The Manmohan defence: I am just a (civil) servant

In 1991, in an interview to Sunday magazine, Manmohan Singh had said, “When I came to the Finance Ministry in 1971, I wrote a paper called What To Do With Victory (that was when Indira Gandhi’s popularity was at its peak). I had written at that time that all these controls in the name of socialism would not lead to growth but would strangle the impulses for growth. I had said that these controls would not reduce inequalities but increase them. I have not been timid. I have spoken my mind freely and frankly. But I’ve also served as a faithful civil servant. Even if I have been overruled, I have carried out the orders of my political masters.” [caption id=“attachment_1322687” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.[/caption] As far as life changing experiences go, being Prime Minister of India for nine years must count for something. But in his last press conference as Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh seemed almost to take pride in the fact that he had not changed at all in his nine years in office. Which can only lead to the conclusion that he has served through these years as a faithful civil servant, and even if overruled he carried out the orders of his political masters, with Sonia and, perhaps, later Rahul now serving as a substitute for Indira of the earlier years. It is the only explanation that makes sense of his years as PM, and I write this as a one-time admirer. Manmohan Singh would argue that only goes to show the current assessment can be equally wrong, as new facts emerge which is why he would rather wait for the judgment of history. His idea of history is spelt with a capital H, as if there would be only one possible interpretation, one possible conclusion. And he made it clear at the press conference what that conclusion should be - Manmohan Singh was a man of integrity who did the best possible job given the constraints of his job. All of us are guilty of thinking far more highly of ourselves than the facts often warrant, but then most of us are not destined to be Prime Ministers of India. The new facts, whatever they may be, can only relate to what transpired behind closed doors in Cabinet meetings, in discussions with Sonia Gandhi and in party forums with only a few senior leaders in attendance. Manmohan Singh has given enough hints that in such discussions he opposed many of the decisions that cost the party and the government substantially in terms of public perception. And then even under the most charitable interpretation of the facts, he went along with these decisions. It is as if once he had voiced his opposition the conscience of this man of integrity was satiated, and he still feels he cannot be held to account for the consequences that followed. This belief in his unimpeachable conduct and character does not seem to be subject to an examination based on facts. After all he thinks nothing of twisting these to suit himself, even if the arguments he then comes up with would not work in a college debate. How could he have possibly said that the election victory of UPA II be a sign that the public did not pay heed to charges of corruption? His argument that the Spectrum and Coal scams date back to UPA I seem to suggest that the public can pass judgments on things it does not know, and even worse, the judgment it passes in terms of repeated electoral setbacks after the facts become known, is of no consequence. This is sanctimony even saints should not be allowed. No wonder Ramachandra Guha had used the words intellectual dishonesty to describe Manmohan Singh. As Prime Minister, he seemed to believe that the buck did not stop with him. It is as if he had set aside his Constitutional obligations to live out his self-description as the `faithful civil servant’ carrying out the orders of his political masters. His personal lifestyle with its emphasis on austerity and a family life in which relatives seek no favours bears an uncanny resemblance to that of another civil servant who has made it in politics - Arvind Kejriwal. I once referred to Kejriwal as Anna’s sidekick, he has shown himself since to be anything but. Unlike Manmohan Singh he is clearly his own master. At least in some versions of history, the best that Manmohan Singh can hope to go down as is Sonia’s sidekick, which at the end of two terms as Prime Minister brings us back to a question asked of him during an interview in the beginning of his term - Are you really the Prime Minister? Ten years down the line, that question has been answered several times over, and, however much he may hope so, History is unlikely to change that answer.