Opinion | Remembering Manmohan Singh
The nation will forever hold Dr. Manmohan Singh in gratitude — a patriot who served with quiet dignity and unwavering commitment to India’s progress
I was still in school when I watched a parliamentary debate that left a lasting impression on me. It was a moment that showcased the rare blend of wit, intellect, and grace in Indian politics. Sushma Swaraj, the leader of the Opposition, recited a biting couplet by Firaq Jalapuri to question the government:
तू इधर उधर की न बात कर ये बता कि क़ाफ़िला क्यूँ लुटा,
related stories
मुझे रहज़नों से गिला नहीं तिरी रहबरी का सवाल है।
The sharpness of her critique filled the room, demanding answers with poetic elegance. Dr. Manmohan Singh, known for his calm demeanor, responded with quiet strength, quoting another couplet:
माना कि तेरी दीद के क़ाबिल नहीं हूँ मैं,
तू मेरा शौक़ देख, मेरा इंतिज़ार देख।
In those few lines, the exchange captured the essence of parliamentary debate—spirited, sharp, but deeply respectful. Moments like these made parliamentary debates interesting.
A lot is being written about Dr Manmohan Singh. He was India’s third-longest-serving prime minister. His career spanned critical roles in economic administration, including Chief Economic Advisor, Secretary of Economic Affairs, Member Secretary and later Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission. As Finance Minister in 1991, during India’s balance of payments crisis, Singh implemented structural reforms that dismantled decades of protectionism, liberalised trade and investment regimes, and positioned India on a trajectory of sustained economic growth. His tenure as RBI Governor emphasized monetary stability, while his leadership at the South Commission in Geneva advanced principles of South-South cooperation.
However, one of his biggest achievements and legacy according to me was the India-US Civil Nuclear Deal. His leadership during the India–US Civil Nuclear Agreement negotiations (2005–2008) showcased his ability to navigate both international diplomacy and domestic political turmoil. The deal, designed to provide India access to civilian nuclear technology and fuel from the United States, was critical to addressing India’s growing energy needs while ending decades of nuclear isolation.
However, it was met with fierce resistance domestically. Critics within his government and outside argued that the agreement compromised India’s sovereignty by aligning too closely with the United States and raised concerns about potential restrictions on India’s strategic nuclear program. The Left Front, a key coalition partner of UPA-1, withdrew support from Singh’s government, citing ideological objections and the deal’s perceived threat to India’s independent foreign policy.
Despite these challenges, Singh remained steadfast. He emphasised the long-term strategic and energy benefits of the agreement, arguing that it was essential for India’s future growth. His government narrowly survived a confidence vote in Parliament, with Singh leveraging key political alliances, including securing the Samajwadi Party’s support. Internationally, Singh’s negotiations with US President George W. Bush were pivotal. The deal required amendments to US domestic laws, including the Hyde Act, and exemptions for India from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which traditionally prohibited nuclear trade with non-NPT signatories. Singh’s efforts culminated in the deal’s signing on October 10, 2008.
The deal ended India’s nuclear isolation by securing an unprecedented waiver from the NSG, allowing India access to nuclear technology and fuel markets. This facilitated the expansion of India’s civilian nuclear energy program, critical for diversifying energy sources and reducing dependence on fossil fuels. The agreement strengthened India-US strategic ties, enabling subsequent technology transfers and defence collaborations. It also catalysed similar nuclear agreements with France and other nations, integrating India into the global nuclear order. Domestically, it positioned nuclear energy as a key component of India’s energy mix, critical for sustaining economic growth amidst rising power demand. The deal remains a cornerstone of India’s energy and foreign policy strategy.
However, Dr. Singh was often ridiculed, not for his competence or his achievements, but for his silences — silences that came to overshadow his legacy as Prime Minister. Despite being one of the architects of India’s economic reforms and leading the nation through some of its most prosperous years, his tenure became defined by what he didn’t say, by the moments when he chose to remain quiet.
There was his silence in the face of corruption scandals that shook the nation’s faith in its leadership — scandals like the 2G spectrum case and the Commonwealth Games fiasco. These moments were moral crises that demanded a voice, a stand, and a clear rejection from the man at the top. But Dr. Singh, bound by the fragile threads of coalition politics, remained silent. For the public, this silence felt like complicity, a quiet acceptance of the erosion of trust and accountability.
Then there was his silence as the National Advisory Council (NAC), headed by the AICC President, emerged as a parallel authority. Policies that shaped the nation’s trajectory seemed to originate from a power centre outside his office, casting a long shadow over his authority. To many, it seemed as though Dr. Singh, despite holding the highest office in the land, was not truly in control. His silence in the face of this dual power structure was seen not as humility, but as a painful surrender.
And perhaps most poignantly, there was the silence about the actions taken in his name — compromises made to hold the coalition together, decisions driven by political expediency rather than conviction. These compromises often betrayed the very principles Dr. Singh was known for, leaving many to wonder if the man who had once been a symbol of reform and integrity had become a prisoner of the system he was tasked to lead.
Looking back, these silences weren’t the result of indifference or weakness — they were the burden of a man trying to navigate a deeply flawed political reality. Dr. Singh was a leader of immense intellect and unquestionable integrity, but he was caught in a storm of contradictions. His silence, once seen as dignity and restraint, became a source of heartbreak, a reminder of how even the most principled leaders can be constrained by the system around them. It wasn’t just his silence that hurt — it was the realisation that his voice, even when needed most, was stifled by forces beyond his control.
The nation will forever hold Dr. Manmohan Singh in gratitude — a patriot who served with quiet dignity and unwavering commitment to India’s progress. He was the architect of the 1991 economic reforms that freed millions from the grip of stagnation, giving India a new economic destiny. He widened the social safety net, ensuring that the poorest had hope through initiatives like MGNREGA. He braved political storms to secure the India-US Civil Nuclear Deal, giving India energy security and a place of honour in the global order.
Aditya Sinha (X: @adityasinha004) is a public policy professional. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
- Location :
- First Published: