Manmohan Singh was the face of India’s transformation. As Indian minister of finance in the early 1990s, and from 2004 as Indian prime minister for a decade, his reforms loosened excessive state controls, opened up the economy, pulled millions out of poverty and made the West accept the nuclear-armed nation as an ally.
Or at least, that is how his legacy would be remembered globally. However, to my generation of Indians, Singh, who died at 92 on Thursday night in a New Delhi hospital, was above everything else the embodiment of hope. He instilled in us a strong belief that a market economy would work. Not just for a tiny elite in New Delhi and Mumbai, but for a majority scattered across smaller towns and villages, battling against overwhelming odds of economic and educational poverty, and social discrimination.
His own story gave us confidence. A 15-year-old Sikh refugee boy in newly independent India, whose family had fled from Pakistan during the subcontinent’s 1947 partition, he went on to study economics at Oxford and Cambridge, and built an impressive career as a top technocrat. Singh and his colleagues were able to convince us that in a post-socialist, market-led economy, we, too, would be free to chase our dreams. With education and hard work, our lives, too, would be vastly better than our parents’; upward mobility would no longer be an exclusive preserve of the privileged.
Through the 1990s, the reform project stayed on track even as governments changed. However, the promise started to fray during Singh’s second term as prime minister. The unwieldy Congress-led coalition government he ran from 2009 was besieged, from one side, by crony capitalists gorging on debt from state-owned banks only to siphon off money into their Swiss bank accounts. From the other side, it was under attack by a political opposition that blamed Singh’s indecisive leadership for rampant corruption, high inflation, slowing growth and a falling rupee.
“I do not believe that I have been a weak prime minister,” Singh said in one of his last press conferences, just a few months before the Hindu right-wing leader Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party swept the 2014 election. “I honestly believe that history will be kinder to me than the contemporary media or for that matter the opposition in parliament.”
That prediction did not take too long to get tested. In November 2016, Indian Prime Minister Modi banned 86 percent of India’s currency overnight. Singh, who described the move as “organized loot and legalized plunder” said it would crush economic growth. He was right.
With his death, India has been deprived of sage counsel at a time when growth is once again anemic, policymaking has become whimsical, many industries are facing extreme concentration of economic power, the middle class is feeling weighed down by taxation and the poor are being excluded from government programs in the name of plugging leakages. Religious strife is on the rise and politicians of all hues are bribing voters to capture power where they can, without sparing a thought for how best to use national resources for development. After 10 years in the top job, Modi’s personality cult is weakening, but to his supporters, the belief in a prosperous India has become an uncritical act of faith.
That was not the effect Singh intended when, in his first budget speech in 1991, he channeled poet Victor Hugo: “No power on earth can stop an idea whose time has come,” he said. “The emergence of India as a major economic power in the world happens to be one such idea.”
Well, India is now the world’s fifth-largest economy, on track to becoming the third-biggest in a few years. However, that is largely a statistical artifact: a product of extremely unequal growth that is making a tiny section of 1.4 billion people very rich. On average, it is still a lower-middle-income nation with per capita income of US$2,500 last year, nowhere near South Korea’s US$35,000.
South Korea, which used to be as poor as India in the 1960s, inspired Singh’s vision. He could not replicate the “miracle on the Han” in his lifetime. However, a bigger worry is that New Delhi, lurching once again toward protectionist trade policies, is no longer even on the path to that goal. And that would be a shame, if by choosing to replace rational analysis with empty slogans and genuine reforms with nationalistic chest-thumping, the country lets down the memory of its quiet internationalist.
Andy Mukherjee is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering industrial companies and financial services in Asia. Previously, he worked for Reuters, the Straits Times and Bloomberg News.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS