In 2004, when Manmohan Singh became the Prime Minister, he had the ‘reformist’ aura around him. He was, after all, seen by many as the father of economic reforms in the country. Ten years down the line, Singh has managed to destroy his reputation and legacy
The recent announcement by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh about not seeking a third-term in the forthcoming elections, due in the summer of 2014, did not surprise anyone. The fact that he chose to take refuge in history and its judgements astonished many. For an economist and political leader who had predicted the end of “chronic poverty, ignorance and disease” which had been the “fate of millions” for centuries (Speech at G-20, June 30, 2010), to claim a safe harbour in history now seemed incongruous.
It is likely that Manmohan Singh is aware that his position as the Prime Minister will be studied in terms of his success in overseeing the strongest economy India has seen in recent decades. Although there is a debate about the extent to which it can be attributed to him alone, the mainstream interpretation now credits him with the period of confidence global investors saw in the Indian market. What is unclear is whether this success will matter in the future for those who tend to evaluate heads of state for their enduring public policies than on their skills in making budgets.
Additionally, his economic paradigm based around the development of the services industry and domestic goods for the internal market, in which the state plays a significant role in providing a safe haven for the private sector, would also be examined. If these measures earned him the loyalty and support of the upper and middle classes in the initial years, it also brought about opposition from the same classes in the face of the severity of inflation and corruption effectively causing it to spiral out of control for his Government. Singh’s failure to win that battle may thus loom larger in the judgement of history than the economic successes that benefited many Indians of this period. Will he leave a legacy behind which sees him as a leader of the middle classes, a force to be reckoned in a country that is disenchanted with political dynasties and nationalist ideologies and keen to tap into the rich discursive economy of new political parties like the Aam Aadmi PartyIJ Will this middle class, young and inspirational, have short memories so that posterity is likely to remember his failings more than the good he has done for themIJ
Two decades ago, as India’s Finance Minister in PV Narasimha Rao’s Cabinet, Manmohan Singh delivered a budget which promised liberalisation of the Indian economy with a speech: “No power on earth can stop an idea whose time has come. I suggest to this august house that the emergence of India as a major economic power in the world happens to be one such idea.” Since then Singh is credited with making this idea come real. He is seen leading a crucial wave of reforms that have been at the helm of a massive expansion of the country’s economy. Through them he successfully associated the Congress with a new age of affluence and the burgeoning consumer revolution.
When the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) led by the Congress won the general elections in 2004, Singh became the Prime Minister unexpectedly after Sonia Gandhi declined to take the post. Often seen as a ‘regent’ who was to steer the economy, he left the messy business of Congress politics to Sonia Gandhi. With a slim majority to support him, major confrontations took place in Parliament and outside on the nuclear arms deal. Things came to a collision many economic policies with massive walkouts by the Opposition. Eventually many see the civil nuclear agreement he negotiated with the US as a great achievement.
His Government’s free-market policies included trade liberalisation, deregulation, privatisation and focus on enterprise culture. He pulled down barriers to foreign investment lifting many of the industrial regulations on entry and production known as the ‘licence raj’ on registered manufactured output, employment, entry and investment across Indian States. During these years a number of important projects in the social sector and legislation were also initiated — the Rural Health mission, Rural Employment Guarantee Programme and the Right to Information Act followed by the Right to Tribals (Forest Rights Act) and now Right to Food.
Before coming to power Singh had enormous achievements. He worked in the United Nations. During the decades of the 1970s and 1980s he occupied several important positions acting as the Chief Economic Advisor to the Government of India (1972-76), Governor of Reserve Bank of India (1982-1985), Chairman of University Grants Commission, besides heading the Planning Commission (1985-87).
By 2009, when Singh was re-elected as the Prime Minister in the United Progressive Alliance II, he was regarded as someone whose major asset was personal integrity as nobody from his family or people close to him benefited during his tenure. He was viewed as the most intellectually and emotionally even-tempered and best equipped Prime Minister to begin the millennium. He enjoyed enormous goodwill and was given a clear mandate to govern. Foreign media wrote about his grace and decency, as he was the voice heard with respect when representatives of G-20 gathered. The Newsweek called him the “leader other leaders love”, as many praised him as the universally respected Indian Prime Minister since Jawaharlal Nehru.
