Talk:List of prime ministers of India

Acting Prime Minister/Interim Prime Minister vs acting Prime Minister/interim Prime Minister

The fact that most sources list Gulzarilal Nanda as an Acting or an Interim Prime Minister (which are in fact two entirely different things, but more on that later) seems to have no constitutional basis whatsoever in India. Namely, the Constitution of India does not foresee any office titled Interim PM or Acting PM (neither with the capital first letters A or I, or otherwise). Indeed, when the PM dies or refuses to stay on after resigning, the office falls vacant, i.e. there is no PM (Acting, Interim or official). So when Indira Gandhi was killed, there was no automatic Acting or Interim PM. Instead, the office was vacant until her son Rajiv was installed soon after. The reason why Nanda is often (falsely) styled as only an Acting/Interim PM is because his term was never meant to last long, i.e. it was known right away that he would not be chosen by Congress to serve the remainder of the parliamentary term until the next election. Indeed, he was sworn in in the same manner as all other PMs (both times), and took the same oath that they did before the President of India. Furthermore, the official website of the PM clearly lists him as Prime Minister, meaning that his brief 13 day cabinets were formed in their own right (despite consisting of the same ministers as Nehru's and Shastri's), i.e. the cabinet that continued in place after Nehru's death was not just the Nehru cabinet headed by a temporary PM, but a First Nanda Ministry in its own right, sworn in anew before the President.

Now, as for the terms Acting/Interim and acting/interim. The first legal distinction is between an Acting and an Interim office holder (capitalized).

An Acting PM, Acting President, etc., is commonly used only for those officials who hold the POWERS AND DUTIES of the office, WHILE THE INCUMBENT IS STILL SERVING. So, if the PM were to fall sick or have to travel abroad, he or she would pass on his or her powers to a cabinet minister who would be styled Acting PM, but there would still be a PM as well, just without powers. This was, for example, the case when Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand was on maternity leave and Winston Peters was named Acting PM (but Ardern was still legally the PM, and could resume the full extent of her powers and duties at any time).

An Interim President, Interim PM, etc., is a constitutionally-appointed official who takes the POWERS AND DUTIES of an office, AFTER THE INCUMBENT HAD LEFT OFFICE, but BEFORE A PERMANENT SUCCESSOR IS ELECTED/APPOINTED. The key word here is constitutionally-appointed. Namely, if the constitution states that, for example, a vacancy in the presidency or the premiership should automatically (but temporarlily) be filled by the person who is the designated successor (a Vice President, Deputy President, Speaker of Parliament, Deputy PM, etc.), but only for a period until a permanent successor is chosen (usually in an early election, i.e. the Interim official does not hold office for long, but just until a transition takes places to a permanent government), then this official is constitutionally styled the Interim office holder. This type of temporary succession, as already said, is CONSTITUTIONALLY not foreseen (or allowed) to last longer than a certain period (e.g. 90 days or 6 months etc.), and the Interim office holder usually does not possess all the powers of a permanent office holder. This WAS NOT the case with Nanda. Firstly, if Congress had allowed it, Nanda could have stayed on as PM indefinitely after being sworin in 1964 (though he would need to prove his majority with a confidence vote in the Lok Sabha). Secondly, Nanda did not automatically succeed Nehru as PM upon his death, but was rather proposed to the President by Congress, and was named to the position as per the Constitution. Thirdly, Nanda possessed all the constitutional powers that are given to the PM.

Finally, as to the meaning of acting and interim (lower case first letters). If someone is described as an acting Prime Minister or an interim Prime Minister, this is NOT a constitutional designation or a formal title in itself. Namely, this formulation is almost exclusively used by the media, and it is used to describe someone who has announced that though they have taken office as Prime Minister, they do not intend to hold it for very long. For example, after Nehru died it was widely known that Nanda had no chance of staying on long term, but the party needed a placeholder PM until they could agree on a new long term PM. This was also the case after Shastri died. Now, from a purely partisan Congress viewpoint, Nanda was just acting for someone who had not yet been chosen to replace Nehru. But from the perspective of the constitution there were only two options after Nehru's death: 1) leave the office of PM vacant until Congress can propose a new PM, or 2) install a new PM immediately, i.e. Congress should propose someone to fill the office. How long that new PM holds on to the office depended solely on the will of the ruling party (or coalition), i.e. it is no longer a matter of the constitution. So, if Congress had decided that Nanda should serve until the next election, he would have done so (in other words, his tenure was not limited in any way by the constitution, as the tenure of an Interim or an Acting President or PM would be). Northernelk777 (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.98.97 (talk)

Add Official term of PM

Add Official term of PM until next election if majority not proven Spandan Dixit (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pumapaparti.N.rao.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete the "See also: List of living prime ministers of India" banner

The article "List of living prime ministers of India" was deleted by @Malcolmxl5 because it failed to observe (violated) WP:OR, WP:LISTN, WP:NOT and WP:V. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living prime ministers of India for the entire discussion. SidChat2048 (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

deputy prime ministere of India

there is a repeated years for Babu Ragjivan Ram .....term of office 2401:4900:4945:4047:2:1:9429:D78E (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Bose

Subhas Chandra Bose was never the prime minister of India in any form that I am aware of. He visited the Andamans under close Japanese supervision for a few hours, had pictures taken of him in military uniform saluting a flag, and his fans have been plastering those pictures everywhere. The consensus of scholarly opinion is that he was roundly defeated by the British for whom he was nothing more than a minor irritant. Please don't exaggerate his contributions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I would put the debate of provisional government in another time bracket. But as far as pushing of Manmohan is concerned, his tenure as a PM hasn't been covered or observed as a critical portion. His tenure as FM is of little use here in list of PMs actually since other FMs too followed. It's Rajiv Gandhi or PVRN Rao or AB Vajpayee as far as prominence of premiership is concerned. Manmohan Singh barely holds any stature as compared to these three. ABV is known for being first full-tenure outside INC, economic reforms, policy shifts and administrational restructuring and his image as a statesman. The row I brought at lead was with that in mind at first place. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It is best to stick to the length of tenure in the choice of whose picture appears as prime minister, or remove the pictures from the lead entirely. Modi after all has a less than glorious past, which is mentioned in every encyclopedia, including WP's entry on him, which we don't mention. Neutrality is best in such descriptions. I am rewriting the lead in simple NPOV descriptive prose. Alternatively, I could nominate it for a Featured List Review. I have no doubt that in its previous form it would be delisted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'm done. Among other things, I've made explicit that although the Indian general elections began in 1952, there had been provincial elections in 1946 which the Congress had won and on the basis which it had formed governments in 1946 and from 1947 to 1952. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler Do you still think this needs to go for an FLR? — DaxServer (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@DaxServer: Thanks for posting. If you examine the version of March 2019 in which it was promoted to FL, you will see that I have unwittingly approximated it in the revision. Also if you will examine that version, it had no images in the lead. Accordingly, I have removed the four pictures, which in any case would have been a perennial source of dispute. Pictures, however, are informative sometimes. Perhaps some more fundamental picture could be added, say of the Indian people voting in a general election. I'll look for something ... The original nominator (or the authors of the article) had gathered quite a few interesting statistics. I may summarize them in the next half hour. So, no, I don't think it needs to go to FLR (featured list review) now. Thanks again for noticing this page and bringing it to the community's notice. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for making the necessary updates :) — DaxServer (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Longevity of Modi's term

There is inconsistencies in the length of Modi's term that need revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The wikiyeet (talk • contribs) 12:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Changing Suggestion

In the list section 3. Indira Gandhi is repeated 2402:3A80:198E:570:50E1:D8A8:97B6:824B (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Lede

I don't understand what Fowler&Fowler's problem is. I have made sure that I haven't said the pm is the leader of the CoM, yet he still isn't satisfied. You should realise this page doesn't revolve around you and ur say isn't final. Stop acting like you own wikipedia. I feel like reporting him. And what's the point of keeping the page the same as that of the pm. It can be shortened a bit kore

I propose that we keep the page different to the page of the Prime Minister of India, but shorter. AtishT20 (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a featured list. I was asked to improve the prose and coherence by user:DaxServer to head off a formal featured list review. A featured list has to meet the featured list criteria at all times. The first one is: 1. Prose It features a professional standards of writing. The sixth one is: 6) Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.

