• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

A Prime Minister In Peril

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brahmanyan

Active member
Recently I came across an interesting article on our Prime Minister Manmohan Singh by eminent Historian and Sociologist Ramachandra Guha. He has made a brilliant analysis of the man whom we have as our Prime Minister now. Please read:

A prime minister in peril

Soon after the general elections of 2004, I heard a sociologist and an economist exchange stories about the new prime minister. Back in the early 1990s, the sociologist was asked to write a recommendation for one of Manmohan Singh’s daughters. Since he knew (and admired) her work, he agreed readily. When the young lady’s CV reached him, he found that she had gone to some considerable trouble to hide the fact that her father was finance minister. She was staying with her parents in their large Lutyens bungalow; yet had chosen to use as her mailing address a friend’s flat in East Delhi.​
The economist said he had a better story. In the late 1970s, when Manmohan Singh was a secretary in the finance ministry, the two had lunch at the India International Centre. After the meal, the economist asked Singh: “Do you mind if after dropping you at South Block, your car drops me at my office on Ring Road?” “Do you mind if it didn’t?” answered Singh, a brush-off as gentle as has ever been delivered or received.​
When he assumed office in 2004, Manmohan Singh was by some distance India’s best educated prime minister. He was the most widely travelled since Jawaharlal Nehru. He was the most honest since Lal Bahadur Shastri. He had a wide range of experience in government, having served as, among other things, deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, governor of the Reserve Bank of India, and finance minister.​
There were great expectations of Singh as prime minister; few of which have been fulfilled. Those who thought that the co-author (with P.V. Narasimha Rao) of the first generation of economic reforms would further free entrepreneurs from State control have been disappointed. So have those who hoped the experienced administrator would modernize the civil service by encouraging the lateral entry of professionals, those who believed that the former secretary general of the South Commission would adopt a foreign policy independent of Western (more specifically, American) pressures; and most of all, those who imagined that a person of rectitude and personal honesty would promote probity in politics and administration.​
This last failure explains, among other things, the appeal of Anna Hazare, a man whose intellectual vision is as confined as Singh’s is large. In the early part of 2011, as the evidence of cabinet collusion in the Commonwealth Games and 2G scams accumulated, the prime minister continued to shield his corrupt ministers. After Anna Hazare’s fasts, a popular, countrywide movement against corruption began to take shape. Singh still would not act. In the popular imagination, the prime minister was now seen as indecisive and self-serving, his fellow septuagenarian, Anna Hazare, as courageous and self-sacrificing. It is a mark of how disappointing Manmohan Singh’s second term has been that it has allowed an authoritarian village reformer — with little understanding of what Mohandas K. Gandhi said, did, or meant — to claim the mantle of the Mahatma.​
About 18 months ago, Khushwant Singh wrote that Manmohan Singh was the best prime minister India has had. Khushwant is reliable on some matters: such as the history of the Sikhs, the attractions of Scotch whisky, and the poetry of Muhammed Iqbal. He is a man of enormous charm, with a large fund of good and bad jokes. But in so far as politicians go he has a disastrous track record. He once saw in the ruffian Sanjay Gandhi the redeemer of the nation.​
Even at the time, Khushwant’s praise of Manmohan Singh seemed excessive. Now it seems ludicrous. But why has this honest, intelligent, experienced man, whose appointment as prime minister in 2004 was so widely welcomed, been such a disappointment in office? Here are four reasons, roughly in order of importance:​
1. His timidity, bordering at times on obsequiousness, towards the president of the Congress. Singh is evidently so grateful to Sonia Gandhi for having made him prime minister that he yields to her on matters which are within his preserve rather than hers — such as the appointment of ministers, governors and ambassadors, and the framing of public policies and laws.​
In truth, Sonia Gandhi needs Singh almost as much as he needs her. She did not become prime minister in 2004 because she knew she was plainly unqualified — never having worked in government, how could she conduct cabinet meetings, have official meetings with visiting presidents and prime ministers, participate in international conferences on climate change, and so on? Sonia Gandhi had bestowed on Singh an unexpected gift; however, by accepting it, he had done her a favour too. He should have made more of this reciprocity — by, for example, insisting that incompetent or malevolent ministers be replaced.​
2. His timidity in not contesting a Lok Sabha seat. Singh was, by my count, the fifth person to be sworn in as prime minister while in the Rajya Sabha. The other four sought election to the Lower House at an early date. Surely in the 2009 elections, at least, he should have asked for a Lok Sabha seat, from a safe constituency if need be? This is a major source of the prime minister’s weakness, of his inability to assert his authority over the cabinet, or garner respect from the Congress, from its coalition partners, and, perhaps above all, from the Opposition.​
3. His lack of judgment when it comes to choosing key advisers. The two principal secretaries in the prime minister’s office have been a notorious intriguer and a Gandhi family loyalist respectively. Unlike their predecessors, neither commands respect within the civil service at large. His two media advisers have been PhD’s turned editorial writers, with little experience of on-the-ground reporting, and scant understanding of the power of television to make and unmake images. A less intellectual media manager might have insisted that the prime minister go out often into the countryside, to meet and mingle with the aam admi.​
4. His keenness to win good chits from Western leaders. Singh is reluctant to travel to most states of the Indian Union, but always happy to fly between continents for G-20 meetings and the like. As is well known, the one time he asserted himself was when canvassing for the Indo-US nuclear agreement. This treaty will do little to meet our energy needs in an efficient or sustainable manner. And Indo-US relations were on an even keel anyway. But, as when he told George W. Bush that “the people of India love you”, his campaign for the nuclear deal suggested that for him a good press in the West sometimes mattered more than focused action at home.​
In his first term as prime minister, Singh did not notably enhance his reputation; nor, however, did he seriously diminish it. If he had retired from office in 2009, history would have judged him more kindly. If he thought himself able to carry on, then he should have sought election to the Lok Sabha. He did neither — to find his credibility steadily eroding. It was still possible, in the winter of 2010-11, for Singh to have retrieved some lost ground, by sacking Suresh Kalmadi and A. Raja as soon as the scale of the scandals they oversaw became evident, and by insisting that the Congress break its ties with the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, even if that meant the fall of the United Progressive Alliance government in New Delhi.​
These successive failures signal a character trait that one does not usually associate with upright and intelligent individuals —namely, a rather desperate desire to cling to office, at whatever cost to one’s reputation, one’s party, and one’s nation.


Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.




 
These successive failures signal a character trait that one does not usually associate with upright and intelligent individuals —namely, a rather desperate desire to cling to office, at whatever cost to one’s reputation, one’s party, and one’s nation.

People cling to their chairs the way Maarkkandeyan is supposed to

have clung to the Sivalingam! :doh:

The 'successive' failures are also 'successful' failures. :rolleyes:

Successive??? :decision: Successful???
What is one's party / reputation / nation when compared to :popcorn:?

 
There was another article earlier (not by guha), which analysed mm singh's career growth from the beginning. At every stage, he knew who will give him the lift and was 110% subservient to him/ her. I will try to locate it and post it if it is locatable. Subramanyan swamy's article on islamic terrorism has been removed from the DNA archives. Kapil sibal has done his job well.
 
Dear Sri Brahmanyan Ji,

Over my about 40 years in USA, only two PMs of India that I saw here while they were visiting the USA on TV that I felt proud of.

One was Rajiv Gandhi and the next is the current PM. I feel that he is intellectually very sharp and that allows him to connect with the West better, who, whether right or wrong appreciate dealing with sharp folks.

I am saddened to read the article you have posted, because I thought that he is the best choice for India, even though his position is incidental.

Who else is there who can equal him? Is there any?

Regards,
KRS
 
I AM SORRY TO SAY THIS BUT SOME MAGAZINES EQUATE

MANMOHAN SING TO DRITHARASTRA - WHO ALLOWED

INJUSTICE TO FLOURISH KNOWINGLY AND WANTONLY.

BEING TALENTED IS A GOOD THING. HE SHOULD DO JUSTICE TO

THE HIGH POSITION AND IMPORTANT OFFICE HE HOLDS.

WHEN A PERSON'S CHARACTER IS LOST EVERYTHING IS LOST. :tsk:
 
Shri Brahmanyan,

Don't you feel it is more important for an Indian PM to appear "intellectually very sharp which allows him to connect with the West better, who, whether right or wrong appreciate dealing with sharp folks" before NRI-PIOs than doing the many things useful and necessary for the progress of India?

It is therefore very clear and beyond any further questioning (at least in this Forum) that MMS is one of the two really great Prime Ministers to rule India during the last 40 years. Period.
 
Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

That is not what I said about PM MM Singh at all.

To be clear, I was talking from a perspective from abroad.

I did not say, our views from here are correct.

I do not understand why you would say what you said. Of course the perspective on any politician rests with the locals and more valid. Hence I said, I was sad.

Regards,
KRS
Shri Brahmanyan,

Don't you feel it is more important for an Indian PM to appear "intellectually very sharp which allows him to connect with the West better, who, whether right or wrong appreciate dealing with sharp folks" before NRI-PIOs than doing the many things useful and necessary for the progress of India?

It is therefore very clear and beyond any further questioning (at least in this Forum) that MMS is one of the two really great Prime Ministers to rule India during the last 40 years. Period.
 
To the Western World, Dr MM still appears as an icon, but for those who see and feel him on a day to day basis, there is a feeling of very let down. All the merits he earned are his past credits and none of them have been enhanced in his new position as a PM.
By turning the other way to things going on under his nose, he has done no good to the hopes and having to constantly yield to the coalition dharma as he calls it, and what with every parliament sessions being wasted, he projects himself to be very weak and ineffective.
Sri KRS ji, you said:
Who else is there who can equal him? Is there any?
.
Yes, agreed. Any body else could probably have been worse. But isnt keeping the situation status quo not in the best interest of the country?
Who else other than a PM could own this responsibility to change it?
 
1. PV Narasimha Rao is the "only greatest PM & statesman of this country" who unleashed the path breaking reforms - & hence all of us are in this forum talking. Manmohan had ZERO role in this. Becos PV N Rao sidelined Sonia, she & her cohorts sidelined him & credited manmohan with the reforms. Otherwise a Nehru Gandhi family person would have got the credit !!

2. with all due respect, HOW DOES ANYONE KNOW THAT MANMOHAN IS HONEST??? - HE IS HEADING THE MOST CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY.

ACTIONS JUDGE THE MAN'S CHARACTER. WHAT IS REALLY REALLY SAD IS THAT PEOPLE/MEDIA KEEP SAYING THAT MANMOHAN IS THE MOST HONEST PERSON ON EARTH. OH LETS MAKE A HIM A GOD & BUILD A TEMPLE :) Also he approved the 2G policy, how come Chidambaran is at fault & NOT manmohan. In any company the responsibility first lies with the CEO, so Manmohan should be the first to step down for such scams !!

3. All the other traits like timid, weak, lack of judgement, keeness to win western leaders approval etc... are SIMPLY NOT WORTHY OF LEADERSHIP IN THE FIRST PLACE. SONIA WANTED A PUPPET WHO WILL DO WHAT SHE WANTS. DO YOU THINK SHE IS A FOOL TO GIVE UP SUCH UNPRECENTED POWER !.
 
Last edited:
Dear Sri Brahmanyan Ji,

Over my about 40 years in USA, only two PMs of India that I saw here while they were visiting the USA on TV that I felt proud of.

One was Rajiv Gandhi and the next is the current PM. I feel that he is intellectually very sharp and that allows him to connect with the West better, who, whether right or wrong appreciate dealing with sharp folks.

I am saddened to read the article you have posted, because I thought that he is the best choice for India, even though his position is incidental.

Who else is there who can equal him? Is there any?

Regards,
KRS

Dear Sri KRS.,

It is my humble view the current incumbent does not fit in for the post of Prime Minister of this great country. He is a good person and I respect him for that. He may be an academically well qualified economist and wizard in handling financial matters, but not a national leader to lead the country nor who could take decisions on Political Matters. Further he is not an natural leader, but an appointee or a proxy for some one on whom leadership was foisted by quirk of fate. Being a bureaucrat for life, he is used to follow the rules, work within the parameters of responsibilities given. His interaction in Parliamentary debates have not shown any special skill in handling important subjects. Under the present Prime Minister, a new culture of arriving at Cabinet decisions has emerged.He left most of the decisions to be taken by "GOM" (Group of Ministers) or Cabinet Sub Committees. Our relationship with foreign Countries are not as good even as that of Mr.A.B. Vajapee's time. He is respected abroad more for his erudition, and not for skill. Unfortunately the great limitation that our PM has to face is that,except for a few Ministers, he does not have the support of excellence from others in running the Government of the Country.

Mr Ramachandra Guha is an eminent Historian and Sociologist of repute and I have no reason to suspect that the writer would have any bias towards Dr.M.M.Singh.

Warm Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.
 
True. Narasimha Rao ushered in liberalization. I remember my working days when we had to get our lists for imports approved by the DGTD and foreign exchange licence to be signed by the reserve bank. Narasimha rao changed all this. It is national shame that he is not given any credit for launching liberalization.

1. PV Narasimha Rao is the "only greatest PM & statesman of this country" who unleashed the path breaking reforms
 
Dear Sri KRS.,


Mr Ramachandra Guha is an eminent Historian and Sociologist of repute and I have no reason to suspect that the writer would have any bias towards Dr.M.M.Singh.

I disagree with this. Please read his articles on Nehru and what an abashed sycophant is Ramachandra Guha.
 
Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

That is not what I said about PM MM Singh at all.

To be clear, I was talking from a perspective from abroad.

I did not say, our views from here are correct.

I do not understand why you would say what you said. Of course the perspective on any politician rests with the locals and more valid. Hence I said, I was sad.

Regards,
KRS


Shri KRS,

I reproduce below the operative part of your post #4 .

"Over my about 40 years in USA, only two PMs of India that I saw here while they were visiting the USA on TV that I felt proud of.

One was Rajiv Gandhi and the next is the current PM. I feel that he is intellectually very sharp and that allows him to connect with the West better, who, whether right or wrong appreciate dealing with sharp folks.

I am saddened to read the article you have posted, because I thought that he is the best choice for India, even though his position is incidental.

Who else is there who can equal him? Is there any?"

I feel there are the following implied meanings in the above:

  • you felt proud of only two Indian PMs visiting US. (though there were about 10 pms in that period; may be only the two you refer to visited US officially.)
  • your impression that only these two were intellectually very sharp, is transposed as the opinion of the entire west and a conclusion is drawn that only people with 'sharp intellect' can connect better with the west, that both right wing and left wing people in the west appreciate dealing with sharp folks
  • implied in the above is the message that the west, as a whole, is for those with sharp intellect and not for the lesser creatures
I sincerely felt these were a little too much for an ethnic Indian to boast about, however much he/she may have been benefitted by being in the west, and that too in a forum wherein intellectually மொண்ணை fellows, not living in the west, also participate. Hence my comments pl.
 
We the people of Indian origin have very little respect for anyone, except ourselves. No one is good enough, it is always oh what did you do for me lately.
MK gandhi: Big deal so what he won us the Independence.!!!!!
Nehru: They sacrificed their life, just to be powerful. He created our education system, our research facilities, basic industries, self reliance, So what it was all to make his great grandson the future prime minister. Otherwise they did not do anything.!!!!!!
Mr. Rajiv Gandhi: Modernized the telecom, and opened the Industry and set the tome for future growth. O so what I do it every day!!!!
Mr. Rao: Ushered in 21st Century of India, India is a major player in the world economy. So what look at China!!!!
Mr. MMS: A respectable economist, was there with Rao, helped India become an economic power. And in India an unusual politician, who is not known for any massive disproportionate assets. So what I too do not have any assets.!!!

If God himself was the prime minister, I conveniently do not believe in God.!!!!

Sad state, we never heard the word "thankful" because we are full of "ourselves".
 
We the people of Indian origin have very little respect for anyone, except ourselves. No one is good enough, it is always oh what did you do for me lately.
MK gandhi: Big deal so what he won us the Independence.!!!!!
Nehru: They sacrificed their life, just to be powerful. He created our education system, our research facilities, basic industries, self reliance, So what it was all to make his great grandson the future prime minister. Otherwise they did not do anything.!!!!!!
Mr. Rajiv Gandhi: Modernized the telecom, and opened the Industry and set the tome for future growth. O so what I do it every day!!!!
Mr. Rao: Ushered in 21st Century of India, India is a major player in the world economy. So what look at China!!!!
Mr. MMS: A respectable economist, was there with Rao, helped India become an economic power. And in India an unusual politician, who is not known for any massive disproportionate assets. So what I too do not have any assets.!!!

If God himself was the prime minister, I conveniently do not believe in God.!!!!

Sad state, we never heard the word "thankful" because we are full of "ourselves".

MK Gandhi - he descended the country into Chaos by his silly drive for freedom. 20+ Million people were killed in the process.

