The outrage from the Congress ecosystem over the NDA celebrating Prime Minister Narendra Modi becoming India’s longest-serving elected Prime Minister is both amusing and revealing. Whether it is a former Congress spokesperson like Sanjay Jha, who now presents himself as an independent commentator, or retired bureaucrats-turned-politicians seeking relevance, the objection remains the same: “Don’t compare Modi with Nehru.”
The obvious question is: Why not?
After all, history itself is built on comparisons. Every generation compares leaders, policies, achievements, failures and legacies. If comparisons are unacceptable, then entire shelves of history books would have to be discarded.
The NDA was careful in its wording. It described Narendra Modi as India’s longest-serving elected Prime Minister. Yet Congress loyalists rushed to defend Jawaharlal Nehru’s overall tenure, claiming that he remained Prime Minister for over 16 years.
But there is a crucial distinction.
India became independent in August 1947. The country’s first general elections under universal adult franchise were held only in 1951-52. Nehru undoubtedly became India’s first Prime Minister and remains one of the towering figures of Indian history. But it is equally true that he was not elected by the Indian people in 1947. That is a historical fact, not political propaganda.
Even more uncomfortable for Congress is another historical fact. During the Congress organisation’s internal process before Independence, an overwhelming majority of provincial Congress committees had backed Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel for leadership. Nehru was eventually chosen after Mahatma Gandhi intervened. One may support or oppose that decision, but the record exists. It cannot simply be erased because it does not fit a convenient political narrative.
If Congress leaders insist that such comparisons are improper, they should first stop comparing their own leaders with everyone else. For decades, the Congress ecosystem has glorified selected achievements of the Nehru-Gandhi family while often sidelining contributions of non-dynastic leaders from its own ranks.
Take Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao. It was Rao, assisted by Finance Minister Manmohan Singh, who rescued India from the brink of economic collapse in 1991 and launched reforms that transformed the Indian economy. Yet Congress has historically been reluctant to celebrate Rao with the same enthusiasm reserved for members of one political family.
The selective memory becomes even more glaring when discussing Narendra Modi.
Before becoming Prime Minister, Modi governed Gujarat for over 12 years. During that period, Gujarat consistently emerged among India’s fastest-growing states, attracting investments, expanding infrastructure and building a reputation for administrative efficiency. Whether one agrees with his politics or not, his governance record did not emerge from thin air in 2014.
Similarly, India’s global profile under Modi has undeniably expanded. Today, he is among the most recognised political leaders in the world. Over the past decade, numerous countries have conferred their highest civilian honours on him. Such recognitions are not awarded because of domestic political debates; they reflect how foreign governments perceive India’s growing strategic and economic importance.
India’s diplomatic standing has also changed significantly. From leading the Global South and hosting a successful G20 Summit to balancing relationships with competing global powers, India today enjoys a level of strategic confidence that was rarely witnessed in previous decades.
Does acknowledging these facts diminish Nehru? Not necessarily.
But refusing to compare leaders certainly diminishes public debate.
Democracies thrive on scrutiny and comparison. We compare economic growth rates, military preparedness, diplomatic achievements, welfare outcomes and governance models. Why should Prime Ministers be exempt from the same standard?
The truth is that the discomfort is not about comparisons. Congress leaders have spent decades comparing every Prime Minister to Nehru whenever it suited them. The real discomfort arises when the comparison no longer favours their preferred narrative.
History is not a museum of frozen idols. It is an ongoing assessment of leadership. Every Prime Minister, from Nehru to Lal Bahadur Shastri, Indira Gandhi, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh and Narendra Modi, must be judged by results, achievements and legacy.
If comparisons are wrong, then history itself serves no purpose.
But since history matters, comparisons are inevitable. The only question is whether we have the intellectual honesty to accept the verdicts they produce.
It must also be said that comparison ends with Nehru for the simple reason that the successors to the throne have not contributed anything noteworthy. Decline gradual was pronounced. If the ‘iron lady’ was the ‘only man in the Cabinet’, the country experienced Emergency. Fault lines of a fragile and plural society were amplified and discriminatory politics were pursued with panache. What we witness today is a course-correction where the discrimination is denounced and dignity of the discriminated is restored. Informed citizenry of the country are unwilling to accept entitlement politics, an anathema of a democratic polity. Way to go India, that is Bharat.