Do you understand? To give an example, when you add a poorly written (i.e. ungrammatical and unidiomatic) sentence, such as: "The prime minister is the leader of the council of ministers." (you violate criterion 1). When I politely revert the edit, and you proceed to edit war with me, you violate criterion 6. When I post a revert-related notice on your user talk page with an added sentence of mine, "Please note that what is there is a precise paraphrase of the source, a highly esteemed scholarly source. If you have concerns, take then to the article's talk page. That is always better than editor warring.", you make the exchange confrontational by copying my notice verbatim and posting it on my talk page (including in it my "Please note that what is there is a precise paraphrase of the source, a highly esteemed scholarly source. If you have concerns, take then to the article's talk page." You subsequently post again on my talk page. After much explanation there, including an intervention by Johnbod, you finally relent.

I may not know all there is to know about the topic of the Prime Minister of India, but I know where to find the best sources, and to then paraphrase them judiciously for the given context. I know that real life is not important on Wikipedia, but that is meant in the transferred sense that RL should not be used to gain unfair advantage on WP. But RL does affect the quality of contributions one is able to make to WP. I am an academic with years of experience in academic research. I've been on Wikipedia for 16 years. You are asking for the same "rights," which I am delighted to offer all WPians, but without wanting to bear the same "responsibilities" (among which (for an FL) are: writing professional prose, making your additions reliable and well-researched, and keeping the contents of this page stable.)

My best suggestion to you is this, and I am very determinedly not being paternalistic: You should cut your teeth on smaller articles (stubs or start class) and develop your writing and research in them. A highly-trafficked or potentially controversial article is not the page for you yet. Pinging some other editors including admins. @DaxServer, RegentsPark, Abecedare, Vanamonde93, and El C: Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@AtishT20: I apologize I forgot to ping you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• AtishT20, Wikipedia is not a directory; we should not present information devoid of context. Lists are supposed to have prose summaries, and F&F's summary here is excellent. Removing it does not help the reader in any way. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you @Vanamonde93: I should clarify, I have significantly edited only the first paragraph of the lead (actually that paragraph absent the last two sentences). I think I did lightly go through the remaining paragraphs, but did not change the sentences. I will go through them again to determine if they are needlessly long or repetitive. I stayed away in part because I'm not that conversant with the contemporary politics of India. I think though the portion AtishT20 wants shortened is in my additions in the first paragraph. I did add pictures to the other article, Prime Minister of India, to make them have a more representative spread. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2023

103.208.68.85 (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The year for Rajendra Prasad is 1986 not 1896

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lemonaka (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2023

It has been mentioned that Gulzari Lal Nanda was an acting Prime Minister. It should be corrected as there is no concept of acting Prime Minister in India. PMO of India's website clearly provides for Gulzari Lal Nanda as a former Prime Minister without any distinction or differentiated standing from other Prime Ministers. Please refer https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/former-prime-ministers/

Hence changes to be made. 1. The legend of "acting Prime Minister" should be removed against his name. 2. In the list of Prime Ministers, he should be accordingly numbered as Serial No 2 3. In the list of Prime Ministers by Length of Term, he should be numbered as 15. 103.178.176.242 (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2023

The current prime minister of india is from BJP, and not congress, yet it is said that, in the table where prime ministers are ranked by parties, the congress had 6 + [1 acting]. Kindly change it to 7 for congress and 1[+ 1 acting] for BJP Nonegamer9 (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/23/india-election-results-narendra-modi-bjp-victory

 Partly done: 6 is the correct number. Manmohan Singh, P. V. Narasimha Rao, Rajiv Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, Lal Bahadur Shastri, and Jawaharlal Nehru. I have updated the table. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

introduction of a new page called "Historical rankings of prime ministers of India"

the rankings of the prime ministers or presidents are available for numerous countries (like the US, the UK etc) , in the same manner Indian's Prime Ministers and presidents rankings should be there Vijay Bahadur Singh343 (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

When India has a 250 odd-year-old history as the US does, or a 500-odd as Britain does, we can consider it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Opposition to changes

@Shaan Sengupta and TropicOfCancer06: Would you both editors pen down your oppositions to the proposed changes done by myself to the table of the list of the prime ministers? The table include a lot of information and I don't think I removed any from the current one except for making it look better and standard. I think it's ideal for you both to look for other options on other articles of the same kind. Looking for your responses. Oritsu.me (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Oritsu.me

