NarendraModi has completed 4,398 days as Prime Minister, overtaking Jawaharlal Nehru's tenure and becoming India's second-longest-serving PM. The milestone has understandably triggered celebrations within the BJP and among its supporters.

Yet the occasion raises an awkward question. If the BJP's telling of history is to be believed, Modi has just broken the record of a leader blamed for crippling India's economy, weakening its defence, mishandling foreign policy and burdening the country with decades of bad policy. For over a decade, Nehru has remained the ruling establishment's favourite political punching bag, held responsible for everything from Kashmir and China to socialism and bureaucratic inefficiency.

If that is indeed the case, why is surpassing his tenure being celebrated as a historic achievement?

There is another irony. The comparison itself depends on where one starts the clock. Nehru served as Prime Minister from Independence in August 1947 until his death in May 1964 — nearly seventeen years. The milestone now being celebrated excludes the formative years between Independence and the first general election in 1952, when the foundations of the Indian republic were being laid. Even on the question of longevity, therefore, the comparison is not quite as straightforward as it appears.

The question goes to the heart of how India measures leadership. Longevity in office is one thing; what is achieved during that tenure is quite another.

When Nehru took charge in 1947, he inherited a country devastated by colonial exploitation and traumatised by Partition. Millions were displaced, communal violence was raging, literacy levels were among the world's lowest and industrial capacity was negligible. India was overwhelmingly rural, desperately poor and dependent on imports for many basic requirements.

His challenge was not to accelerate a functioning economy but to build a modern nation almost from scratch.

Much of what later generations came to take for granted emerged from that effort. Steel plants, dams, scientific institutions, public sector enterprises, research laboratories and centres of higher education were products of a larger vision of self-reliance and nation-building. One may disagree with aspects of Nehru's economic model, but there can be little disagreement about the scale of the task he undertook.

Whatever the shortcomings of his policies, the India that later liberalised, industrialised, went nuclear, reached space and claimed a larger global role inherited a substantial institutional foundation.

Equally significant was Nehru's understanding of democratic politics. Despite his flaws, he viewed political opposition as an essential component of democracy rather than an obstacle to it.

Nehru also helped establish another democratic convention that successive prime ministers broadly respected: direct engagement with the press. The exchanges could be sharp and adversarial, but he understood that scrutiny was not a threat to democracy; it was one of its safeguards.

He was famously tolerant of satire and political cartoons. Nehru's relationship with the legendary cartoonist Shankar became symbolic of a democratic culture comfortable with criticism. His oft-quoted remark, "Don't spare me, Shankar," reflected a political confidence rarely seen among contemporary leaders. Such comfort with dissent, satire and public scrutiny appears increasingly rare in contemporary politics.

That tradition survived governments of every political colour. Even Manmohan Singh, despite being criticised for his reticence, periodically addressed full-fledged press conferences and subjected himself to open questioning. The Prime Minister was expected to answer unscripted questions from the media.

Under Modi, however, that democratic convention has effectively disappeared. After more than a decade in office, he has yet to hold a traditional press conference where journalists are free to ask unrestricted questions and receive substantive answers — a point repeatedly raised in these columns. Carefully curated interviews with no follow-up questions have replaced genuine two-way media engagement.

The decline of direct accountability is reflected not only in political communication but also in governance.

Unlike Nehru, Modi took charge of a liberalised economy, stable democratic institutions and an established administrative machinery. It has certainly not lacked ambition. Demonetisation, Make in India, Smart Cities, Housing for All and the five-trillion-dollar economy were all billed as transformative initiatives. Yet many of the promised outcomes remain frustratingly elusive.

Today, Viksit Bharat occupies the space once held by Achhe Din. The slogans change; the promises remain familiar.

Supporters of the government point to highways, airports, welfare schemes, digital infrastructure and improved service delivery. Yet leaking airport terminals, collapsing bridges, damaged highways and the absence of accountability have repeatedly turned showcase projects into symbols of poor execution.

Transparency remains a major question mark. The Electoral Bonds scheme, eventually struck down by the Supreme Court, became a symbol of the growing disconnect between official claims and democratic accountability. Likewise, concerns about the independence of investigative agencies, regulatory institutions and sections of the media have refused to go away.

The welfare debate reveals another contradiction. BJP leaders frequently attack "revdi" politics, yet BJP-ruled states routinely announce subsidies and cash-transfer schemes of their own. At the same time, the government proudly highlights free ration support for nearly 80 crore people.

A large GDP may make for impressive headlines, but it is per capita income and living standards that ultimately determine how prosperous a nation really is.

Foreign policy offers perhaps the most revealing comparison of all. Nehru's record was certainly not flawless. The 1962 war with China remains a serious blemish on his legacy. Yet he gave India an independent voice in world affairs and maintained productive relations with both the United States and the Soviet Union without becoming subordinate to either. His meetings with world leaders captured the imagination of a newly independent nation. Photographs of Nehru strolling with President John F. Kennedy on the lawns of the White House became iconic images of India's arrival on the global stage and were proudly displayed in homes and roadside poster shops across the country. That tradition of strategic autonomy continued under Indira Gandhi. During the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, she stood firm despite intense pressure from the Nixon administration and the deployment of the US Seventh Fleet to the Bay of Bengal.

The Modi government has invested heavily in leader-centric diplomacy and carefully choreographed optics, projecting the image of a confident India commanding global attention. Despite the much-publicised Modi-Trump camaraderie, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's warning regarding India's alleged purchases of sanctioned Iranian oil created an awkward diplomatic moment and drew no meaningful public response from New Delhi. Equally uncomfortable have been Donald Trump's repeated claims that he helped broker or enforce a ceasefire between India and Pakistan during Operation Sindoor.

For a government that frequently projects muscular nationalism at home, such silence appears incongruous abroad. Foreign policy is not judged by hugs, handshakes, stadium spectacles or photo opportunities. It is judged by whether a nation can assert its interests, defend its positions and speak with confidence when challenged.

Nehru was hardly beyond criticism. The China debacle and aspects of the licence-permit system remain serious blemishes on his record.

There is also a difference between accepting responsibility and endlessly shifting blame.

The Emergency remains one of Indian democracy's darkest chapters. Yet even Indira Gandhi eventually acknowledged that excesses had occurred.

Public acknowledgement of mistakes appears largely absent in the Modi era. Every criticism is dismissed as propaganda, while failures are attributed to inherited problems, hostile forces or political opponents.

There is also something curious about the BJP's continuing obsession with Nehru. It resembles a grandson who spends years denouncing his grandfather as the source of every family problem while simultaneously boasting that he has finally occupied the grandfather's chair for longer than anyone else.

Politics rewards perception; history rewards performance. It judges leaders not by the length of their tenure but by whether institutions became stronger, freedoms more secure and opportunities wider.

Records can be broken. Legacies must be built.

That is why the celebration of 4,398 days, while politically understandable, leaves a larger question unanswered. If Nehru supposedly left behind only failures, then what enduring benchmark has Modi established apart from surpassing his tenure?

The answer cannot be a number.

Because breaking a record is not the same as building a nation.

(The columnist is a Mumbai-based author and independent media veteran, running websites and a youtube channel known for his thought-provoking messaging.)

Printed and Published by K. Hanumanta Rao on behalf of Hyderabad Media House Private Limited 8-2-268/1/A/2/8, Plot No. 3, Aurora Colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034 and Printed at Aamoda Press, H.No. 5-9-287/10 & 11, Plot No. 53 & 54, Prashanth Towers, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Moosapet, Kukatpally(M), Kukatpally Municipality, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. Chief Editor: P Madhusudhan Reddy. RNI No: TELENG/2023/86916