In great measures, India is a better place to live in for the middle classes than it was two decades ago. Economic growth that rose to 7.7 per cent under the 10 year regime of the UPA government has made many in urban centres across India better off. A jubilant middle class enjoys access to better schools, consumer goods and hospitals. Agricultural growth rate has expanded too although lesser by 2.5 per cent and 3.7 per cent during the 10th and 11th Five Year Plans respectively. But it is the increase in the per-capita income at an average of nearly 20 per cent during these years that allows a guilt-free middle class to become more conspicuously consumptive than ever before, drinking more bottles of fizzy drinks, flying million miles around the world and giving the credit card industry a growth it had never seen in Asia.
So how could Singh fail to such an extent that his most strident supporters wish for his exitIJ In retrospect, some of the reasons can be him being ill-prepared about the rhetoric of populist measures, long-awaited legislation for marginalised communities and improving public services by injecting more competition.
In the last three years as our ‘emerging’ economy has taken a serious hit, along with a ballooning current account deficit, the question arises: Can technocrats ever provide solutions to policy problemsIJ Singh is largely an apolitical figure with little experience in winning elections. Too much focus on national and global issues at the expense of local and State-level ones has led to the problem of translating ideas into solutions. It demands a shift of mindset from ‘doing business as usual’ towards a space where collaborating and exchanging knowledge and expertise is the key to achieving innovative results.
But more than that, Singh’s delusory success story is anchored in a faith in free-market institutions despite the indicators of development that large numbers of urban poor are dispossessed, without health and shelter. As neo-liberal policies became central to the changes he initiated, India’s corporates and billionaires used the easy access to securing rich natural resources or ensuring favourable regulations in various industries to tilt the playing field to their advantage. Thus, the Indian corporate sector which is distinguished by very high concentrations of ownership since Independence has been able to expand its control over the economy; it has ignored the needs of an informal labour market with inefficient labour laws where workers are denied benefits of provident funds and social security.
In other words, Singh’s rise to power within the Congress and the political elite was a result of his capitalisation of the failures of previous economic policies and his promise of pursuing the coalition process under the UPA governments. The determining factor in his political trajectory, however, has been his commitment to a neo-liberal economic policy whose short-term effects were enjoyed by a hopeful middle class. little wonder that after a brief spurt propelled by broader global growth, the rate of economic growth slowed and the middle class became exasperated.
Nobody denies the descent into economic chaos of the past few years. It would be convenient for supporters of Singh to claim that during his tenure he was dependent on the ‘compulsions’ of coalition government that blocked further economic reform and on Sonia Gandhi’s agenda of a dramatic expansion of the welfare state that India could ill-afford. While the Congress co-opted the appeal to neo-liberal policies, at the same time it retained the traditional commitment to providing for the disadvantaged castes, minorities and women. Nevertheless Singh’s claims to a lasting, positive legacy were undermined as his personal image of integrity was severely damaged by his inaction to the various scams and scandals his colleagues were involved in. Instead of increasing, a cast iron reputation of incorruptibility shrunk the Prime Minister’s authority, gave rise to insubordination within his Cabinet and inaugurated an era of corruption.
Manmohan Singh’s tenure as the Prime Minister was often marked by turbulence, contestations and operatic twists. At times he was viewed as a transformative leader, at other times a leader keeping ‘the seat warm’ until Rahul Gandhi was ready to take what some see as his ‘birthright’. Indeed toward the end, his Government might principally be remembered for policy paralysis, the mounting inflation of food and fuel prices and for the “ghost story of capitalism” to use Arundhati Roy’s evocative phrase.
leaving behind an Indian map that looks vulnerable with secessionist strife in many parts of the country, for the generation of Indians under Manmohan Singh, the sense of the dread of the country’s politico-economic direction will take time to heal up.
But history might offer protection or the sanctuary that Manmohan Singh eventually seeks if it were to remember the effects of his economic policies on the political opposition led by middle classes in this country, and the ideological role of actors and their organisations with new rhetoric and models. History might be kinder to him if it recalls his Government for so much corruption that it led to institutions like the Comptroller and Auditor-General, the judiciary, the media and civil society functioning with fierce independence and passion heralding a new era in Indian politics.
The writer is Professor and Chairperson, Centre for Political Studies, School of Social Sciences, JNU