Dr Singh the democratic torch bearer

The former prime minister is being remembered for things he did and those he did not

Alok Tiwari

The outpouring of emotions for former prime minister Dr Manmohan Singh goes beyond the usual tributes paid to any departed leader. It is par for the course to remember the departed for their contribution. Of that there was plenty to be said for Dr Singh. He is the architect of India’s economic revival since the bleak days of 1990-91 when the country came close to international default and the economy was at the risk of collapsing. It had to mortgage its gold and raise money from international institutions.

One may say that the economic “reforms” that followed were dictated by those institutions. One may quibble over the model of economy that they fostered and how equitable or sustainable that is. What is undeniable is that the country benefited from the knowledge and experience of macroeconomics that Dr Singh brought to his job as finance minister. It helped that a seasoned politician like P V Narasimha Rao had his back and took care of political battles. Still, his steady hand at the helm ensured that India made best use of the lifeline from IMF and turned a crisis into an opportunity. Many other countries in similar trouble are unable to get back on rails in absence of such leadership and have to seek repeated bailouts.

The opening up of economy ensured the country turned the corner and embarked on a growth trajectory that continues. It is to Dr Singh’s credit that a country that was once satisfied with 3-3.5% growth now thinks even 6% is too less. The advantage of having an experienced economist at the wheel was once again seen during the global economic crisis of 2008-09. India emerged relatively unscathed when much bigger economies suffered.

Yet, the aftermath of Dr Singh’s passing seems more about things that he did not do. This has everything to do with the steady erosion of democracy that the country has seen in the years since he left office. It is amazing how the occasion of passing of an ex-PM has almost spontaneously turned into a critique of decline of democracy and freedom in the country. Dr Singh’s hope that he would be remembered more kindly by history than he was by the media in his time seems to have been realized a lot sooner than even he might have imagined.

Among the things that Dr Singh did not do was set state agencies like ED, CBI, NCB, Income Tax department and others behind political opponents like bloodhounds. He did not exert overt and covert pressure on the media to mute criticism and ease out critical voices, much less get his corporate friends to buy up large chunks of media. Indeed, one would be hard put to name any corporate friend of his. On the contrary, despite being ridiculed for his silence and reticence, he often made himself available for questioning through press conferences, something his successor has still not mustered courage to do.

Dr Singh never paved the streets with nails to prevent protesters from entering the capital. During his time, protesters had a free run, most notably after the Nirbhaya episode, underlining India’s robust democracy. There was no attempt to suppress protests or dragging protesters through streets even during India Against Corruption agitation that eventually caused his government’s downfall. His government was up to acknowledging its own shortcomings and never took to labelling protesters anti-nationals. We are looking back with nostalgia at a time when even fiercest critics of the prime minister could sleep easy with no fear of midnight knock at the door.

He is being remembered for not fudging statistics or stop their publication altogether when the figures looked bad. He let the institutions like Election Commission, CAG, and the Supreme Court be even when they hindered his government. He never once used religion to bolster his sagging political fortunes. Indeed, he took lead in getting Congress to apologize for the 1984 carnage against Sikhs. Imagine for a moment someone getting BJP to apologise for the Babri demolition or for the 2002 Gujarat pogroms. It was that big a gesture.

Dr Singh did not do all this because he was some committed democratic crusader. That title belongs to Jawaharlal Nehru who had the charisma and popularity to turn India into an autocracy if he wanted but chose to strengthen the roots of democracy. Dr Singh was just being an ordinary citizen who could not countenance cutting those roots. He remained firmly bound by those traditions and his own commitments even if it meant paying the price politically. Many other leaders in his own party would have found devious ways out of the tight corner they found themselves in, but not him.

Dr Singh was faulted, perhaps justifiably, for allowing the PMO to weaken. But this too had roots in peculiar circumstance of his assuming the office. He was not a politician in true sense and knew he could not lead his party in elections. He knew he was placed in the office by the party so never considered himself above it, a failing seen in both his predecessor as well as his successor. Throughout his tenure the party held the upper hand. Indeed, it was one of those rare times when a Congress PM was not the AICC president.

Dr Singh’s lack of personal ambition was undoubtedly the reason he was chosen by Sonia Gandhi to be PM in 2004. When people criticize him for allowing himself to be doormat of Gandhis, they forget it was just his acceptance of a political reality and his personal decency. Sonia knew he was one person who could be trusted to turn back the keys whenever asked. Imagine the stakes involved. This was the highest political office in the country which every politician aspired to. How many people do you know can be so trusted? It is more of a commentary on our times that we see this strength of his character as his weakness.

This column appeared in Lokmat Times on Jan 1, 2025