Modi's Bharat vs Indira's India: 11-yr report card of politics, diplomacy, economy, nationalism

The Print

2 days ago

Mrs Gandhi and Modi took over in completely different circumstances. There was also the differential in political capital they began with. Mrs Gandhi had not won an election in 1966. She was a convenient compromise after Lal Bahadur Shastri's death. She didn't help her cause by looking overawed in Parliament early on, and socialist Ram Manohar Lohia dismissed her as a 'goongi gudiya' (a doll who didn't speak). She had also inherited a broken economy. The growth rate in 1965 was negative, -2.6 percent in fact. The triple blow of a war, droughts, food shortages and instability, and the deaths of two Prime Ministers in harness within 19 months had weakened India.
First of all, we need to look at the larger political realities in which each took over power and the challenges to their authority. Then we will assess their record across four dimensions: politics, strategic and foreign affairs, the economy, and nationalism.
On the day Narendra Modi won his third term in June, 2024, it was inevitable that this year, he would become India's second longest serving Prime Minister in consecutive terms, surpassing Indira Gandhi (24 January, 1966 to 24 March, 1977). It also became inevitable, therefore, that around this time in 2025, the season of Modi vs Indira comparisons will begin. Let me be the first, or among the first, off the block.
The picture for Modi in 2014 was the exact opposite. He won a majority, the first in India after 30 years, and was his party's chosen candidate; the economy was averaging a robust 6.5 percent growth across the preceding 15 years. His was a peaceful, planned, predictable electoral transition. The degree of difficulty on his first day in power was way lower than Mrs Gandhi's, just as his political capital was enormously higher.
It is also important to underline that Mrs Gandhi's 11th year wasn't electorally earned, but self-gifted by mauling the Constitution in a Parliament where she had a brute majority (Congress was 352 out of 518) and the Opposition in jail. In contrast, Modi's third term was earned through general elections, though he fell short of a majority this time. His 11 years have seen no challenge, either within his party or from the Opposition. The global situation has also mostly remained stable and favourable, until the arrival of Trump 2.0.
Also Read: RSS chief Bhagwat draws the line at 75. India's politics stares at the Modi Exception
Now, the comparisons across the four dimensions we listed.
On domestic politics, the first question is: who's been the strongest Prime Minister of India, Modi or Indira? The rest don't count.
While Mrs Gandhi redefined her politics in an ideology (deep-pink socialist) first out of compulsion and then preference, Modi was born, dyed and seasoned in his (saffron). Mrs Gandhi's power ebbed and peaked with the times. Modi's has almost been constant, barring the few months of hard dip after the 240 seats of 2024.
Even at 240 now, one challenge he need not bother about is from within his party. He's marginalised all, replacing the state satraps with unknown lightweights. That isn't so different from Mrs Gandhi. On ruthlessness, therefore, they are equally matched. On dealing with the Opposition and free speech, the Emergency will be a hard act to match even if somebody—God forbid—wished to do so.
On the respect for institutions, the competition is tough, like a dead heat. For convenience, let's limit ourselves to just one institution: the Rashtrapati. With V.V. Giri, Mrs Gandhi reduced the job to that of a porcelain president: a fragile, ornamental object expected to do nothing except sign on the dotted line. The Modi era presidents have been of a piece with those.
Modi rose with the power of a '56-inch chest', Mrs Gandhi was often described in times innocent of political correctness as the only man in her Cabinet. Both lived up to these propositions. With Mrs Gandhi, we saw another manifestation of political skill, out of power and back again in 1977-84. But that period is out of the syllabus in this 11-year comparison.
Also Read: One prime minister's 19-month legacy is bigger than another's Emergency
An important question is who kept India's cohesion better. Mrs Gandhi ruthlessly fought insurgencies in Mizoram and Nagaland. Her troubles on this score came post-1980. Modi has made a dramatic improvement in the Kashmir Valley, and continued with normalisation in the Northeast. But Manipur is an unending failure. A big positive is the near destruction of the Maoists in east-central tribal India.
This dovetails neatly into strategic and foreign affairs. Mrs Gandhi's 11 years were across the peak of the Cold War. She signed a treaty with the Soviet Union with a cleverly drafted mutual security clause, endured the Nixon-Kissinger tilt to China, and deftly navigated the narrow spaces still available to India. Modi started out with a 'friends with all' approach but Pakistan-China realities soon caught up with personalised diplomacy. Mrs Gandhi announced India's nuclear status in 1974 (Pokhran-1) but it took Modi in 2019 (Balakot) and in 2025 (Operation Sindoor) to call Pakistan's nuclear bluff. That's a big plus in his corner.
As things soured in the neighbourhood, India warmed up to the US/West and then the complexity of Ukraine arose. This gave rise to multi-alignment. The Trump bull has trampled all over this China shop. Pakistan is playing the US and China as it did in 1971. And like Mrs Gandhi then, Modi has to look for alternatives, but then, the Soviet Union is long gone. His predicament is tougher than Mrs Gandhi's in 1971, but India is enormously stronger.
The economy is where we might have expected to see many contrasts, but surprisingly, there are many similarities, too. Modi came to power promising to be the exact opposite of Mrs Gandhi, asserting that it's no business of the government to be in business. But on many basic instincts, he's emulated her. The larger, if enormously more efficient distributive politics, for example. An abiding commitment to the public sector instead of privatisation. Even this year, the budget allocated Rs 5 trillion for fresh investments in PSUs. Compare that with our defence budget, Rs 6.81 trillion. Modi has brought in some significant reform—digital payments, GST and the bankruptcy code. Many others, from mining to manufacturing and electricity economics, are meandering.
In his first and second terms, Modi attempted some audacious reform—land acquisition, farm and labour reform laws, lateral entry into civil services. All have been given up now. Until Trump came to power, Modi seemed settled into the 6-6.5 percent figure, which we'd risk calling the Hindutva rate of growth. The logic: a politics driven by Hindu identity and polarisation would win elections with 6-6.5 percent risk-free. The Trump arm-twisting and the resultant free trade agreements have rocked that leisurely cruise. Let's see if this can force fresh reform at gunpoint.
And finally, how do we compare the two greatest proponents of employing nationalism in their politics? For Mrs Gandhi the backdrop was multiple wars between 1962 and 1971. India was already a jai jawan, jai kisan country. The liberation of Bangladesh, Green Revolution and non-aligned world's adulation fuelled her nationalism. Modi's nationalism is more muscular, in military livery. We can't prejudge the consequences of a commitment trap in promising to respond militarily to a terror act and leave it to historians to reflect on the consequences of such strategic predictability.
Under Modi, a new Hinduised nationalism has emerged. While this has united a critical mass of Hindus to keep him secure, it has also created divisions. India's adversaries would be tempted to run a dagger through these. We've seen the Pakistanis try that not just with our Muslims but also the Sikhs, especially during Operation Sindoor.
Also Read: You can put words in Mrs Gandhi's mouth & get away. But too much fiction, and you mess with Bhindranwale