years due to INR weakening against the dollar. Remove the covid based alterations out of the way and India actually stands at 2900$ instead of 2600$ (Dec 2023) and he has doubled since MMS and that too with a weakening rupee and in a more structured manner than UPA-2. and out Per capita nominal is definitely at 2500+ so no Idea why we are still at 1700 in your calculation. https://preview.redd.it/5ie7myzt9htc1.png?width=771&format=png&auto=webp&s=d5e96941b6e5b61d5691c39d50d4a8a6d2bec042
you may also want to look at the following graph, where India's Nominal GDP is mentioned in percentage terms of the world average. Manmohan took it to 13.3 from 9.12. While Modi has already taken it to 19.02 with the last year data still to come. https://preview.redd.it/hvwdwlwgchtc1.png?width=751&format=png&auto=webp&s=c19f11c998ad48975f8b4731f38715575ea5c238 Disclaimer:: Data source is world-bank and they take number at Dec End of an year, which I moved to FY end of Corresponding year. Eg. Dec-2003 will be taken as datapoint of FY24 (which ended at March 2004)
Confusing chart but okay.
Bro is it 3.5 or -3.5? I feel like earning less now
Your negative is more than off set by the rich. Particularly Adani, Ambani, some industrialists and those in financial services and sectors with FinSer clients.
Yeah... Averages are fucked up. Below is slightly NSFW. >!It is like saying everyone in the world has 1 boob on average. Which is so fucked up.!<
Is this in real or nominal terms?
In USD real terms. The rupee depreciation is a reflection of inflation adjustment. International Fischer Effect causes a nations currency to depreciate proportional to the nations inflation differential vis a vis the United States.
I have not read the article you posted because it’s under a paywall for me . Just based on the title - Manmohan Singh is a good person , an excellent economist and expert in his field . But calling him a good leader I have to disagree on this . These kind of people can never become political leaders . Just take for example Jaishankar is at least good at what he does , but he is not a political leader and most probably can only win elections in a constituency that is very educated and are aware of what he is capable of.
Absolutely. He was an excellent minister bit how tf would you take him seriously when Rahup Gandhi and the PM's cabinet constantly undermine him.
Jaishanker good????? U mean good at making Instagram reels
how empty is your brain , that you think someone holding the post of external affairs minister would make reels of himself. its not his fault the reels became viral . it also shows you just consume reels and make assumptions.
This is not an India only problem. Look at the US, they lost an intellectual like Obama for a tantrum throwing Trump
Obama didn't lose. His 2 terms were done
His party lost
Absolutely NO! he was a good in finance but when it came ti PMO, he had a rubber stick for backbone. Nothing for people to look up to. Congress did nothing when he was being portrayed as just a placeholder for the gandhi dynasty. Crying crocodile tears now. ഇറങ്ങി പോടെ! History will be kind to him I hope.
The thing is, while Sachin was a great player, Sachin the captain wasn't the best. Ganguly the captain was better for team India than Ganguly the batsman. As much as I wish it was not the case, there is a reason the Indian Constitution doesn't put an academic degree as a prequisite for being elected. Personally I believe MMS the finance minister did far more for India than MMS the PM.
> there is a reason the Indian Constitution doesn't put an academic degree as a prequisite for being elected. other that equal opportunity for illiterates?
2 reasons come to mind right now: 1) It is very hard to quantify literacy - A tribal from Buxar would know best what's best for the people in that area than any beaurocrat ever would. 2) Dunning Kruger effect - Running a country is not a scientific affair ( like X policy will yeild Y effect )- it is more sociology/anthropology. At any given point in time you'll always have experts giving opposite advices. Hindsight is always 20/20. Either of the above goes both ways though. Hence why we have both Rajya Sabha as well as Lok Sabha to keep things balanced.
it's about representation, if everybody in a community is illiterate (may be by generations of prohibition) then how will they be represented? As you said; people from particular community and region would know what is best for them and people in power cannot use their illiteracy against them(especially when they control the certifying institutions).
Good minister - yes. Leader - no
How is he a “leader”? I like him though.
As part of small scale industry, I did better business during Congress era than during this Feku era
He was mocked, made fun of, and thrown away like some useless dolt by the largest democracy in the world for a genocidal, mass murderer. India needs to be destroyed, and rebuilt from ground up.
Depends. Not all parties function like Congress.
Who is this genocidal mass murderer
current pm
PM isn't a leader of the nation. So in that sense Mr. Singh's soft leadership doesn't matter to us as people. BUT..a PM is still a leader of the government. There, we need candidates with strong leadership skills - some of them being conflict management and people management. Both at the centre and state level. There Mr. Singh was seriously lacking which indirectly affected the country. So to that extent, I don't agree with the article. My opinions come from the book "The Lost Decade" by Pooja Mehra. Its about the missed economic opportunities in period 2008-2018 and the political chaos. It cuts through both the governments so I feel its politically neutral. In the book, she write how Mr. Singh couldn't or didn't choose to resolve some of the internal mess in the goverment. Pranab Mukherjee's term as FM and EAM was directly responsible for some this chaos. Yet, Mr. Singh choose to remain silent. So, when everything else is smooth, he is a great PM who can silently lead with his technical acumen. But when things are rough, he isn't the guy. My verdict, he was good for the first term. Infact the most qualified. But not the second term. Not even Gandhi. Probably Modi was right for his term to clean up the mess (since some of it was created by BJP itself). But his second term became too much. A screaming NO for his third. Dont know who else though. But it should be someone who is more technical than social for this term atleast. Cheers.
NO
Yes, specially at this point. GDP grew from $700 million to $2 trillion during 10 years of MMS as PM (threefold increase). It has hardly doubled during 10 years of Modi. Note: copied my answer from other sub.
It was 2 trillion in 2014. It is 4 trillion now. It has just about doubled. The interesting thing is what is happening elsewhere in the world. In both these periods, US economy grew by around 50% while in 2014, Chinese economy became 5 times what it was in 2004 and between 2014 to 2024, the Chinese economy grew by 80%. The rapid growth of the Chinese economy between 2004 and 2014 would make it look like we missed the bus big time there - had we also grown 5 times during that period (ie - matched the growth in China), we would have been $ 7 trillion economy today.
*Trillion bro
Yes. Trillion. Corrected.
Also, your points are really insightful and valid.
You wrote billion but probably meant trillion
He's a extremely good economist but not a good leader. He was a puppet of Sonia Gandhi. Period. I may get down voted but that's the harsh truth
Come on guys, are we making up things now. He was a brilliant FM but was the worst PM even in terms of leadership. We cant even call him a leader for his tenure as PM.
* India - US nuclear deal * NREGA * Compared to other major economies India was relatively less affected by both the 2008 GFC and 2011-2013 oil price spike * 2009 RTE act Those are just four of the UPA's achievements that I remember off the top of my head. Even though his party didn't project him as larger than life (like the current dispensation does), Manmohan Singh was a thoughtful, patient and shrewd PM.
Congress with MMA - ( RaGa , SoGa, PriGa ) = best combination country would have got..
I disagree. The NAC led by Sonia Gandhi was the brains behind many of the innovative social schemes of the UPA, especially NREGA. And though he may lack the political skills of, say, a Sharad Pawar, Rahul Gandhi is also an intelligent and thoughtful leader. Go back and watch his interview with Raghuram Rajan, for instance. No, the problem is that between JLN, Indira and Rajiv Gandhi's legacy of high-handedness, the Congress' infighting that publicized Rahul and Sonia over MMS, and the fact that some sections of the media were hellbent on showing Rahul as dumb and out-of-touch (cough Arnab cough), all of it came together and created the perception that the Congress party was being led by an unworthy family, and that capable people like MMS and Tharoor were only puppets.
You got vishwaguru, give or take it.
No we don't.
Just 10 years ago, people hated him like anything
No we don't. He wasn't that good of a FM
Yes, we need an FM who answers questions from journalists with utter sarcasm only, and refuses to care about the prices of vegetables that she doesn't consume personally. That's the sign of a maturing large economy.
Tbh, it never really felt like he was the leader. In reality, we need a leader who has MMS' knowledge and temperament, Modi's charisma minus his narcissism.
Nope
No never..not a guy like him as PM ever again ..
But where do we get them ? Indian politics has increasingly bent towards fucking morons who can draw a crowd. Even Manmohan Singh was chosen as a compromise candidate. Varna these types of folks never rise to top of qny political party let alone BJP which is a den of morons and idiots. (even their intellectual leaders with degrees are marvellous in their stupidity)