Was Rajiv Gandhi India's worst Prime Minister?

[Sky lord]

Interesting write up - what do you think?

There is a famous Tamil comedy scene involving the veteran actor Vadivelu that debates whether a person with a fair skin can be unfair in his actions. It is a comedy - but there is some truth to our perceptions of our leaders dominated by the looks.

There seems to be a "whitewashing" of history, when it comes to the "fairest" of Indian Prime Ministers - Rajiv Gandhi. As we celebrate his 70th birthday, let us learn some facts.

Rajiv Gandhi is India's answer to John F. Kennedy - both equally handsome, equally young, equally clueless, equally overrated, who got assassinated due to their lax attitudes that put publicity over security. Any case, why would anyone hate this guy who "looks" so nice?

Horrors of Rajiv

1. Indian Peace Keeping Force: Indian Army has a very honorable record. It had barely lost in any operation it planned and it was never misused fighting random wars elsewhere. However, in a Bush-like action, Rajiv sent 100,000 armed men to Sri Lanka that was widely hated as an occupying force and thrown out in ignominy. Overall 1200 armed men died and plenty more of both Tamils & Sinhalese lost lives. It was VP Singh who finally brought the army home after he won the elections, ending the shame. However, when Rajiv threatened to bring shame 2.0 for the Army, the LTTE lost its cool and assassinated the leader. Rajiv Gandhi didn't consul even his cabinet on IPKF: Natwar Singh
   
   
   
   Rajiv hit by a Sri Lankan navy man - after announcing IPKF.
2. Rigging elections in Kashmir leading to terrorism: In 1987, the Kashmir valley was a fairly peaceful one - much more peaceful than Punjab or Assam. The state's residents were quite excited by the upcoming 1987 assembly elections. Even the separatists were actively engaged in the elections. But, they were horribly disappointed in one of the worst Indian elections. Internationally it is agreed that the Congress rigged that elections to favor its ally - National Conference. The people were so disappointed that it brought the rise of Mujahideen in the valley and marked the start of its violent phase.
3. Look at how violence ballooned since 1988. Vajpayee regime started bringing it down finally.
4. 
5. The Shah Bano legacy: A poor 60 year old Muslim woman went to the court seeking Rs. 200/month from her husband, for supporting her 5 children after the lawyer husband deserted her, uttering Talaq three times. Both the High Court and Supreme Court ruled in the woman's favor. However, Rajiv overruled the court with a new legislation and took away the basic rights of Muslim women in India to appease the conservative clergy. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986. He also banned Salman Rushdie's classic work - Satanic Verses [even before any Islamic nation did]. As BJP brought nationwide riots, he tried to throw them a few - opening the gates of Babri Masjid and permitting construction near the Masjid [eventually leading to the controversial Mosque's destruction.
6. Bofors scandal: Sonia Gandhi and her Italian contacts allegedly led to India's biggest scam of the time - Bofors scandal [Ms. Gandhi then broke her own record in the 2004-14 regime with 2G]. It involved getting large kickbacks in buying guns from a Swedish firm Bofors. Whether he did the crime or not, handling such a matter of national security in such a non-transparent way once again showed his greenhorn attitude.
7. Bhopal gas tragedy: 'Govt, Union Carbide struck secret deal post leak': In almost every aspect, Rajiv's rule was one of the most disastrous periods of India. He was the Prime Minister when Bhopal Gas tragedy (world's worst industrial disaster) struck. He had the chief of Union Carbide in India. But, Rajiv let him go free. The disaster was once again mismanaged.
8. 1984 anti-Sikh riots: Rajiv's party presided over the biggest pogrom in India's history - 8000 Sikhs were murdered right around the national capital as a vengeance for the assassination of his mother - Indira Gandhi. This is 10x the size of 2002 riots and led to further assassinations as Sikh militants claimed their own vengeance by bombing several trains in Ludhiana and bombing an Air India plane from Canada. Air India Flight 182

Ranking Indian Prime Ministers
Of the Indian Prime Ministers - "day dreamer" Nehru can be excused for building the nation and acquiring the various territories. Morarji Desai, who messed up the RAW can be excused for cleaning up the administration and Constitution repealing the mess that Indira brought during Emergency. The "sleeping beauty" Dewe Gowda could be excused for bringing one of the best budgets in the only year he ruled.

Shastri was very honorable, "non-smiler" Rao heralded the economic reforms, "slow talking" Vajpayee strengthened the defense, foreign policy and economy. "Muted man" Manmohan despite being a silent spectator didn't commit big blunders outside of the scams, "invisible" IK Gujral was good in foreign policy. VP Singh was bad, but didn't commit a big blunder outside of Mandal.

Indira is a strong contender for the worst PM, but somewhat excused for winning the 1971 war, nuclearizing India and standing strong against the superpowers.
Why Rajiv is the worst.
This leaves only one Prime Minister - Rajiv Gandhi - for the title of the worst Prime Minister, beating even his own mother on this. His positives were nothing compared to the blunders he committed through inexperience.

With Rajiv we had - mismanagement of Sri Lankan terrorism, Punjab terrorism, worst of India's pogrom, worst industrial disaster, biggest terrorist attacks, the start of Kashmiri terrorism, the start of Babri Masjid crisis... Rajiv has been such a horror that he is practically peerless. The only reason we refuse to hate Rajiv is because he is good looking and we are fundamentally wired to not hate such figures.
Conclusion
There is an ancient parable about a barbarous king who forced his subjects to give up their rice in return for taking his paddy. Since rice was 2x more valuable than paddy, the people lost a lot. He was highly unpopular. On his death bed, the king wanted his son to repair his bad name.

The loving son thus made a new law. He commanded that people had to give up rice in return for taking cattle food. This was even worse than the previous king and thus the people started celebrating the old king looking at his reign with nostalgia. This is what happens in the Nehru family.

This is apt for the Nehru family - where every successor is so worse compared to their predecessor that we tend to think of the old man/old woman in a much more positive way.

 

[dadeechi]

Surely not. The main disappointment is that he was the only PM in the history of India who had two thirds majority and he could have done wonders.

 

[Sky lord]

Surely not. The main disappointment is that he was the only PM in the history of India who had two thirds majority and he could have done wonders.

Did you read the article bhai?
This guy pointed out 6 huge blunders that Rajiv gandhi did including:
IPKF, shah bano case, bofors cover up , 1984 anti Sikh riots (congress still not paid for it), union carbide(chief got out of india specifically with his help).

 

[dadeechi]

Did you read the article bhai?
This guy pointed out 6 huge blunders that Rajiv gandhi did including:
IPKF, shah bano case, bofors cover up , 1984 anti Sikh riots (congress still not paid for it), union carbide(chief got out of india specifically with his help).

Yes I read the article.

IPKF -- Do you think any other PM would have done differently?
Shah Bano - Standard Congress appeasement policy which boomeranged and gave BJP the fillip to move from 2 to 80 seats.
Bofors - I believe middle men made money but corruption took place under the watch of other PMs too.
1984 - Unpardonable
Union carbide - Do you think any other PM would have done differently?

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

The IPKF was the single largest blunder other than the Bhopal disaster. If the support provided by Indira had been sustained by him, we would have a new country Tamil Eelam by now.
Or if he wanted to support politically, he should have never sent the army to fight. He messed up both, resulting in India's vietnam.
Bhopal is worsely handled.

 

[dadeechi]

[

The IPKF was the single largest blunder other than the Bhopal disaster. If the support provided by Indira had been sustained by him, we would have a new country Tamil Eelam by now.
Or if he wanted to support politically, he should have never sent the army to fight. He messed up both, resulting in India's vietnam.
Bhopal is worsely handled.

So you think that he overrode the recommendations of the bureaucracy in these cases?

25 Years of India-Sri Lanka Agreement

2012-08-01 01:59:12

Extracts of my answers to questions raised by media on the India-Sri Lanka Agreement of 1987 in the last two days are given below.

1The Rajiv Gandhi-Jayewardane Accord completes 25 years on July 29, 2012. Many now feel it represents a total diplomatic failure of India. As one who was present in Sri Lanka when Indian forces were operating from 1987 to 90, what are your comments?
Not all, but some of the Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora consider it as India’s diplomatic failure. The Agreement represented a strategic rather than a mere diplomatic initiative. The Agreement was signed after India arm-twisted Sri Lanka's President JR Jayewardane to sign it. He had little option but to do so as no external help was forthcoming particularly after India carried out Operation Poomalai when Indian air force planes dropped much needed food supplies to a beleaguered Jaffna. This showed India would not hesitate to use force if Sri Lanka ignored Indian concerns. This action probably kindled Sri Lanka Tamil expectations that India would re-enact another Bangladesh in Sri Lanka and create an independent Tamil Eelam. The Agreement not only underwrote India’s support for a united Sri Lanka but also defused the fight for an independent Eelam by creating space for a

