The unintended legacy of Manmohan Singh

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