Albert, you've done good homework and I think you got Marshall by the short and curlies on his anti-Modi stance with the question you have posed, though you might not have had that intention.
There is no right or wrong answer on the query, it's all subjective, but I'd like to see Marshall's ratings. If an Indian or Indian-origin person were to look at the state of the world now and in the past few years - terrorism, rebellions, fractures and splits in unities of countries, divisions and violence caused by religions and class differences, economic collapses, and a host of other problems, then India for all its shortcomings, shines like a beacon. With the population numbers that India carries, the diversity of ethnicities and languages and all other major baggage like poverty, poor education and a restless Muslim population, to name a few that each new Prime Minister is saddled with, most have done a wonderful job of keeping democracy and law and order within tolerable boundaries while taking economic rankings to progressive heights notwithstanding the corruption that the office must soon tackle very seriously. Even accounting for the fact that it is really the system of bureaucracy left by the British and the non-interfering might of the armed forces (not to mention the media and the justice system) that is the steel beneath the PM's power, he or she is the real place where the buck stops and therefore deserves most of the credit. The illiterate, mostly ignorant Indian voters have at election time done their part too (except in Goa). When power has gone to politicians' heads, the heads have been lopped off by the mostly angoota-chaap (thumb printing) electorate. When it's time, Modi and the BJP will face their day of reckoning too, if the people feel they have been found wanting. I don't normally look at India's good side because the seemingly bad mostly seems to overwhelm it, but when it's time to put things in context, even the devil has to be given its due in a manner of speaking. Roland Francis Toronto. > On Jul 19, 2016, at 6:28 PM, Albert Peres <[email protected]> wrote: > > ---- Marshall wrote ---- > > This is standard diplomatic fare and nothing more needs to be read > > into it. The real crux of success of diplomacy is tested when > > substantial benefits in trade or relations is derived. ...So far > > Modi's diplomacy has been a massive failure...nothing substantial > > has accreted to the nation. > > ---- > I'm curious to know how Marshall would rate all the other Indian Prime > Ministers again Modi record terms of 'substantial benefits in trade or > relations derived.' > > Let's say baseline Modi is a (5), rate the others from 0 to 10. Ten being the > best. > > Perhaps Modi should be sat at baseline (0) if all performed better... > > AP > > List: > ---- > Jawaharlal Nehru 16 years, 286 days (1889–1964) MP for Phulpur > > Gulzarilal Nanda 13 days (1898–1998) MP for Sabarkantha > > Lal Bahadur Shastri 1 year, 216 days (1904–66) MP for Allahabad > > Gulzarilal Nanda 13 days (1898–1998) MP for Sabarkantha > > Indira Gandhi 11 years, 59 days (1917–84) MP for Rae Bareli > > >