Sri Lankan initiative to provide a measure of autonomy for Tamils; so sections of Sri Lanka Tamils were miffed with India.
India – Sri Lanka Relations

The Agreement had two parts – one relating to the Cold War environment of that time when the U.S. was trying to make a foray in Sri Lanka at a time when the Soviet Union was fighting an insurgency war in Afghanistan, an ally of India. The other part related to ensuring Tamil minorities in Sri Lanka to get their rights on par with Sinhala majority.

The Agreement did prevent Sri Lanka from providing any foothold for the U.S. However, it failed in finding a permanent solution to the Tamil issue, though it paved the way for the creation of Northeastern Province when the 13th amendment to the Sri Lanka Constitution was introduced. There was an element of ambiguity in the Agreement as it required a referendum to be held to ratify the merger of North and East on a permanent basis. And verbal promises were said to have been made by both sides which were not implemented. When a political leadership with no faith in the Agreement came to power in both the countries, the Agreement was downgraded to a MoU (memorandum of understanding).

The Agreement was signed between two countries to decide the political future of the Tamil minority, whose representatives were not a party to the Agreement. So it lacked the ownership of Tamils. Tamil militant groups and Tamil political parties of Sri Lanka depended upon India’s goodwill to carry forward their struggle. So they had little choice but to accept the Agreement regardless of their own views. Even TULF which had close political connections in India agreed to the Agreement though it had some reservations. Similarly though the three major militant groups –TELO, EPRLF and PLOTE – went along with the Indian government, Prabhakaran had to be persuaded to accept it. He was suspicious of India’s intentions. MGR’s influence with him came in handy in getting him to join others. In the case of Sinhala majority, President Jayewardane simply steam-rolled the objections without allowing time for the people to dispassionately study and understand it.

Looking back at it now, I feel Jayewardane probably expected objections to the Agreement snowballing in Sri Lanka; the Sri Lanka army was also said to be unhappy. That is why probably he wanted Indian forces in Sri Lanka to discourage any threat to him. In the bargain he also used them to fight the LTTE relieving his responsibility. It gave him freedom to handle JVP opposition. So Sri Lanka also contributed to the partial failure of the Agreement.

Overall, the Agreement was hastily conceived by leaders of both sides by using it as a means to meet their own ends rather than a common cause.

2If the Indian army had assessed the situation on the ground why did it not take any initiative to make a success of the Agreement?

The Indian army is an instrument of the Indian government. It had only a limited mandate to “guarantee and enforce cessation of hostilities” between the Sri Lanka army and Tamil militants so that Sri Lanka can take action to give a degree of autonomy to Tamils as visualised in the Agreement. Prabhakaran’s Suthumalai speech on his return to Sri Lanka gave indications that he was not going to tow the Indian line. When the LTTE made only a token surrender of arms – handing over unserviceable and obsolete weapons – it started sending strong signals of its reluctance to fall in line with other Tamil militant groups giving up their arms. Though initially we did not expect the LTTE to take up arms, later when it started killing other Tamil militant group cadres and dragged its feet on the interim administration, it was clear that the Agreement could be jeopardised.

However, Indian intelligence agencies – not military intelligence – providing interface with militants were probably confident that they could persuade Prabhakaran to accept the Agreement. And they could have advised the government to give some concession to LTTE and save Prabhakaran’s face to make it easy for him to come to terms with reality.They had clearly underestimated Prabhakaran’s obduracy. This is only my conjecture.

But one thing is clear – no one had factored LTTE turning out to be a major obstruction for the success of the Agreement. This is where everyone including the Indian government, intelligence agencies and the army failed to understand Prabhakaran’s singular fixation on leading the militant pack to create Tamil Eelam and make no compromises. Of course, later he had no qualms about colluding with Sri Lanka President Premadasa to send the Indian army out, Eelam or no Eelam.

3Is there a possibility of reviving the Agreement? Is there any life left in the Agreement?

