Manmohan Singh Is Not The only One At Fault

When you takeover a situation in tatters, any small positive thing you do is an improvement. You get a lot of credit (even the undeserved kind). Just ask Nitish Kumar. When PV Narsimha Rao took over as PM, the Indian economy was in tatters. He offered the job to IG Patel and then to Manmohan Singh (when Patel refused). India had, has and always will have tremendous potential which will remain untapped. Manmohan Singh did the obvious (PVNR gave him a carte blanche and stepped aside) and India’s economic recovery began. The myth of Manmohan Singh was thus born. His personal honesty cemented that image. Everyone ignored the fact that this man had never won an open election. The guy is a non politician and thus unfit to lead a country. It was obvious to all who could read beyond the doctored news and opinions of pseudo-secular press.


The press, liberals and the brainwashed voters (while the BJP was running a disastrous 2004 campaign) were looking for a secular and honest man (reminds you of Nitish Kumar’s description of himself, doesn’t it?). Manmohan Singh became Congress’ Trojan horse. All of India was happy that an honest man who is the architect of the modern Indian economy had become the PM instead of Sonia Gandhi. It started becoming clear (to a few people) that the real power was still with Gandhi family while MMS was powerless to run things on his own. It also became clear that MMS could not take advantage of our economic surge and put us over the top. I am a scientist and not an economist so I will quote Sadanand Dhume (he writes for American Enterprise Institute which is a conservative think tank with focus on Economy). In a recent article he says the following:


Eight years into Singh's term, however, the script has gone horribly awry. The vaunted economist's government has taken the sheen off the economy and India's Mr. Clean sits atop a mountain of dirt that has sparked the largest nationwide anti-corruption protests in a generation.
Between 2005 and 2010, India pulled 40 million people out of poverty. According to India's Planning Commission, the poverty rate declined from 37.2 percent to 29.8 percent over the same period. But, as the University of Chicago's Raghuram Rajan points out, the Singh government deserves little credit for this high growth or the poverty alleviation that accompanied it. For the most part, India simply rode a combination of the momentum created by previous reforms and a buoyant global economy.


Of course, Montek and Manmohan redefined poor as someone who made less that Rs. 32 per day. That would explain the number as well. Dhume goes on to say:


To his critics, Singh's flagship economic program -- which promises 100 days of government-provided work a year for any villager who wants it -- has become a byword for populist profligacy. Predictably enough, for a country ranked 95th out of 183 on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index -- below authoritarian China and luckless Zambia -- the program is known to be riddled with graft.


Of course a lot of the social programs are being run at Sonia’s behest who was trying to ensure a victory for her son in 2014. I don’t think that MMS and Montek Singh are the beholden to socialist causes. On that topic, Dhume says:


In terms of politics, it makes no sense to divide political and administrative power, as between Gandhi and Singh. As in other parliamentary democracies, and for most of India's history as an independent country, the top job should go to the country's most powerful politician. Had the populist Gandhi -- reportedly unsure of her policy smarts and wishing to tamp down controversy over her Italian birth -- not handed Singh the reins of government, most people wouldn't have made the mistake of expecting reforms to begin with. They will remain implausible as long as Gandhi remains wedded to the idea that India needs welfare programs more than it needs jobs.


Dhume is being nice. Sonia Gandhi is powerful as long as she is protected from direct politicking. She hides behind the party machinery, takes credit for things that work and passes on the blame to MMS. Ramachandra Guha who obfuscates his liberalism under the guise of “fair and apolitical assessment (guess who his favorite politician is – Nitish Kumar) and has rarely taken Congress and the Gandhi family to task, said the following in an article last year:


By the standards of Indian politics both Singh and Ms Gandhi are decent people. Neither is sectarian, and both, I believe, have a genuine concern for the welfare of their compatriots. But the weakness of the one and the insecurity of the other have combined to produce an administration that is inept and incompetent beyond words. This has deeply damaged the credibility of Singh and Ms Gandhi, the credibility of the Congress, and the credibility of the republic of India itself.


But is Manmohan Singh entirely to be blamed for this mess? There are others who are equally responsible. I will address that in a later blog.


The various articles mentioned are as follows:
http://thenethindu.blogspot.com/2010/12/pv-narsimha-rao-versus-congress.html
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?269743
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/09/india_singhs_the_blues?page=full
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110702/jsp/opinion/story_14107197.jsp