History would be more kind to him, hoped the outgoing Indian prime minister. For almost five years, Manmohan Singh had stoically faced barbs hurled at him by a reckless opposition and a hysterical media.
His competence, his integrity, his commitment and his conviction were all incessantly questioned. He was blamed for everything that was perceived to be wrong in the country, from runaway corruption to inflation, from slow growth to volatility in the market. Every time the exchange rate of the Indian rupee dropped or the benchmark of the Indian stock market dipped, there were howls of anguish from politicians, industry and commentators.
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Hindu nationalist party and the principal opposition, mocked him as weak and dared him to declare a war on Pakistan following the beheading of Indian soldiers at the border. His former media adviser Sanjay Baru called him the most ridiculed Indian prime minister and Sociologist Shiv Vishwanathan wrote: “He [Manmohan Singh] appeared like a sad, tired squirrel pointing out nuggets of his performance” while commenting on Singh’s last press conference when the third-longest serving prime minister of India announced he would not seek a third term in office.
He added to the opposition campaign that he was tied to the apron strings of Sonia Gandhi by repeatedly asserting that he would only be too happy to serve under Rahul Gandhi. Prompted to comment on the possibility of Rahul taking over from him, Manmohan famously said he believed Rahul had outstanding qualities to become the PM. A somewhat confused media added masala to the discourse by alternately claiming that the PM was not his own boss and was dictated by Sonia and Rahul while holding at the same time that he and the ‘first family’ had drifted apart. Both these perceptions could not have been correct.
He seemed to have no delusion either about his mass appeal or oratorial skills. The only election he contested in 1999, from supposedly cosmopolitan Delhi, he lost. He knew he was not much of an orator and wisely refrained from delivering political speeches except where he had to. A PR adviser may have advised him to speak in public in Punjabi and Urdu, but there is no evidence that he ever consulted one. In any case, he could not be expected to thump his chest and pump his fist, like politicians are wont to do to claim credit for everything that they do or even what they do not. A casual look at facts, however, calls the bluff on the sustained campaign to belittle Manmohan’s record. Between 2004 and 2013, foodgrain production increased by 57 million tonnes. The country added 115,000MW of electricity generating capacity during this period, more than what was created between 1947 and 2004. Production of steel, cement and milk doubled or trebled. Per capita electricity consumption went up from 559KW in 2004 to 813MW. Broadband services reached 250,000 villages. The number of bank accounts went up from 439 million to 773 million. Average daily rural wages went up from Rs48 (Dh2.90) to Rs138 a day. Exports of agricultural and allied products went up by seven times. These are hardly signs of “policy paralysis”.
High point of his ten-year tenure
Per capita income, life expectancy, rural consumption, enrolment in schools went up either steadily or dramatically under Singh’s stewardship. In fact, the results of the top 100 companies in India show that they have reaped record profits during this period. For the first time, so many Indian companies expanded abroad, acquiring foreign companies and buying up land and mines. Indeed Manmohan can claim credit for steering India ably after the global meltdown, following the sub-prime crisis on Wall Street in 2008. While most of the countries reeled, India’s economy was much less affected than was feared in 2009. But once again he did not even hint at his stewardship of India during these difficult times, saying instead that signing the civil nuclear treaty with the US was the high point of his ten-year tenure.
But he continued to be accused of being an incompetent prime minister.
For months together, economists and columnists fumed about “policy paralysis” in the government. When onion prices went up last year and touched the Rs100-mark for a kilo, cartoons were drawn to suggest that onions now would have to be kept in bank lockers. When prices went down in a few weeks, there was silence. And when Manmohan’s office tweeted “Kam bola, kaam bola” (He spoke little, his work speaks a lot more), social media got flooded with derisive messages. One of them mocked the PM and tweeted: “Khaya aur Khilaya” (He fed and fattened himself and others).
One can fault him for being too self-effacing, to the extent of not visiting even his birthplace in Pakistan, which would have given him an opportunity to take bilateral relations further. But he repeatedly stepped back because he possibly felt it would be politically imprudent. His reticence, which provoked his critics to call him the “silent one” or more colourfully as “Maun (quiet) mohan Singh”, is also responsible for many of the misconceptions. But Manmohan’s record does speak for itself. It shows a certain degree of steel and fire without which he would not have survived or achieved what he did.
Yes, prime minister, history will be far kinder to you.
Uttam Sengupta is a deputy editor of Outlook in New Delhi.