The Agreement is very much in vogue but not very active. Thanks to the Agreement, the 13th amendment to the Constitution came about and that led to the creation of provincial councils providing some level of autonomy for the people. Though not fully implemented, the 13th amendment is probably the only instrument available to Tamils to continue their five-decade long political struggle particularly after the LTTE armed struggle was put to an end in May 2009.

4However, it is for India to decide on activating the Agreement and if necessary amend it in scope and content so that both India and Sri Lanka achieve a win-win situation and end the Tamil question once and for all by providing a solution acceptable to all parties. But can India do it?

Despite three years of peace, Tamils in Sri Lanka have unattended problems and Sri Lanka needs our help to speed up the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the war ravaged Northern Province. That can come through only if there is greater political understanding between India and Sri Lanka to provide a fair deal to Tamils. Mrs Indira Gandhi was there for the Bangladesh initiative in 1971 and Rajiv took the plunge in Sri Lanka in 1987. But now, I see no national leader in India with enough dynamism to take up this challenge. That is a pity as the Agreement way well be making its way to the archives.

25 Years of India-Sri Lanka Agreement ::: Dailymirror.lk ::: Breaking News-


Sri Lanka tilts to Beijing
26 November 2014
Author: David Brewster, ANU
A sea change is occurring in Sri Lanka’s strategic orientation. Recent developments suggest that Sri Lanka is becoming China’s new best friend and security partner in the eastern Indian Ocean. This would represent a major change in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy and could have significant consequences for regional security.
The immediate cause célèbre is the visit of a Chinese submarine and announcement of a new Chinese-built port in Colombo in September, followed by another visit in early November. A third is rumoured for later this month. These are no ordinary naval visits: their nature, frequency and timing are extraordinary. The first occurred during state visits by Japanese Prime Minister Abe and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Claims by Beijing that its nuclear-powered attack submarine is on deployment against Somali pirates are risible. Despite Colombo’s initial attempts at secrecy, the visits seem to be a deliberate signal by China that it intends to maintain a submarine presence in the Indian Ocean and that Sri Lanka will play an important role that strategy.

Sri Lanka has a longstanding policy of showing accommodation and reassurance towards India. In particular, Sri Lanka will not allow itself to be used by other powers to threaten India’s security interests. This policy has been followed more or less since independence. It was reflected in a 1987 agreement under which Sri Lanka committed not to allow any of its ports to be used by any country for military purposes in a manner prejudicial to India’s interests. Overall the strategy has served Sri Lanka well in dealing with its huge and sometimes difficult neighbour.
This stance has only really been called into question once, with disastrous results for Sri Lanka. During the 1980s, in the early days of the Tamil civil war, Colombo toyed with offers of foreign military assistance that some feared would lead to the establishment of a US naval base at the northern port of Trincomalee. These concerns were a significant factor in India’s decision to provide support for the Tamil insurgency and India’s subsequent military intervention in Sri Lanka.
What has caused a change in Sri Lanka’s stance? In recent years there has been significant Chinese investment in high profile infrastructure in the country. The Chinese presence in Colombo is palpable. Some of these projects, such as a new port at Hambantota in southern Sri Lanka, have led to claims that China seeks to build a string of naval bases across the northern Indian Ocean. It seems unlikely that Hambantota will become a formal Chinese naval base, but there is little doubt that the Chinese navy will be seeking dependable access to replenishment facilities in the region.
There have been increasing indications over the last six months of Sri Lanka’s willingness to host Chinese military-related facilities. It was recently revealed that China will take over management of a new and enlarged Phase II Hambantota port with berths dedicated for Chinese use. In July the government also revealed it intended to establish a Chinese-run aircraft maintenance facility near Trincomalee, ostensibly to support Sri Lanka’s air force. After strong protests from Delhi, the government may establish this facility in another location, perhaps next to Hambantota port. If nothing else, this is a reminder that the both the Chinese navy and air force will be new players in the Indian Ocean.
The timing of these developments is odd. Beijing is currently promoting what it calls the ‘Maritime Silk Road’ that would involve the construction of ports and other infrastructure across the Indian Ocean. This would include a string of dedicated component manufacturing facilities that would feed back to assembly in China — perhaps something akin to Japan’s ‘flying geese’ strategy in the 1970s. Sri Lanka has volunteered itself as China’s prime partner in this initiative. Yet both vociferously claim that the strategy has no military implications. The recent security developments seriously undermine these claims.
China may be simply seizing an opportunity. Despite some of the hype, China actually has few ‘friends’ in the Indian Ocean that could be depended upon to host military-related facilities. Pakistan is of course a long-standing ally, but its stability and dependability is looking increasingly questionable. Indeed, Xi recently cancelled a planned trip to Islamabad over security concerns. Many have also tagged Myanmar as a de facto ally of China. But Myanmar has never allowed China to use its military facilities, and its political dependability to China is also increasingly uncertain. Sri Lanka, with a stable and cooperative authoritarian regime strategically located in the central Indian Ocean, ticks many of China’s strategic boxes.
How will India respond to these developments? Delhi has expressed anger at these visits in the strongest terms and has told the Rajapaska government that they are ‘unacceptable to India’. But despite strong trade and defence links, including considerable training for Sri Lanka’s military, India’s options are relatively limited. Attempts to isolate the Rajapaksa government are unlikely to be considered an option: Delhi believes attempts to isolate Myanmar’s military regime after 1988 were a major strategic mistake that drove the regime closer to Beijing for decades. Delhi may try to reverse Colombo’s current path through a combination of engagement and coercion, although it is not clear what leverage it has. But decision-makers in Colombo will (or should) be acutely aware of Delhi’s actions in the 1980s when it perceived Sri Lanka may be used by other powers as a threat to India.
David Brewster is Visiting Fellow at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, the Australian National University.

 

[The_Showstopper]

How can author not include his Hindutva appeasement by unlocking the Babri masjid...?

Role of Arun Nehru, Rajiv in opening masjid ignored - The Hindu

 

[dadeechi]

How can author not include his Hindutva appeasement by unlocking the Babri masjid...?

Role of Arun Nehru, Rajiv in opening masjid ignored - The Hindu

Well it's not like that the author has ignored the Ram Mandir issue as it was continuation of the Shah Bano case which was already included.


Rajiv Gandhi was a political beginner. Eschewing politics, he worked as a pilot for Indian Airlines and married an Italian, Sonia Maino.

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Click here for an overview of key players in chapter three.
He was elected as a member of Parliament in 1981, following the death of his younger brother, Sanjay, in a plane crash. Soon after Mr. Gandhi succeeded his mother, he called for national elections. His Congress party won the biggest Parliamentary majority in India’s electoral history.
Mr. Gandhi brought the promise of a new kind of Indian leader. He was young and interested in promoting technology. Within months, however, he was deeply embroiled in the historical tussle between Muslims and Hindus and the sense of victimhood that both sides felt.
The catalyst was a case brought by a Muslim woman called Shah Bano. She had been divorced by her husband several years before and was left destitute. She asked the Supreme Court to force her ex-husband to pay maintenance.
In the spring of 1985, the Supreme Court ruled in her favor, citing the provisions against destitution in Indian criminal law that applied to all Indians.
Prominent members of the Muslim clergy viewed the ruling as a threat to Islamic law, which had long governed their personal matters. It does not require the equivalent of alimony. But the justices had ordered a divorced man to pay maintenance.
At first, Rajiv Gandhi backed the verdict. Arif Mohammed Khan, a Muslim and minister in Mr. Gandhi’s government, made a long speech in Parliament in praise of the ruling.
In an interview, Mr. Khan said he did so at the prime minister’s request. Afterward, he received a note from Mr. Gandhi, he said, which congratulated him on a “wonderful performance” and a “great speech.”
But the Muslim clergy protested, heaping pressure on the prime minister. They demanded he counter the verdict through an act of Parliament. “The Muslim clergy found this as an opportunity to mobilize the Muslims and project themselves,” said Mr. Khan.
Mr. Gandhi succumbed and started preparations for a law that would effectively overturn the Supreme Court ruling.
But he also wanted to find a way to mollify Hindu outrage over the Muslim protests and to counter anticipated Hindu claims that Muslims were being appeased by the government, said Mr. Khan.
The prime minister, he said, found his answer in a court case in Faizabad, the city next to Ayodhya.
The case sought to have the lock removed on the main gate of the Babri Masjid, granting greater public access to the idol that had been sitting in seclusion under the central dome for almost four decades.
Mr. Gandhi’s calculation, Mr. Khan said, was that the Hindu focus on the Shah Bano case “will be redirected to Ayodhya.”

Ayodhya, the Battle for India’s Soul: The Complete Story - India Real Time - WSJ

 

[Manindra]

Interesting write up - what do you think?

There is a famous Tamil comedy scene involving the veteran actor Vadivelu that debates whether a person with a fair skin can be unfair in his actions. It is a comedy - but there is some truth to our perceptions of our leaders dominated by the looks.

There seems to be a "whitewashing" of history, when it comes to the "fairest" of Indian Prime Ministers - Rajiv Gandhi. As we celebrate his 70th birthday, let us learn some facts.

Rajiv Gandhi is India's answer to John F. Kennedy - both equally handsome, equally young, equally clueless, equally overrated, who got assassinated due to their lax attitudes that put publicity over security. Any case, why would anyone hate this guy who "looks" so nice?

Horrors of Rajiv

1. Indian Peace Keeping Force: Indian Army has a very honorable record. It had barely lost in any operation it planned and it was never misused fighting random wars elsewhere. However, in a Bush-like action, Rajiv sent 100,000 armed men to Sri Lanka that was widely hated as an occupying force and thrown out in ignominy. Overall 1200 armed men died and plenty more of both Tamils & Sinhalese lost lives. It was VP Singh who finally brought the army home after he won the elections, ending the shame. However, when Rajiv threatened to bring shame 2.0 for the Army, the LTTE lost its cool and assassinated the leader. Rajiv Gandhi didn't consul even his cabinet on IPKF: Natwar Singh
   
   
   
   Rajiv hit by a Sri Lankan navy man - after announcing IPKF.
2. Rigging elections in Kashmir leading to terrorism: In 1987, the Kashmir valley was a fairly peaceful one - much more peaceful than Punjab or Assam. The state's residents were quite excited by the upcoming 1987 assembly elections. Even the separatists were actively engaged in the elections. But, they were horribly disappointed in one of the worst Indian elections. Internationally it is agreed that the Congress rigged that elections to favor its ally - National Conference. The people were so disappointed that it brought the rise of Mujahideen in the valley and marked the start of its violent phase.
3. Look at how violence ballooned since 1988. Vajpayee regime started bringing it down finally.
4. 
5. The Shah Bano legacy: A poor 60 year old Muslim woman went to the court seeking Rs. 200/month from her husband, for supporting her 5 children after the lawyer husband deserted her, uttering Talaq three times. Both the High Court and Supreme Court ruled in the woman's favor. However, Rajiv overruled the court with a new legislation and took away the basic rights of Muslim women in India to appease the conservative clergy. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986. He also banned Salman Rushdie's classic work - Satanic Verses [even before any Islamic nation did]. As BJP brought nationwide riots, he tried to throw them a few - opening the gates of Babri Masjid and permitting construction near the Masjid [eventually leading to the controversial Mosque's destruction.
6. Bofors scandal: Sonia Gandhi and her Italian contacts allegedly led to India's biggest scam of the time - Bofors scandal [Ms. Gandhi then broke her own record in the 2004-14 regime with 2G]. It involved getting large kickbacks in buying guns from a Swedish firm Bofors. Whether he did the crime or not, handling such a matter of national security in such a non-transparent way once again showed his greenhorn attitude.
7. Bhopal gas tragedy: 'Govt, Union Carbide struck secret deal post leak': In almost every aspect, Rajiv's rule was one of the most disastrous periods of India. He was the Prime Minister when Bhopal Gas tragedy (world's worst industrial disaster) struck. He had the chief of Union Carbide in India. But, Rajiv let him go free. The disaster was once again mismanaged.
8. 1984 anti-Sikh riots: Rajiv's party presided over the biggest pogrom in India's history - 8000 Sikhs were murdered right around the national capital as a vengeance for the assassination of his mother - Indira Gandhi. This is 10x the size of 2002 riots and led to further assassinations as Sikh militants claimed their own vengeance by bombing several trains in Ludhiana and bombing an Air India plane from Canada. Air India Flight 182

Ranking Indian Prime Ministers
Of the Indian Prime Ministers - "day dreamer" Nehru can be excused for building the nation and acquiring the various territories. Morarji Desai, who messed up the RAW can be excused for cleaning up the administration and Constitution repealing the mess that Indira brought during Emergency. The "sleeping beauty" Dewe Gowda could be excused for bringing one of the best budgets in the only year he ruled.

Shastri was very honorable, "non-smiler" Rao heralded the economic reforms, "slow talking" Vajpayee strengthened the defense, foreign policy and economy. "Muted man" Manmohan despite being a silent spectator didn't commit big blunders outside of the scams, "invisible" IK Gujral was good in foreign policy. VP Singh was bad, but didn't commit a big blunder outside of Mandal.

Indira is a strong contender for the worst PM, but somewhat excused for winning the 1971 war, nuclearizing India and standing strong against the superpowers.
Why Rajiv is the worst.
This leaves only one Prime Minister - Rajiv Gandhi - for the title of the worst Prime Minister, beating even his own mother on this. His positives were nothing compared to the blunders he committed through inexperience.

With Rajiv we had - mismanagement of Sri Lankan terrorism, Punjab terrorism, worst of India's pogrom, worst industrial disaster, biggest terrorist attacks, the start of Kashmiri terrorism, the start of Babri Masjid crisis... Rajiv has been such a horror that he is practically peerless. The only reason we refuse to hate Rajiv is because he is good looking and we are fundamentally wired to not hate such figures.
Conclusion
There is an ancient parable about a barbarous king who forced his subjects to give up their rice in return for taking his paddy. Since rice was 2x more valuable than paddy, the people lost a lot. He was highly unpopular. On his death bed, the king wanted his son to repair his bad name.

The loving son thus made a new law. He commanded that people had to give up rice in return for taking cattle food. This was even worse than the previous king and thus the people started celebrating the old king looking at his reign with nostalgia. This is what happens in the Nehru family.

This is apt for the Nehru family - where every successor is so worse compared to their predecessor that we tend to think of the old man/old woman in a much more positive way.

No, V.P. Singh, H.D. Deve Gowda , I.K. Gujral & Manmohan Singh have lead against him.

 

[Sky lord]

Of the Indian Prime Ministers - "day dreamer" Nehru can be excused for building the nation and acquiring the various territories. Morarji Desai, who messed up the RAW can be excused for cleaning up the administration and Constitution repealing the mess that Indira brought during Emergency. The "sleeping beauty" Dewe Gowda could be excused for bringing one of the best budgets in the only year he ruled.

Shastri was very honorable, "non-smiler" Rao heralded the economic reforms, "slow talking" Vajpayee strengthened the defense, foreign policy and economy. "Muted man" Manmohan despite being a silent spectator didn't commit big blunders outside of the scams, "invisible" IK Gujral was good in foreign policy. VP Singh was bad, but didn't commit a big blunder outside of Mandal.

Indira is a strong contender for the worst PM, but somewhat excused for winning the 1971 war, nuclearizing India and standing strong against the superpowers.

No, V.P. Singh, H.D. Deve Gowda , I.K. Gujral & Manmohan Singh have lead against him.

The point this guy is making that almost all the other PMs , horrible as they were, still had at least one redeeming quality. Rajiv gandhi had none! there was nothing that he did that actually left something worthwhile behind.
Actually when you look back we have had some real awful PMs in the past, wonder that the country is still standing.

 

[Manindra]

The point this guy is making that almost all the other PMs , horrible as they were, still had at least one redeeming quality. Rajiv gandhi had none! there was nothing that he did that actually left something worthwhile behind.
Actually when you look back we have had some real awful PMs in the past, wonder that the country is still standing.

I also forgot Morar ji Desai
And what quality other guys have ?
Your question is who let down India most, then where comes these quality thing.
People like it or not Rajiv was billion time better than Pappu (45 age) & he became PM at the age of 35.
When Indira Gandhi was PM, he work in airline as pilot & always introduce himself as Rajeev (not with surname) not use his mother's name, unlike Pappu.
If you ask most under appreciated PMs, then it would be Lal Bahadur Shastri & P.V. Narasimha Rao.

 

[indianBong]

No, V.P. Singh, H.D. Deve Gowda , I.K. Gujral & Manmohan Singh have lead against him.

Nooo.... MODI is...

 

[Manindra]

Nooo.... MODI is...

We would able to say about his performance after completion of his term.

 

[indianBong]

8000 Sikhs were murdered right around the national capital as a vengeance for the assassination of his mother - Indira Gandhi

the fool even said... "when tree falls, earth shakes..." .....

 

[GURU DUTT]

darinder moodee ke bhakt har gair BJP aur secular indian leaders ke khilaaf saazish ker rahe hain