Prime ministers decide through a complex process influenced by multiple factors including electoral imperatives, self-preservation instincts, and the need to outmaneuver political opponents. Their decisions often prioritize short-term political outcomes over long-term consequences, and power-sharing is necessary to balance diverse interests in a country like India
. Neerja Chowdhury’s book How Prime Ministers Decide analyzes the operating styles of Indian prime ministers by examining six landmark decisions that shaped the country's history. These include Indira Gandhi’s strategy to return to power in 1980, Rajiv Gandhi’s handling of the Shah Bano case, V. P. Singh’s implementation of the Mandal Commission Report, P. V. Narasimha Rao’s indecision during the Babri Masjid demolition, Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s shift to nuclear testing, and Manmohan Singh’s navigation of internal opposition to seal the India-US nuclear deal
. The decision-making process involves balancing political pressures, personal struggles, and the rapidly changing political landscape. Prime ministers often have to make choices that are influenced by behind-the-scenes negotiations, alliances, and the need to maintain their political survival. For example, Indira Gandhi’s comeback after the Emergency involved deft political maneuvering and alliance-building, while Rajiv Gandhi’s decisions were influenced by attempts to appease different religious communities, sometimes with unintended consequences
. Chowdhury’s insights are based on hundreds of interviews with prime ministers, bureaucrats, aides, and policymakers, providing a detailed and nuanced understanding of how decisions are made at the highest level of government. The book highlights that decision-making is not just about rational calculation but also about managing diverse interests, crises, and personal dynamics within the political establishment
. In summary, prime ministers decide by navigating complex political realities, balancing competing interests, and often making pragmatic choices shaped by immediate political needs and long-term strategic considerations. Their leadership styles and decision-making approaches vary, reflecting the unique challenges and contexts of their tenures