I am with you in this point not against. Even I want that to be there. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 09:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for my misunderstanding. Yes, User:TropicOfCancer06 removed the table which I made. Such tables exist on other articles of the same kind. For eg, article on Sri Lankan Presidents, Malaysian PMs, etc. Oritsu.me (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@TropicOfCancer06 said that he will have to take the matter with an admin. But it seems I have to take the matter woth the admin. Because he is removing contents on his own wish. Without a valid reason. Since he thinks it's too much cluttered he is removing which is not a good thing. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 09:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Opposition to changes

Shaan Sengupta and TropicOfCancer06: Would you both editors pen down your oppositions to the proposed changes done by myself to the table of the list of the prime ministers? The table include a lot of information and I don't think I removed any from the current one except for making it look better and standard. I think it's ideal for you both to look for other options on other articles of the same kind. Looking for your responses. Oritsu.me (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC) 202.142.113.154 (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Rajiv Gandhi was the first prime minister from a minority religion i.e. Zoroastrian faith.

Rajiv Gandhi's father was a Parsi, a well known fact and his remains also lie in the Zoroastrian Cemetery. That would make Rajiv Gandhi, a parsi. His brother Sanjay Gandhi was also practising Zoroastrian and is noted correctly in his Wikipedia page but somehow, Rajiv Gandhi's wiki has no mention of it. There must be some record, filled forms or anything. Why is it left out of the conversation is beyond me.

While Indra Gandhi was born hindu, and there's no record of her changing her faith. I think this would make Rajiv Gandhi, the first PM of India from a minority religion instead of Manmohan Singh. Ozthepenguin (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Shri Gulzarilal Nanda was the second Prime Minister of India, not acting Prime Minister.

Official Government of India records show Shr Gulzarilal Nanda as the second Prime Minister of India and Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri as the third Prime Minister of India.

Source: https://www.pmsangrahalaya.gov.in/prime-ministers-of-india/ Ozthepenguin (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Gulzarilal Nanda was the 2nd Prime minister

I'm here to inform you that Gulzarilal Nanda was actually the second prime minister, Here are the references:

https://indianexpress.com/article/political-pulse/gulzari-lal-nanda-second-short-serving-prime-minister-7924421/

https://www.india.com/photos/news/prime-ministers-of-india-since-independence-294419/jawaharlal-nehru-1947-1964-294426/ For Further Clarification, In this Official website of the government, They have mentioned Manmohan Singh as the 14th prime minister, Which means clearly that this list have to be edited.https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/former-prime-ministers/#:~:text=India's%20fourteenth%20Prime%20Minister%2C%20Dr,a%20village%20in%20the%20... Hope You change it as soon as possible, Thank you.

Naageshwarg (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing with you here. When Nanda was appointed as prime minister, he had the dignity as a full Prime Minister. Hence the numbering must change. Oritsu.me (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Hope they change it before June 4, As it might cause further confusion after the election results are announced. Naageshwarg (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Caretaker PM

Please do not confuse the term 'Caretaker PM' with 'Acting PM.' An Acting PM is sworn in, as in the case of Gulzari Lal Nanda, while a caretaker PM is solely based on the President's discretion. Additionally, as soon as the President accepts the resignation of the incumbent Prime Minister and the Lok Sabha is dissolved, his or her premiership ends. On the other hand, there is no such thing as the post remaining vacant, as Manmohan Singh resigned as Prime Minister on May 17th, and Narendra Modi was sworn in on May 26th. Hope this helps! 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

GL Nanda was not acting PM; at least as per GoI notifications. When he was appointed as PM in 1964, 1966 (see RB notifications), he was accorded the same status as PM. Maybe the media referred to him as "acting" coz he was temporary. As for caretaker ones at least in India, a leader serves on caretaker basis after they resign or after their term comes to an end and a new leader is not chosen/sworn-in into office. As regards, Manmohan resigned on 17th May 2014 after Modi and BJP won the election but he served as "caretaker" PM until Modi was sworn-in into on 26th May. Similarly, Vajpayee resigned the day BJP lost the election but remained in office until MMS was sworn-in into office on 22 May 2004. Modi still remains the prime minister of India no matter he is re-appointed or not. There is no official designation of "Caretaker PM" but he serves on caretaker basis.

The page should show Modi as the PM still. Noting that his term ended on 5th June would mean that he's gone. But the fact is that he still remains.. maybe on caretaker basis but he's still the PM. Oritsu.me (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)