Nehru - did not sacrifice his life !. He demolished the rural economy by uprooting all the landlords & the millions of farmers employed by them by the land reform, abolish zamindari system etc... so overnight 100's of millions were reduced to utter poverty. these farmers had no experience in business, finance & they could do NOTHING with the small piece of land given. Most anyways went to the politicians. He demolished the aristocracy (princes/landlords) & brought in all the junk like maya, rabri, lalu, pallu, etc.. so that in the land of sht his family can be the king :)

Rajiv Gandhi - one of most useless prime ministers of this country. All he did was to say = out of every Rupee, only 2 paise went to the poor. so he is one of the helpless prime ministers who could not crack the whip down to stem the rot of corruption.

Between Nehru to Indira to Rajiv - 1 Billion people were born in utter poverty & died in utter poverty due to malnutrition, lack of water, shelter, healthcare !. They also led the country to massive debt & finally defaulted the country through junk socialism/communism theories. Just to refresh the memory, we had to mortage gold to the lenders !!

Narasimhan Rao - is the only visionary & statesman who unleashed the path breaking reforms !!

MMS : so what if he has not taken any money personally ?. so what if he does not own any property ? so what ?. ZERO leadership, heading one of the most corrupt administration, ZERO reforms, rural sector is dead, millions are pouring into the cities into slums & living an unimaginable life. He is totally incapable of leading this country !! 800+ Mil people are living in dire poverty as per United Nations. after this report, he asked his deputy montek to lower the poverty line to cook up the nos. the most honest man - LOL !!

well, so what if 100s of millions are dying, these people created some public sectors, IIT education, basic industries, so all is well.
 
Last edited:
Sri Prasad,
except for Mr Rao, I will have to disagree with most of the rest. MK, I dont know deep enough, so I am at best nuetral.
As far as MMS is concerned, there were lot of thankfullness and appreciation, but the reports coming in try to show that
the actual credits are not due for him. Nevertheless, in the current position, more so in the second spell as a PM, he has left everyone fuming. The silvery cloud you see from out there are at the surface level and benefits from the past reforms, nothing new. The country would have progressed several orders higher and many many more lives saved, if only those scam money were put to better use.
 
Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

Vow, I did not realize one can infer so much from a few words! :)

What I was referring to was the way some PMs came across on TV vis-a-vis some other PMs. Here in the west (I am not including NRIs in this), peoples looks and how they handle the language are very much the things that impress the press and so the questions and comments follow that. I should have put quotes around the word 'sharp' I have used in my post. Unlike India, usually people here do not go beyond the impressions created by looks and language.

For example, I remember Morarji Desai, on TV here saying that he was drinking his own, you know what, and that did not go well and I remember a couple of late night comedians on TV using his words to put down India. While Vajpayee spoke well on policies, again his looks and language did not go well, at least that is what I remember.

Being an Indian American, why would I look down on any of my own people, including those in this Forum. If I have communicated such a sentiment by any of the words I have posted, I apologize.

Regards,
KRS
Shri KRS,

I reproduce below the operative part of your post #4 .

"Over my about 40 years in USA, only two PMs of India that I saw here while they were visiting the USA on TV that I felt proud of.

One was Rajiv Gandhi and the next is the current PM. I feel that he is intellectually very sharp and that allows him to connect with the West better, who, whether right or wrong appreciate dealing with sharp folks.

I am saddened to read the article you have posted, because I thought that he is the best choice for India, even though his position is incidental.

Who else is there who can equal him? Is there any?"

I feel there are the following implied meanings in the above:
  • you felt proud of only two Indian PMs visiting US. (though there were about 10 pms in that period; may be only the two you refer to visited US officially.)
  • your impression that only these two were intellectually very sharp, is transposed as the opinion of the entire west and a conclusion is drawn that only people with 'sharp intellect' can connect better with the west, that both right wing and left wing people in the west appreciate dealing with sharp folks
  • implied in the above is the message that the west, as a whole, is for those with sharp intellect and not for the lesser creatures
I sincerely felt these were a little too much for an ethnic Indian to boast about, however much he/she may have been benefitted by being in the west, and that too in a forum wherein intellectually மொண்ணை fellows, not living in the west, also participate. Hence my comments pl.
 
Shri KRSji,
I hope when you said west, that you only meant the United States? If they judge people only by their looks and language, clearly the British/European generalisation of Americans not being the...er.. "sharpest" tools in the box is valid :).

Can I ask out of curiosity how they usually judge the Chinese premiers? They don't speak the languange at all compared to the Indian PMs.
 
