The Dashed Promise of the Manmohan Singh Years

Manmohan Singh, India’s 13th prime minister, died Thursday at age 92 at a hospital in New Delhi. An Oxford- and Cambridge-educated economist, Singh was a quiet intellectual and a calculating risk-taker who played a pivotal role in reshaping modern India’s economic and geopolitical landscape—first as its finance minister in the 1990s and later as Prime Minister in the 2000s. Before entering politics, Singh built a reputation in the 1970s and 1980s as an incorruptible and effective bureaucrat, tackling inflation and reforming India’s monetary policy. Yet, when he was unexpectedly elevated to the premiership after the Congress Party’s surprise 2004 election victory, Singh often seemed like a character out of Dostoevsky, possessing the integrity and idealism of Alyosha Karamazov but ultimately cast in the role of Prince Myshkin, an honorable man unable—or perhaps unwilling—to confront the corruption and dysfunction that surrounded him.

Manmohan Singh first rose to prominence as India’s finance minister in the 1990s, partnering with Prime Minister Narasimha Rao to enact sweeping reforms in the landmark 1991 budget. Famously quoting Victor Hugo, “No power on earth can stop an idea whose time has come”—Singh ushered in a new economic era, ending India’s reliance on Soviet-style five year plans, dismantling the bureaucratic permit-raj, slashing tariffs, and opening the economy to foreign investment. Facing fierce opposition from skeptics and socialists within their party, Singh and Rao defended liberalization as essential for India’s survival. Even today Singh is a revered figure in the heart of many Indians as the architect of reforms that expanded the middle class and provided economic mobility for millions of Indians. 

After Rao’s government fell in 1996, the BJP-led Indian government carried Singh and Rao’s liberalization policies forward. Although the BJP was able to improve the economy and create the conditions for the tech boom of the 2000s, the Congress party’s superior election strategy won back control of the Indian parliament in the 2004 general election. Singh lacked the political instincts or the charisma that typically define Indian politicians—he lost the only election he fought in 1999. It was his technocratic credentials and reputation for integrity that made him the perfect choice to lead the government. 

Another reason for Singh’s selection was to assuage concerns about Congress’s President Sonia Gandhi’s foreign origins—she was born in Italy and had married into the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty that ruled India for decades. Singh was viewed by critics as a technocratic figurehead who would execute decisions made by the Congress high command. His lack of an independent political base left his government vulnerable to the whims of coalition politics and special interests.

Singh presided over an economic boom in his first term 2004–2009, which was driven by the momentum of earlier reforms. GDP growth averaged over 8 percent annually, and India began to be seen as an economic powerhouse. Singh also pushed for structural welfare reforms, including national ID cards to streamline government services, reduce corruption, and ensure benefits directly reached the country’s poorest and most vulnerable citizens.

Critics argued that the economic reforms of 1991 were driven more by necessity than conviction, compelled by a balance-of-payments crisis and pressure from the IMF. His accomplishments as prime minister were attributed to favorable global economic trends and the continuation of policies implemented during the BJP’s 1998–2004 term, rather than any bold and transformative vision of his own. Still, Singh earned recognition for his steady hand and pragmatism, particularly for shielding India from the worst impacts of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. 

The narrative of Singh’s second term (2009–2014) was dominated by scandals and loss of public trust. High-profile corruption cases tarnished his reputation for administrative competence and sparked a massive anti-corruption movement across India. Singh’s defenders argued that he was personally incorruptible, but his inability—or unwillingness—to confront wrongdoing within his party highlighted his limitations as a leader. His deference to Sonia Gandhi and the Congress Party leadership often left him looking weak and ineffectual. His reserved and introverted demeanor often made him appear aloof, and he frequently struggled with public speeches, characterized by an academic tone from his time abroad.

The economic slowdown that accompanied these scandals further eroded Singh’s legacy. Growth rates fell, inflation surged, and investor confidence waned. The rupee depreciated sharply, and India was once again labeled a fragile economy. Critics blamed Singh’s lack of political will for failing to push through the next wave of reforms needed to sustain growth.

Singh’s tenure wasn’t without accomplishments. His efforts to improve relations with the United States culminated in the landmark India-U.S. nuclear deal, which ended India’s nuclear isolation. This breakthrough was the result of deft diplomatic negotiations by Singh, resulting in India’s recognition as a responsible nuclear power—allowing it to pursue civilian nuclear technology without signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Singh had to navigate the pressures of political and public opposition once again, ultimately prevailing against opposition from both the Indian left and right.  

Singh made concerted efforts to establish peace with Pakistan, engaging in back-channel talks to defuse decades of hostility. Singh’s personal background—he was born in a village in Punjab that became part of Pakistan after partition—and peace overtures raised hopes that the two countries would abandon the hostility that had previously characterized Indo–Pakistani relations.

The 2008 Mumbai terror attacks shattered all hopes of progress. Armed terrorists trained and directed by Pakistan’s ISI rampaged through Mumbai with automatic weapons and bombs, killing hundreds of Indians. The brutality of the attacks shocked the nation and the world. Singh’s government faced enormous pressure to retaliate militarily, but he chose restraint over escalation, once again demonstrating his characteristic resolve. While his decision was applauded by some as an act of statesmanship, many Indians criticized it as a failure to deliver justice.

The attacks exposed Pakistan’s complicity in harboring terrorists and strained bilateral relations beyond repair. They also revealed weaknesses in India’s security apparatus, underscoring Singh’s negligence of defense reforms and intelligence failures. Singh’s aspirations for regional peace collapsed and his vision of “breakfast in Amritsar, lunch in Lahore, and dinner in Kabul” was replaced by renewed distrust and diplomatic setbacks, as terrorist bombings plagued his second term. 

Singh, for his virtues, showed the limits of a figurehead in a system driven by patronage and populism. As a reformer, he helped shepherd India’s economy from the brink of collapse, yet his tenure as prime minister failed to sustain that momentum. He was a symbol of integrity, yet presided over one of the most corruption-ridden administrations in Indian history. He was a respected economist, but struggled to implement policies to address inflation and unemployment as the head of government.

Singh’s defenders often portray him as a victim of circumstance—a brilliant and honest man forced to tread the muddy waters of coalition politics and internal party rivalries. His critics see him as a pushover who lacked the vision and authority to steer India through its challenges. Manmohan Singh’s impact on India’s economic transformation is undeniable, but his legacy as prime minister is one of early promise, ultimately clouded by political drift and unfulfilled potential.

The post The Dashed Promise of the Manmohan Singh Years appeared first on The American Conservative.