Manmohan Singh became Prime Minister with a fund of goodwill based on his reputation for integrity. Not many of his predecessors had such luck. Instead, they were seen as humdrum politicians favoured by fortuitous circumstances. Whether they were the two “accidental” Prime Ministers – H D Deve Gowda and I K Gujral – or P V Narasimha Rao or two other accidental holders of the office – Chandra Shekhar and Charan Singh – none of them enjoyed Manmohan Singh’s image of uprightness.
It was precisely because of this reputation that Sonia Gandhi chose him, much to the dismay of old war horses like Arjun Singh. But with two years left for Manmohan Singh to complete his term, he may well wonder whether he and his party will fight the next general election with his reputation as impeccable as before.
It isn’t his personal sincerity which is in doubt. But what is likely to haunt him is his failure to make an impact on governance which might have been expected from a person of his standing. Of all politicians, it was Singh who would have been expected to nudge his party, the government and the political class towards a cleaner political environment. A determined effort, for instance, towards tackling the problem of the criminalisation of politics could have been initiated. Instead, what the country saw was the defreezing of Ottavio Quottrocchi’s London bank account and the CBI’s inability to nab him in Argentina. It is not difficult to understand in this context the official reluctance to endorse the Supreme Court’s directive to insulate the police from political influence.
Part of Manmohan Singh’s failure to live up to his high reputation can be attributed, of course, to his lack of a base, which may have made him more diffident in the matter of tackling the entrenched interests than a more secure politician with a substantial mass following. His preference for the Rajya Sabha route to parliament underscores his vulnerability. The other reason why Manmohan Singh seems to have been unable to exercise his authority to the fullest extent despite being given a fair leeway by the party president is the exigencies of coalition politics. Yet, this argument can seem more like an excuse for inaction than an adequate explanation.
It is obvious that if the Congress is dependent for its survival in office on its partners, the same goes for the latter as well. To some extent, an alliance comprising former adversaries involves a game of bluff in which the two sides test each other’s nerves. A great deal depends on how skilfully one side is willing to push the other without causing an irreparable breach. But when the first party is seen to succumb easily to the line laid down by its junior partners, then it becomes evident that it is more interested in staying in power than in pursuing principled policies.
If there is one subject on which Manmohan Singh can be said to have carved out a special place for himself in Indian politics, it is economics. He piloted the course of reforms as finance minister in 1991 and pursued the same line on becoming Prime Minister. Unfortunately, however, it hasn’t always been marked by boldness for he has been all too willing to cave in to his critics. He did so when M Karunanidhi threatened to withdraw support over the disinvestments of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, and he was blocked by the Left over pension fund reforms, FDI in retail, privatisation of airports and so on. What is worse, he was even hustled by the condemnation of reforms by a relatively junior minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar, into criticising high salaries in the corporate sector although he has never said a word about the amassing of Rs 52 crore by the Congress’s current ally, BSP led by Mayawati.
Manmohan Singh’s submissive attitude may have emboldened Karunanidhi to have his own way in replacing and appointing ministers in the Union cabinet, thereby confirming that the Prime Minister’s traditional prerogative in this field is no longer operative in the coalition age. Although Atal Behari Vajpayee, too, had to bow to the dictates of Bal Thackeray in the matter of ministers from the Shiv Sena, one doesn’t expect the Grand Old Party to act in the same manner as a new entrant to the corridors of power in Delhi like the BJP.
If the Prime Minister has been less than assertive where politics is concerned, it can be ascribed to the fact that he has never been a heavyweight in this field. But even where he has an advantage over his political colleagues, as in economics, he has still chosen to maintain a low profile. As such, he has never cared to explain the rationale behind the reforms although there is no one more qualified than him in the political establishment to do so. Such an exercise would have shown that even he is unable to implement certain policies because of political constraints, he has no misgivings about the path which the country should follow.
Instead, the Prime Minister seems almost apologetic about the high growth rate. For instance, when Mexican President Felipe Calderon, also an economist, asked him during the G-8 summit how India could achieve such a rate, Manmohan Singh seemed more interested in pointing out that there was still a great deal of poverty in India. So, back in India, it was left to West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee to say that he considered the criticism of “neo-liberal” policies by the Leftist economists as “academic” since they were out of touch with the reality.
