Manmohan Singh is the only prime minister
of India to have completed two full and consecutive terms since Jawaharlal
Nehru, who became the first elected prime minister in 1952 and remained in
office until his death in 1964. Singh, however, was not a politician until he
was appointed finance minister by Narasimha Rao in 1991 — he had always
distinguished himself primarily as an economist. His departure in May 2014 was
marked by a stunning defeat of both his party and government. The fact that his
government lost so badly reflects dismally on his ten-year term in
office. Judging by the overwhelmingly negative media coverage on Singh and
his government — both during his term and the election campaign — the
government under Singh’s tenure must have been seen by many as a corrupt and inefficient
one.
So, what legacy did Manmohan Singh leave behind after
stepping down as the nation’s prime minister? It may be worthwhile to list
five key legacies — some intended and others not. The unintended consequences
were out of Singh’s control and a result of his non-political background.
First, Singh ensured that India had a reasonably sound
basis for economic growth following the downturn of 2012–13. India’s economy
had a much better run during Singh’s ten years in office than the preceding
decade and a half. This is in contrast to the impressions created in the media
during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government’s last year in office
and the vitriolic attacks mounted by the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP). The economy actually did quite well both in terms of growth rate and
foreign investment, and was able to absorb shocks from fluctuations in the
global economy. As a group of economists said, the economic performance of the UPA
government was not bad at all.
Second, Manmohan Singh introduced a new framework of
welfare governance in India. The slogans of ‘inclusive growth’ and ‘development
with a human face’ were translated into a rights-based approach to designing
welfare policies. While there was no shortage of welfare ‘programs’ and
spending, this decade saw a shift in thinking and attitudes towards the poor.
Access to education, health and employment were seen as inherent rights of the
poor rather than charity from the government. This may not have any visible
effect in the short term, but it surely has the potential of redefining the
idea of citizenship and the status of the poor in a
rapidly growing economy.
Third, a surge in a stagnant economy, marked by
low growth rates for a long time, has created an impatient constituency that
want results and not just excuses from its government — although perhaps with
unreasonable expectations. These heightened expectations have marked India’s
social and political scene during the last decade. A large section of society,
which can be described as the lower middle-income group, is beginning to expect
material improvements. This creates political pressures which governments may
find hard to handle.
Fourth, popular frustrations stem in part from the fact
that while the government kept talking big about growth and rights-based
welfare, nothing much changed on the ground. India continued to have the same
unresponsive bureaucracy. The new approach did not reflect the day-to-day
experience of the people vis-à-vis the administration. The bureaucracy remained
emotionally disconnected, intellectually unconvinced and professionally
inefficient as far as the administration of both economic growth and the new
rights regime were concerned. Without any plan to remedy the situation, this
goes down as one of Singh’s most significant failures.
Finally, the political system in India suffered during
Singh’s tenure as prime minster. This led to a leadership vacuum both within
the party and in government. Singh’s non-political background was a major
handicap in this context. The experiment of dividing the political party and
government was taken too far, resulting in complete separation. Singh’s
downfall as a political leader helped the BJP project Narendra Modi as India’s new leader and saviour in
the recent election campaign.
These legacies — both intended and unintended — reflect
Singh’s lack of political instinct during his term as prime minister. While his
economic policies might stand the test of time, Singh’s legacy will be marked
by political failure, which the Congress party must now bear.
Suhas Palshikar teaches political science at the
University of Pune. He is a co-director of the Lokniti programme for
Comparative Democracy at the CSDS, Delhi and chief editor of the journal
Studies in Indian Politics
No comments:
Post a Comment