Dear Sri Brahmanyan Ji,

Yes, this why it is surprising, it looked like he had very high reputation even within India. I guess the scandals and the way he handled things during the long absence of the "madam' are taking their toll.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Sri KRS.,

It is my humble view the current incumbent does not fit in for the post of Prime Minister of this great country. He is a good person and I respect him for that. He may be an academically well qualified economist and wizard in handling financial matters, but not a national leader to lead the country nor who could take decisions on Political Matters. Further he is not an natural leader, but an appointee or a proxy for some one on whom leadership was foisted by quirk of fate. Being a bureaucrat for life, he is used to follow the rules, work within the parameters of responsibilities given. His interaction in Parliamentary debates have not shown any special skill in handling important subjects. Under the present Prime Minister, a new culture of arriving at Cabinet decisions has emerged.He left most of the decisions to be taken by "GOM" (Group of Ministers) or Cabinet Sub Committees. Our relationship with foreign Countries are not as good even as that of Mr.A.B. Vajapee's time. He is respected abroad more for his erudition, and not for skill. Unfortunately the great limitation that our PM has to face is that,except for a few Ministers, he does not have the support of excellence from others in running the Government of the Country.

Mr Ramachandra Guha is an eminent Historian and Sociologist of repute and I have no reason to suspect that the writer would have any bias towards Dr.M.M.Singh.

Warm Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.
 
When I was in service,my colleague,a Maharastrian from Indian Economic Service cadre used to tell me that Dr.MMS is just a Government Economist
and will repeat the views of the person in power and position.During Madam Indira Gandhi's time,he was telling like a parrot what policies were initiated by
the Madam.Subsequently,he changed his tunes according to the views of then leader whom he was following.He cannot be grouped under Economists like
Mr.Amritya Sen.
I fully agree with the views expressed by Shri.Brahmanyan
Western countries are in the habit of boosting the image of people in power in developing countries
just to serve the interests of western Nations.Dr.MMS and Shri.P.Chidambaram are the examples.
Indian Prime Minister should be a person of masses and capable of getting elected to the LOK Sabha.
 
He should be 10' tall, good looking like Dev Anand, he should be able to jump 100 feet in air, should be able to speak in every language on earth, every body should worshiip him, and should be as good an administrator as Ram (oh no he is God), lee quan of Singapore, of course he must be above all corruption, and control all others on Loc Sabha to be free of corruption, he must attend to my personal need. I ran out of all the qualifications Indian PM should have, please add your requirements too.

You get what you deserve, actually you have lot more.

Have you seen yourself in the mirror?????
 
Last edited:
I refer to post no.11.
I feel sad when people forget what late Shri.Rajagopalachari(RAJAJI)was advocating during 1950s.He was all for free economy.
People in senior position in Govt of India has told me that the precious Foreign Exchange reserve of the Country was wasted during
the regime of late Shri.Rajiv Gandhi as PM and the position deteriorated so much that when Shri.Narasimharao became the PM,there was no choice
left for the country except to introduce reforms as dictated by World Bank.
Of course late Shri.Narasimha Rao was an able leader.It was just fluke that he could become the PM of India as a Congress Party Prime minister.
Capable leaders in Congress (apart from Nehru family)can never dream of becoming the PM of India.
Ps:-Shri.Prasad(I presume)has spent major portion of his life outside India,and is not in touch with the latest sentiments of Indians living in India for the present.Shri.Brahmanyam is echoing the sentiments of Indian intelligentia living presently in India.
 
Last edited:
Dear Sowbhagyavathi Amala Ji,

Given that USA is a former British colony, they better be careful when they judge their progeny! :)

Yes, when I said 'west', I meant mainly America. But having traveled in Europe widely, I have also noticed this phenomenon there also, but on a lesser extent.

Chinese are not at all viewed very highly here, mainly because of their names, looks and language. But most Americans believe that China will be their enemy in the coming years and so pay attention to what they say, mainly highlighting any adversarial comments.

Pakistan, by the way played this game very well here on this basis in the past. Their ambassadors could speak well, dressed well and socialized well (spirits etc.), this, in my opinion gave them an edge over us, here, in my opinion.

Regards,
KRS

Shri KRSji,
I hope when you said west, that you only meant the United States? If they judge people only by their looks and language, clearly the British/European generalisation of Americans not being the...er.. "sharpest" tools in the box is valid :).

Can I ask out of curiosity how they usually judge the Chinese premiers? They don't speak the languange at all compared to the Indian PMs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Latest ads

Back
Top