Manmohanomics is 'Make in India'

Manmohan Singh was being hard on himself when he sought a 'kinder judgement from history' than contemporary observers. His contribution to nation-building is evident, and has been celebrated during his lifetime within India and across the world. No greater testament can be obtained than in the policies of his successor that have been built on the bedrock Singh laid, first as finance minister in the 1990s, and then as prime minister a decade later. India's engagement with the world is the result of Singh's vision of its economic prowess and its demeanour on the international stage. In a single year, Singh hosted leaders of every member of the UN Security Council shortly after he secured for the country access to nuclear energy without signing up for weapons non-proliferation with the India-US civil nuclear deal. The world knew who they were up against in the self-effacing politician with a brilliant grasp on economics.

More contemporary testimony would have been available to Singh in economic liberalisation not having traversed much beyond the limits he tested. India's factor markets have remained fairly resistant to reform despite a decade of strong political leadership under Narendra Modi after Singh's coalition-era politics. This may have shaved off some of the economy's potential to grow. But India is far more resilient in a crisis, and is consistently contributing to global economic growth - the idea whose time has come, according to Singh's 1991 prophecy. Social welfare has, however, progressed within this limitation through the current government's decisive action on a mosaic of entitlements over food, livelihood and education spread out - and using tools of delivery like Aadhaar crafted - by Singh. India's strategic alignment has also progressed further from turning points in India-US relations and birth of the Quad during Singh's tenure. The neighbourhood, however, suffers for not moving further towards his vision as a survivor of Partition of making borders irrelevant.

Singh's singular weakness - and the reason for his claim of justice in the future - stems from his inability to keep a fractious coalition in line. To be fair, he did that by serving as prime minister for two consecutive terms, not a common feat in Indian politics. Governance suffered in the bargain, which led to the rout of Congress whose apparatus had placed him in the top job. Singh was an outsider, brought in as finance minister and prime minister through unanticipated telephone calls. India's feisty politics is not for the faint of heart. But Singh took his job of keeping his flock together seriously enough for a technocrat. Arguably, one can grow into the job. Yet, his personal integrity was unequal to the task of curbing corruption in the government that led to 'policy paralysis', including over politically-sensitive inflation. Some of the criticism was underserved as established later by the courts. But the damage to Congress was considerable.

Individually, Singh's achievements speak to India's meritocracy, and liberal and secular values. Probity, mindfulness and manners do make a difference. That the country can progress with a 'reluctant leader' at its helm is an exception for a developing economy in a hurry. Singh speeded things along from the 'Hindu rate of growth', but didn't catch up with the scorching pace of Asia's tiger economies. Neither did he have the means, nor do his successors. India may very well be on course to growing old before it becomes rich. But it has shed some of its historical shackles due to Singh's efforts. In Singh, India reassures itself it has the talent to fix its own problems. Manmohanomics is a 'Make in India' construct that the developing world can follow to its benefit.