DECODING THE ENIGMA CALLED MANMOHAN SINGH

At a meeting of business leaders from India and Southeast Asia in Kuala Lumpur in 2005, the secretary general of ASEAN introduced Dr. Singh as ‘the world’s most highly qualified head of government’. Leaving the London G-20 summit in April 2009, US President Barack Obama went to Germany where a young school student asked him which politician he admired; Obama’s instant reply was that he admired Dr. Singh the most.

        Such was the perception of Dr. Singh in the eyes of the entire world. Out of the 193 countries, he is arguably the most prized head of government. His career has been brilliant by any reckoning. He holds a first class first degree in economics at Punjab University. Along with that he holds degrees from both Oxford and Cambridge. Before entering 7 RCR, he has held many positions of eminence such as RBI governor, Deputy Chairman of Planning Commission, UGC Chairman, Finance secretary and finally Finance Minister. He was the main architect of liberalization of Indian economy. It is untenable not to be in awe of him. No congress leader, including both Sonia and Rahul Gandhi can match his unique combination of personal integrity, administrative experience, intellectual stature and political appeal across a wide swathe of public opinion. Then how can a man with such credentials and once revered by all, be brought down to his knees?

          To understand him better, it is also instructive to listen to those who have followed his career since the 70s. These officials, some of whom worked closely with him opine that being assertive or leading from the front was never a part of his value system. A self effacing man, Singh survived the political era of Indira Gandhi, Janata party, Rajiv Gandhi and finally that of Narasimha Rao. To these officials, being a seasoned bureaucrat, Singh inculcated in himself the ‘apolitical virtue’ to survive in the political arena. As evident in case of civil servants, he was cautious, loyal and flexible to his political master. In no job, did he do anything outstanding except to seek the next appointment. To others, his career graph is a reflection of a lack of intellectual integrity and a trait of being opportunistic. He owed his allegiance to his ‘position’ and escaped the slur and the malicious attack of his political counterparts

           From 1991-1995, when he was appointed the Finance Minister, Dr. Singh was transformed from being ‘apolitical’ to being ‘political’. Although he remained a ‘backroom person’, he couldn’t insulate himself from the collaterals and vestiges of a cabinet post. It is this phase that moulded his nebulous political philosophy as well as his political ideology. He learnt many things from the treatment bestowed on his mentor P. V. Narasimha Rao by the party. Rao, after being chosen by the party to lead a minority government, soon took the reins of the party into his own hands. By doing so,  not only did he procrastinated the entry of Sonia Gandhi into the party but also tried to marginalise her. Such acts of dissidence against the ‘first family’ was meted with absolute disdain after the party lost the general elections in 1995. Dr. Singh realised the fact that any act of discrepancies against the Gandhi family would lead to scornful snub. The congress party didn’t allow Rao’s family to have a memorial in Delhi. (He was shifted to his home state Andhra) Despite Rao’s role in the 1991 reforms, he is not kept in high esteem by his own party members to avoid the ire of Mrs Gandhi. He was not bestowed with any major award while the previous PMs have been recipients of Bharat Ratna. These incidents moulded Dr. Singh’s incendiary political perception which eventually led to his complete subservience to the family.

          Albeit his credentials, Dr. Singh was very well aware of the fact that he was not a popular mass leader; he was not a member of Lok Sabha;  (He lost the 1999 Lok Sabha elections) he was offered the highest position in the country on a platter; he had compulsions of a  coalition dharma; he had ministers in the cabinet who were more senior to him. (Pranab Mukherjee was Finance Minister when he was RBI governor)

All these factors played a pivotal role in the way Dr. Singh conducted himself and managed the government. He had two options- either he would accept the post with all its limitations and encrypt his name in the history books of India (He is the longest serving PM not belonging to the Gandhi-Nehru family) or he would accept the post only if he were given  the authority. He knew he would be a ‘defanged bird’, but he chose the former.

            The key to ‘brand Manmohan’ was his projection as his ‘own man’. His Achilles’ heel was his equation with Sonia Gandhi. He would always be tormented by the question of whether he was his own man or just her puppet. His problem always was that he did not want to become more popular with the media and general public than Sonia Gandhi. His penchant for a low profile was seen in UPA-1 as a defence mechanism, part shyness and part self preservation, but in UPA-2 it came to be seen as escapism, as shrinking responsibility and an unwillingness to stamp his authority and take charge. The same trait of self effacement which was seen as a virtue in UPA-1 was seen as a weakness in UPA-2.

              Dr. Singh’s general attitude towards corruption in public life, which he adopted throughout his career in government, was that he would himself maintain the highest standards of probity in public life but wouldn’t impose this on others. In other words, he himself was incorruptible and also ensured that no one in his immediate family ever did anything wrong. He himself driving a Maruti 800(as an MP) was a legend in Delhi quarters. His daughters and son-in –laws are salary earning professionals (and not in real estate business). But he didn’t feel answerable for the misdemeanours of his colleagues and subordinates because he felt that he was not the political authority that had appointed them to ministerial positions. These ministers owed their appointment, loyalty and accountability to the party president and not him. Some ministers handpicked by Dr. Singh to the PMO (Prithviraj Chavan) and other cabinet ministers (Jairam Ramesh and Renuka Chaudhary) would often turn squealers against the PM to show their loyalty towards the party president. In other words, he turned a blind eye to the misdeeds of his ministers. He expected the congress party leadership to deal with the ‘black sheep’ in the government. While his conscience was always clear with respect to his own conduct, he believed everyone had to deal with their own conscience. But in UPA-2, when corruption scandals tumbled out, his public image and standing took a huge hit from which he was never able to recover. There was no parallel policy narrative in play that could have salvaged his reputation. At the outbreak of every scandal, the ministers and the leaders would huddle around to save the image of the party and its president, leaving the PM stranded alone. In other words, there were no positive acts of commission that captured the public mind enough to compensate for the negative acts of omission for which he was being chastised.

            In 2004, when Dr. Singh became the ‘chosen one’ of Sonia Gandhi, the nation went into a state of hope, anticipation and expectation seeing an economist PM at the helm. Although in UPA-1, he yielded political space to ‘others’, he put his foot forward and stamped his authority while dealing the nuclear deal with US. In issues of foreign policies, he fought with the echelons and cabals of the party. It was the only niche area where he had complete control. Dr. Singh also had his way in the appointment of people to key positions like C. Rangarajan , extension of term of D. Subharao or bringing back the charismatic Raghuram Rajan back to India. Also the wily sardar was instrumental in the appointment of another ‘sardar’ to the key position of Deputy Chairman of Planning Commission. In UPA-1, the media focused more on his policy initiatives and his economic ideas, as the high growth rate had propelled India into imminent greatness. Hence the 2009 election victory was supposed to be Dr. Singh’s victory. He himself had this delusion too. With the nuclear deal going through, and the subsequent win of trust vote, coupled with a high economic growth rate, he had created history and the media had dubbed him ‘Singh is King’. The common mob when asked whom they are going to vote this time said “Congress ko, sardar ji ko”. He had the mandate of the nation and could have easily won a Lok Sabha seat., but the ghost of Narasimha Rao reminded him of the reality that garnering any political ambitions would lead him to the same fate as his one time mentor. Hence he refrained himself from contesting the Lok Sabha elections, which would later prove to be the biggest mistake of his political career. Congress won 206 seats largely due to the image and success of the PM. The urban middle class who had deserted the congress in ‘99 and ‘04 elections, returned to congress. But as expectedly, the onus of the victory went to the exemplary management and organizational skills of Rahul Gandhi. His appeal to the youth was the prime mover of such a success. Dr. Singh came into terms that there cannot be two power centres and that the party President was the centre of power.

            The UPA-2 was bombarded with a plethora of scandals and corruption cases which damaged the reputation of the government. Dr. Singh too was charged, not with corruption but with turning a blind eye to the corruption of others. Public opinion was not willing to excuse him for choosing not to claim and exercise the authority that was his due as PM. With the unfolding of such scandals, the PM should have acted against the tainted ministers in his cabinet or should have offered his resignation. He would have been hailed for being the first PM to voluntarily retire and would have become a global statesman. With the looming euro crisis affecting the Indian economy, the high growth rate plummeted. The government was on a policy treadmill-only motion but no movement forward. Being the ‘primus inter pares’, the reluctance to act cost the reticent PM a great deal. Initially, his subservience was seen as an aspect of his shy and self effacing personality, but over a period of time it might have been his strategy of political survival. Was it just unquestioned loyalty to the leader or a survival instinct that prompted him to remain silent and complete his term? He had already become the PM of India and had his name stamped in the history of this country. So why?

              Dr. Singh has always advocated that he expects history would be kinder while judging  him and his legacy.One wonders what history has in store for him. But one thing is for sure that the history books will always say that he was the longest serving non Nehru- Gandhi PM. May be for his innate bureaucratic trait of clinging on his position prevented him from abdicating his post or may be he was sceptical that the party would have hounded him for ‘letting the party down’. It would have then accused him of trying to occupy the high moral ground and quitting on principle to avoid being sacked for not delivering the goods (a fate met by Rao). When the horse that you are riding becomes a tiger, it is difficult to dismount.

               Now that on May 16, Dr. Singh is surely going to be history, (The Modi wave may seem to be chimera but is actually ubiquitous) he would one day sit in his study room and ponder of what went wrong or what could have he done different? The ramifications of ignoring the nefarious acts of his recalcitrant colleagues could have been avoided if he would have dared to be his own man. Why did the government take all the blame for the scams and the party all the credit for the social schemes? Why didn’t he reprimand the aberrant ministers? How could ‘someone’ dub an ordinance as ‘utter nonsense?’. What happened to the prudent, progressive reforms? How could he erode the credibility of the PM post?  These questions will malinger throughout his life and may be haunt him too. One feels for the shy, reticent and infallible sardar who eschewed his duty due to political compulsions, but one cannot afford to hate him. He is that good a human being. But it is beyond comprehension that how could the ‘accidental Prime Minister’ remain in his position with such fetters and with such indignation?