Manmohan Singh: Bharat’s Ratna, a patriot-survivor who persevered

Why has Manmohan Singh’s passing evoked such goodwill? There is obviously affection and regard for him among party and former government colleagues. His long public career and stellar achievements are appreciated even by political opponents.

Yet, while all of this true, for ordinary, perhaps middle-class Indians, Singh’s life and progress epitomised the hope, aspirations, and idyllic belief that we Indians have of our country. At its best, this can be a nursery of opportunity and meritocracy.

From near poverty to the corridors of policy and power, Singh’s life, like that of his successor, is a beacon. Its demonstrative value is not to be discounted in what is still a very unequal society, peopled by a billion relentlessly striving individuals.

In Singh’s case, his rise was also symbolic of the up-from-the-bootstraps resilience of his community. In 1947, millions of refugees came across the border from western (Pakistani) Punjab, with very little but their grit. Certainly, this isn’t the only community with a remarkable story of one or two generation metamorphosis. However, it does represent among the most stirring such collective endeavours in modern history. Singh’s rise to PMO was an important milestone, even capstone, in this journey. The scholar as self-made individual is ever a captivating idea.

Singh’s attainments as FM, as custodian of Indian foreign policy, and as PM have been discussed threadbare. In 1991, he had the political cover of his boss, PV Narasimha Rao. But it would be churlish to deny his personal role. Rao relied a lot on Singh’s credibility as an economist, both within the Indian system and internationally. He was probably the first Indian FM to understand how global finance moved. He was taken seriously not just because he spoke for India, but because his CV spoke for itself.

Few expected him to evolve so surefootedly into a diplomat. In 2004, he recognised the moment before India, economically and in a wider strategic sense. Preparing for his first meeting with President George W Bush, he pointed an official at a briefing to India’s key geopolitical vulnerability. After 1945, China had almost doubled its territory while India had lost a third. It was vital to find the partnerships and linkages to overcome that foundational gap.

Wisely, Singh considered the US relationship as formative. His pursuit of the nuclear deal was a natural corollary. He correctly saw it as a pathway to a plethora of critical technologies and a fundamental shift in the New Delhi-Washington equation. Let alone his coalition partners, even sections of Congress didn’t see his point. Nevertheless, as a patriot, he persevered. The Modi government has taken his legacy further, just as Singh himself built on the Vajpayee years. Such is the silent, unspoken tradition of great nations.

Some critics have called Singh a survivor. While this is narrowly true, the fact is if you want to achieve something in a complex environment, you first need to preserve your longevity. Singh was a pragmatist who chose his battles, and his moment.

Years of training while working amid the civil service and nurturing a network of professional associations in New Delhi and beyond stood him in good stead. They enabled him to pull the right levers at crucial junctures. Don’t underestimate such skills or what they can conjure up. Consider that Singh’s personal capital and deft in isolating the CPI(M) did more to permanently cripple India’s third-largest national party than is conventionally conceded.

Singh’s prime ministerial years were not without flaws and failures. Corruption among his ministers, UPA 2’s incoherence, the humiliating defeat of 2014 from which Congress has still not recovered – for all his attributes, he cannot escape his share of responsibility. The 2009 election – Congress’ 206 seats are still its best performance since 1991 – were at least in part due to an urban/semi-urban trust in Singh. Unfortunately, enough people in his own camp didn’t want to read the message. History beckoned, atrophy arrived.

A missed opportunity of the UPA years entailed not sufficiently acknowledging immediate predecessors and honouring Vajpayee with the Bharat Ratna. There was internal debate. But Singh couldn’t convince the sceptics. Unfortunately, such tetchiness has become structural to the polarised politics of 21st century India. It is holding us back as a nation.

Exactly a month after Singh’s death, India will commemorate Republic Day. A wistful sensibility would hope for the Modi government to take an expansive, large-hearted call and name Singh for India’s highest honour. The elevated spirit might be episodic, temporary, and unreciprocated. The pride, prejudice and partisanship might remain just as cussed. Even so, it would be worth a shot.