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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS