rewrite this content and keep HTML tags
Commenting on ten years of the Manmohan Singh government, Professor Maitreesh Ghatak of the London School of Economics and two others wrote about the remarkable growth of India’s economy under the UPA regime from 2004–2013.
“A period of remarkable gains for the privileged and even somewhat disadvantaged has been confidently declared a disaster zone. The apparent leadership gap may have played a role here, but nevertheless, this constructed reality will undoubtedly surprise future historians when they look at the actual record.
‘Myth and Reality: Development in the Time of UPA’, Economic and Political Weekly19 April 2014
The three professors analyzed extensive data and concluded that the ten years under Manmohan Singh were “the strongest decade of development since independence”.
While growth accelerated, rural wages also saw unprecedented growth, showing that the benefits of high growth reached the bottom as well. While wage growth in the organized sector was unsustainably high, and the stock market witnessed record gains, minimum support prices (MSP) of most agricultural commodities recorded very good growth.
After such an impressive tenure as the country’s Prime Minister, should Congress President Sonia Gandhi’s decision to choose Manmohan Singh for the post ignoring other contenders be questioned? Incidentally, The former Prime Minister himself had given a statement to this effect in 2017He said that Pranab Mukherjee was more suitable for the top executive post.
However, with the benefit of hindsight, we can say that Manmohan Singh was the right choice for the top post. And the very qualities he seemed to lack – charisma, mass base, the image of a strong leader, political acumen, among others – worked to his advantage. The nature of the country has been such that regimes run by weak leaders have taken some of the most lasting decisions.
Weak governments have taken far reaching decisions
The fragile VP Singh government is credited with taking one of the toughest decisions of implementing the Mandal Commission recommendations, ensuring reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government jobs.
The HD Deve Gowda-led United Front government is known for initiating the process of disinvestment and its dream budget, which significantly reduced personal income tax rates. And one of the weakest Congress governments of that era, the PV Narasimha Rao-led government is credited with bringing about a paradigm shift by introducing several pioneering economic reforms.
The Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, supported by more than two dozen allies and therefore not considered strong enough to take bold decisions, is known for initiating the Golden Quadrilateral project and the Pokhran nuclear tests.
The Manmohan Singh government, in its first part, will be known for its stellar performance on the economic front besides the Right to Information Act (RTI) and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA).
Strong governments have disappointed
In contrast, the record of so-called strong governments has not been very impressive. The Indira Gandhi regime of the 1970s is remembered more than anything else for the imposition of the Emergency and all that entailed.
The Rajiv Gandhi regime is now linked to the infamous Shah Bano case and the opening of the disputed structure in Ayodhya. There are other examples of strong governments failing to live up to expectations.
So Manmohan Singh had a legacy – that of a weak leader – to carry forward surprisingly well. Having been a part of the government in various capacities for years, he knew more than anyone else that what works most effectively in a democratic system is the art of consensus building.
His polite, non-threatening demeanor is best suited for this. You don’t need charisma to bring others along with you. What is needed is a humble gesture, the ability to accept criticism readily, and a disposition to share power and responsibility. These qualities were in abundance in him.
Manmohan Singh: Unanimous consensus builder
He can be firm when required (the nuclear deal with the US was one such example), he can be receptive at times (perhaps he repeatedly accepted the demand for an MSP hike despite knowing full well the inflationary implications). did), and he could be flexible when the situation demanded it (his insistence on welfare schemes like MNREGA despite being tied to the idea of a free market economy is an example).
This does not mean that the Manmohan Singh regime remained spotless throughout, or that his Prime Ministership was effective for the entire ten years.
His regime has been accused of presiding over some of the worst scandals of independent India. Although till date no one has doubted his personal integrity, the former Prime Minister has been accused of not taking decisive action against the corrupt. At least this perception has been imprinted in the public memory.
But is it fair to remember Manmohan Singh’s tenure for the wrong reasons? This would be very unfair to a man who had given so much so long ago.
(This article was first published October 17, 2017, and has been reposted The QuintRecords of the demise of former Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh.)
Published:
