'A man who brought about the greatest set of economic reforms in the country, who changed the course of Indian history, cannot be considered weak.'
'A man who fought for nuclear reforms even though his majority in Parliament was threatened, he cannot be considered weak.'
What is the legacy left behind by Dr Manmohan Singh, one of the most under-rated prime ministers of India? How will India of the present and future remember him?
Remembering Dr Singh is K M Chandrasekhar, who worked closely with him from 2007 to 2011 as Cabinet secretary when Dr Singh was prime minister.
"Posterity will regard him as the maker of modern India. If we are today a global power, it is mainly due to the decisions he took in diverse spheres," Mr Chandrasekhar tells Rediff.com's Shobha Warrier.
You worked closely with Dr Manmohan Singh for many years. Do you remember your first meeting with him?
My first meeting with him was in Trivandrum in 1994 when I was Kerala's finance secretary and he was the central finance minister.
At that time, he appeared stiff and formal to me, an impression that was entirely belied even while I was still in Kerala.
You were Cabinet secretary from 2007 to 2011. How were your interactions with him when he was prime minister?
My interactions with him were friendly, at the same time business-like.
As he had good knowledge of all that was going on in the country in diverse areas, I had to prepare myself carefully for each of my weekly meetings.
Did he appear to be more of an economist than a politician?
If you mean, was he pedantic in his approach to issues, no. Manmohan Singh was a political economist and had wide knowledge of the country and of global developments.
Did you get the feeling that he was a 'weak' prime minister like the Opposition painted him out to be?
Well, a man who brought about the greatest set of economic reforms in the country, who changed the course of Indian history, cannot be considered weak.
A man who fought for nuclear reforms even though his majority in Parliament was threatened, he cannot be considered weak.
Strength does not mean throwing your weight about, boasting endlessly and treating political opponents and well-meaning bureaucrats and media persons as enemies to be trampled upon and crushed.
A prime minister in a democracy cannot be a tyrant to prove 'strength'.
What difference did you see in him as the PM of UPA1 and then of UPA2?
I was with him only in the last two years of UPA 1 and the first two years of UPA 2.
I felt he seemed a bit tired, a bit uncertain in UPA 2.
The confidence with which he handled issues in UPA 1 was missing in UPA 2.
Though UPA1 was a huge success, UPA 2 was full of scams and scandals. How upset was he about the corruption his ministers were allegedly indulging in? Did you have any conversations about this?
It is now clear, after the acquittal of all accused in the 2G case, that it was a 'scam' built up by the CAG.
As Anil Swarup, a subsequent coal secretary, wrote in his first book, the coal 'scam' figures were inflated without any basis by the CAG.
Also, political opposition was built up using the Lok Pal issue as is clear from the fact that the Lok Pal constituted by the present government is virtually non-functional.
I do not, therefore, agree with the notion that UPA-2 was excessively corrupt.
The impression was that he could not control his ministers. Was it true?
Manmohan Singh was a consensus builder, not one who wanted to impose his will on all and sundry, including his ministers.
This is how a PM should work in a democracy.
The PM is first among ministers, not a dictator.
Whenever decisions needed to be taken, he took them after democratic consultation.
You were made in charge of the Commonwealth Games when it was riddled in a corruption scandal. Did he personally ask you to take charge?
As the Commonwealth Games were slipping out of control due to ineffective performance by multiple agencies, he told me to take over control about a couple of months before the event.
I appointed, with his permission, capable joint secretaries and additional secretaries, each in charge of one venue, and they delivered results.
He once said, 'History will be kinder to me than contemporary India.' How do you think history will remember him?
Yes, I think posterity will regard him as the maker of modern India.
If we are today a global power, it is mainly due to the decisions he took in diverse spheres.
The reforms he introduced would be on par with the Meiji Restoration in Japan, the Industrial Revolution in Europe, and the China makeover by Deng Xiaoping.
As he was not by temperament a person who would go around blowing his own trumpet, he was under-rated in his lifetime but will be lauded by posterity.
Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff.com
© 2025 Rediff.com -