By – Amar Yumnam
Imphal, Dec 30:
As a student of Economics, while sharing the global grief of the loss of Dr Manmohan Singh, the name of the former Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao necessarily comes up. It was the wonderfully insightful political leadership of Narasimha Rao that brought Dr Manmohan Singh into the political arena of India and the nation benefitted out of it. In 1991, India faced a severe economic crisis that was way out of the perception of a traditional politician and it certainly called for a specialist from the discipline of Economics to analyse and evolve policies. Here we find two beauties of the Indian democracy. First, PM Rao was looking for solving the economic crisis in absolutely certain terms and without in any way looking for serving his personal political interests; he put the national economic crisis as the sole crisis needing undiluted attention. Second, in Dr Manmohan Singh we had an Economist who was fully committed professionally in working out a solution to the contemporary economic crisis of India; this he did without in any way looking for any potential political interests. So, the crisis gave India a Prime Minister looking for an unmixed solution and an Economist professionally competent to serve the position of Finance Minister in a critical time of the country.
Here it would enhance our contextual understanding if we recall what Amartya Sen, in the telephonic interview with V K Ramachandran after winning the Nobel prize, says: “Economics is about understanding better the nature of the world – the economic world, the social world, and to some extent the ethical world – in which we live. It is a matter of trying to gain a better grip on the things that affect our lives; achievement in economics is not like a new discovery in physics or the discovery of a new medicine, which are the kinds of things which physicists or medical scientists could be honoured.” Dr Manmohan Singh turns out to be the Political-Economist India was looking for politically as well as professionally given the contextual crisis of 1991.
In Dr Manmohan Singh, the nation had a Leader who could promptly digest the socio-politico-economic diversity of India and in which easily pick up the issues being faced at the lowest strata – both spatially and demographically. A few uniqueness in his governance would be illuminating. First, his inclusive approach is wonderful.
It serves the twin purposes inter alia of making the people of the North East India feel as participants in the national decision-making process while at the same time allowing the region raise issues purely from the contextual perspective; these are qualities long expected and necessitated by a large and diverse country like India. Here we may recall two instances. In one case we had people from the region as Members of various national bodies. In another instance, he saw to it that the perspectives and expectations of the people from the region are listened to and digested before visiting the South East and the East Asia; before visiting these regions, he would see to it that some individuals are invited and interacted by his official staff before any journey begins. In an absolutely democratic way, he followed these practices not as one-time political showmanship but, in every instance, when the occasion arose.
Second, his restoration of the national pride among the Manipuris was a one-stroke diamond-hitting. The people of the State of Manipur had been demanding the restoration of the Seat of Civilisation of Manipur (The Kangla) to the people which necessitated the vacation of the place by the Indian security forces. Dr Manmohan Singh made this happen. Further, the application of a peculiar law (the Armed Forces Special Powers Act), under which any personnel of the army could kill anyone without explanation and accountability, to Manipur had long been a core point of anger for the masses. It was under the direction of him that the imposition of this law was removed from the valley of Manipur.
Third, the culmination of interplay of two qualities of academic and political in a singular person and that too being manifested in a backward region can be seen in his relationship with the Manipur University. Initially this university was a state university under the government of Manipur. There was once a Vice Chancellor who was found to be very incompetent academically and otherwise; he was ultimately removed on collective protests from the university community. But there was a problem of Rs. 50 lakhs which could not be properly accounted for. This kept causing problems to the university, and it was brought to the knowledge of Dr Manmohan Singh on his visit to the university; the very next day the State Government of Manipur informed the university of treating the problem as resolved. Ultimately, Manipur University became a Central University.
In Dr Manmohan Singh, the nation had a Leader who could evolve Schumpeterian “adaptive innovations” to address any newly arising issue and without in any way looking for personal interests. Jean Blondel wrote in 1987 that “views about political leadership have begun to change. They are changing in part because the role of leadership itself has altered as a result of the major emphasis given, in the contemporary world, to social and economic development; they are changing also because, as a result, leadership has come to be viewed more positively, more constructively, than in the past; and they are changing, though more slowly, because a close examination of the impact of leaders has made the traditional dichotomy between heroes and ‘ordinary’ leaders seem increasingly unrealistic, as increasingly unrealistic as seems the dichotomy between those who believe in the ‘great men’ theory of history and those who feel that ‘leaders do not matter’.”
Under Dr Manmohan Singh, India started feeling as the initial transformation for the next phase was taking place. But the big QUESTION today is: What is the shared national perception of India of change and development?
