By Chadra Prakash Jha
A Humble Scholar with a Storied Career
Manmohan Singh’s life began in a Punjabi Khatri Sikh family, raised by his grandmother Jamna Devi after his mother’s early death. His early education in Urdu and Punjabi at a gurdwara in Gah, followed by schooling in Peshawar and Amritsar, laid the foundation for his academic excellence. After earning bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Hindu College, Punjab University, Singh pursued advanced studies at Cambridge and Oxford, earning a D.Phil. in economics. His 1962 doctoral thesis, India’s Export Performance, 1951–1960: Prospects and Policy Implications, later became the basis for his book India’s Export Trends and Prospects for Self-Sustained Growth. Influenced by economists like Joan Robinson and Nicholas Kaldor, Singh embraced a pragmatic approach to economics, blending Keynesian principles with a belief in state intervention for equitable development.
Singh’s bureaucratic career began in the 1960s when Lalit Narayan Mishra appointed him as an advisor in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. He served as Chief Economic Adviser (1972–1976), Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Governor (1982–1985), and Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission (1985–1987). His tenure as Finance Minister under P.V. Narasimha Rao (1991–1996) is widely credited with liberalizing India’s economy, dismantling the License Raj, devaluing the rupee, and opening the economy to foreign direct investment (FDI). These reforms pulled India back from the brink of a balance-of-payments crisis in 1991, setting the stage for robust economic growth. Yet, critics argue that Singh’s loyalty to successive governments—under Indira Gandhi, Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, Rajiv Gandhi, Chandra Shekhar, and Narasimha Rao—suggests a willingness to align with power, raising questions about his independence.
The Mumbai Meeting: A Question of Financial Sovereignty
In 2008, during the global financial crisis triggered by the collapse of Lehman Brothers and over 100 American banks, India’s banking sector remained resilient, largely due to the conservative policies of RBI Governor Yaga Venugopal Reddy. However, a lesser-known incident at a meeting of the Indo-American Society (IAS) at Mumbai’s Grand Hotel in Santacruz West casts a shadow over Singh’s commitment to India’s financial interests. As a UNI special correspondent covering the event for the Hindi service UNI Varta, alongside Gautam Chakravarti for the English service, I witnessed Singh’s directive to Finance Minister P. Chidambaram and Reddy to revisit the IAS’s demand for full convertibility of foreign investments into US dollars. This proposal, which could have exposed India’s economy to volatile capital flows, was met with resistance from Reddy, who was absent from the meeting but later detailed his opposition in his book Advice and Dissent: My Life in Public Service. Reddy’s refusal to comply underscored his commitment to financial stability, a stance that arguably shielded India from the worst of the 2008 recession.
The incident also revealed internal tensions within the media. Surinder Arora, UNI’s Mumbai bureau chief, questioned why my report on Singh’s directive differed from Chakravarti’s, who had filed his story and left for UNI’s city office at D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai. Having worked with Arora in Chandigarh, I knew his limited grasp of financial matters, and I advised him to seek clarification from Chakravarti. Arora, lacking a substantive counterargument, allowed my report to be transmitted via teleprinter to subscribing newspapers. This episode highlights the pressures on journalists to navigate complex financial stories and the potential for critical information to be sidelined due to editorial oversight or bias.
The Indo-US Nuclear Deal: Strategic Gains or Sovereignty Compromised?
Singh’s tenure as Prime Minister (2004–2014) is often defined by the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Deal, signed in 2008 after years of negotiations with US President George W. Bush. The deal ended India’s nuclear isolation, granting access to civilian nuclear technology and fuel while allowing India to maintain its military nuclear program without signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It was a diplomatic triumph, earning Singh the moniker “Singh is King” and strengthening India-US ties. However, the deal came at a significant political and strategic cost.
The agreement faced fierce opposition from the Communist and Left parties, who withdrew support from the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, triggering a trust vote in July 2008 that Singh narrowly survived with the Samajwadi Party’s backing. Critics, including the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and former External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha, argued that the deal compromised India’s sovereignty by subjecting its civilian nuclear facilities to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. Babusaheb Jha, an engineer at the Tarapur Atomic Power Plant, expressed concerns to me about CIA surveillance of the facility, which annoyed Indian engineers and raised fears of external influence over India’s nuclear program. These concerns were echoed by some Indian ex-nuclear scientists, who warned that the deal could inhibit India’s ability to pursue independent nuclear research.
Singh’s determination to push the deal forward, despite risking his government’s survival, showcased his political resolve but also fueled perceptions of capitulation to Western interests. Posts on X reflect this sentiment, with some users criticizing Singh for prioritizing US relations over national interests, particularly in the context of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, where his response was seen as restrained under US pressure. The deal’s proponents, however, argue it was essential for India’s energy security and global standing, enabling access to nuclear fuel for facilities like Tarapur and fostering cooperation in high-technology and defense.
A Power-Hungry Technocrat?
Despite his reputation for humility, Singh’s long career in high-level positions has drawn scrutiny. Noted economist Prof. Arun Kumar described him as “power-hungry,” pointing to his seamless transitions across governments of varying ideologies. From serving as economic adviser during Indira Gandhi’s Emergency (1975–1977) to holding key roles under Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, Rajiv Gandhi, and Chandra Shekhar, Singh’s adaptability raised questions about his political motivations. His appointment as Prime Minister in 2004, orchestrated by Sonia Gandhi after her decision to forgo the role, was seen by some as a strategic choice to ensure loyalty, given Singh’s lack of a political base. Critics argue that his failure to resign after Rahul Gandhi’s public humiliation in 2013—when Gandhi tore up an ordinance protecting convicted politicians—reflected a reluctance to challenge the Congress leadership.
Singh’s defenders, however, highlight his contributions to India’s development. As Prime Minister, he introduced transformative initiatives like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), the Right to Information (RTI) Act, and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) for Aadhaar cards. These policies empowered citizens and addressed rural poverty, earning praise from supporters who view his tenure as a “golden period”. His handling of the 2008 recession, with fiscal stimulus packages and farmer loan waivers, helped India rebound with an 8.5% GDP growth rate in 2009–10. Yet, detractors point to scandals like 2G, CWG, and Coalgate during UPA-II, which tarnished his government’s image, even if Singh’s personal integrity remained unquestioned.
The Legacy Debate
Manmohan Singh’s legacy is a study in contrasts. His personal honesty and academic rigor, lauded by students like former Nepalese Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, coexist with criticisms of his political decisions. His 1991 reforms and the nuclear deal reshaped India’s economy and global standing, but incidents like the Mumbai IAS meeting and the nuclear deal’s fallout suggest a prioritization of foreign interests over national ones. The resilience of India’s banking sector during the 2008 recession, largely due to Reddy’s policies, contrasts with Singh’s apparent willingness to entertain risky financial proposals. His silence during controversies and deference to the Congress leadership fueled perceptions of weakness, yet his resolve in pursuing the nuclear deal revealed a steely determination.
History, as Singh predicted, may judge him kindly for his economic contributions and diplomatic achievements. However, the Mumbai Files—encapsulated in the IAS meeting, the nuclear deal’s controversies, and his long bureaucratic tenure—reveal a leader whose personal virtues did not always translate into unassailable national stewardship. As India continues to navigate its economic and strategic challenges, Singh’s legacy remains a complex tapestry of reform, resilience, and unresolved questions about loyalty to India’s interests.
إرسال تعليق