GhoseSpot | Manmohan Singh: The enigma of an 'accidental prime minister'

Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh passed away on Thursday night at AIIMS, Delhi, at the age of 92. Singh had remarked that he expects history to judge him kindly—implying, perhaps, that the present has been less than fair in judging him. However, that may not have been an entirely accurate self-assessment of his own public report card. But, having been the prime minister for two consecutive terms and one of the country’s most celebrated finance ministers before that—generally credited with saving the country from the brink of bankruptcy and ushering in the first wave of economic reforms—and a string of important top government appointments prior to that, is no small achievement by any standards.

It was an exceptionally stellar career by any standards across the world. If asked whether he was a good prime minister, the answer would be unequivocally yes. That is where it would stop, though. The transition from the proverbial good to great is where he falters.

More from Opinion

Sergio Gor’s senate hearing signals the future of Indo-American ties How Trump’s ‘War on Drugs’ buildup against Venezuela has a hidden agenda

It is often cited in Manmohan Singh’s defence that not being a popularly elected prime minister, he never had the freedom to be his own man. His authority was always subject to the supervisory authority of his party boss, Sonia Gandhi, to the extent that critics snidely quipped that the real centre of power was 10 Janpath and not the Prime Minister’s Office in South Block. However, it can also be conversely argued that, having little to lose, he could have exercised the option of walking away from the job anytime. Holding that trump card, he could have been far more bold in his decision-making, which would have ensured his place in history as one of the greatest prime ministers India ever had. It is against this backdrop that Manmohan Singh’s legacy has to be evaluated.

Another excuse proffered for Singh’s defensive style is the compulsion of “coalition dharma”. However, it can be argued that the coalition was not as much of a limitation as was his lack of political acumen. Here, obviously, he had not imbibed any of the Machiavellian talents of his former boss, PV Narasimha Rao. Singh was, therefore, largely dependent on colleagues like Pranab Mukharjee and a few aides for political management. This may have diluted his authority—though the real compromises or trade-offs might have happened at the level of his party boss, as it were.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

How army remains Pakistan’s biggest business house

60 years on, why 1965 India–Pakistan war still matters

Here, Manmohan Singh has often been compared to the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of a privately owned corporation. As the designation indicates, the CEO’s mandate is largely confined to execution, whereas substantive decisions are taken at the level of the owners. Whether that was the brief Singh signed on will never be known, but the arrangement must have suited his “technocrat” mindset to a few. Needless to add, that would have also been the criterion of selection applied by the promoters over other potential candidates. The Congress party had, since the days of Indira Gandhi, made an art of cultivating “rootless wonders”. Manmohan Singh was arguably the most inspired choice of Sonia Gandhi from among that collection of aspirants for the role of Chief of Staff.

The common criticism of Singh, even among his admirers, is of not being able to exercise—what in corporate parlance is called—self-confident integrity, but in simple language means standing up to—in the face of—corruption. This is a dharm sankat faced by many professionals, and a convenient response is to claim amnesty as long as the incumbent’s own hands are not tainted. But that is a specious argument that cannot be overlooked even on the plea of pragmatism.

Certainly, it can’t be overlooked while putting on a shiropa of honesty over a person’s head. It is hard to accept that a person of Singh’s accomplishments—both professional and academic—could live for a good ten years with such ethical trauma. The final spectacle of the tearing up of an ordinance by the young scion of a owning family does puncture the halo, jeopardising prospects of future sainthood.

However, even if one were to accept the debatable construct of a CEO Prime Minister, the author’s disappointment with Manmohan Singh lies on three specific counts. First, even a CEO is expected to display certain leadership qualities. It may be argued that not all CEOs are charismatic, and even oratory skills cannot be a condition precedent for a chief executive’s job. If Singh did have personality traits that could inspire peers, colleagues, and large teams, those were neither visible to the naked eye nor part of any folklore.

While Singh’s public presence and communication skills would be better than many world leaders, including some recent US Presidents, even his die-hard fans would not give him high marks on these counts. One wonders how Singh would have mobilised the nation faced with crises like a Kargil War or Covid—his silence after 26/11 was deafening.

Manmohan Singh is given credit for pushing through the India-US Nuclear Treaty, overcoming resistance from certain powerful quarters of his own party. The jury is still out on how well the decision has really served India, and someday, perhaps, when documents are declassified, one will get to read the accounts of what went on behind the scenes till the culmination of the deed.

Equally, while Singh is widely regarded as the “father of economic reforms”, detractors ask if it was really the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that forced the hands of the Indian government and he merely oversaw the rollout of the blueprint handed over from Washington. In any event, how far he would have succeeded in implementing those reforms without the backing and manoeuvring by the then prime minister, PV Narasimha Rao, does not call for much conjecture. However, by the same token, one may like to critically question Singh’s own track record with big-ticket reforms during his two terms as prime minister. Though the epithet “Brilliant Economist” is easily tagged to Singh, the opinion may not be unanimous within his academic peers.

Finally, will Manmohan Singh ever be regarded as a visionary prime minister? The answer is likely to be resoundingly negative. It is fashionable to call Manmohan Singh “Accidental Prime Minister” after the eponymous book by his press advisor. But the true enigma is whether Manmohan Singh was a bureaucrat among politicians or a politician among bureaucrats.

The author is a public affairs commentator. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.