The sources said the decision on the memorial has been conveyed to the Congress, but added that it will take a few days to find an appropriate venue for building a memorial.
Dec 28, 2024 07:30 IST First published on: Dec 28, 2024 at 07:30 IST
In June 2021, shortly after joining the Rajya Sabha, I had a conversation with former Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh. When he learned of my CPI(M) affiliation, though frail, but in a resolute tone he remarked, “UPA-I is the role model for any government”. This coalition, supported externally by my party, owed much to the efforts of my leaders like Harkishan Singh Surjeet and Jyoti Basu. However, it was Dr Singh’s accommodative leadership that steered UPA-I through the choppy waters of the 2000s.
It was an unlikely combo. The Left — the bulk of whose support came from Bengal, Kerala and Tripura — had won 63 seats in Lok Sabha primarily on an anti-Congress plank. Singh was the quintessential reforms man who believed capitalism could lift millions out of poverty. Yet, the unlikely partners came together to keep the BJP at bay. It lasted while it lasted primarily because of the moral high ground he enjoyed and his sincerity in taking Left’s concerns seriously.
I couldn’t help recalling the turbulent days of the India-US nuclear deal that rocked UPA-I and eventually led to the alliance’s downfall. I was part of the media delegation that accompanied him to the US where he engaged in talks with then-President George W. Bush to push forward the deal. Despite my affiliation with the Left, which vehemently opposed the agreement, Singh included me in his entourage. Shortly after returning, he also gave an interview with Kairali TV, which I led, in his efforts to reach out to the Left. It was evident to me then that he was a shrewd political strategist.
Why did Singh cite UPA-I as a model and not UPA-II? The answer lies in the 2008 fallout over the nuclear deal, which led to the Left withdrawing support. The Congress-led government that returned in 2009, without Left support, was soon plagued by corruption and plunged into chaos. It quickly lost its moral authority. In hindsight, sidelining the Left was a costly mistake that left UPA-II vulnerable. It paved the way for the BJP’s rise to power.
Under UPA-I, with the Left’s influence, Singh’s government introduced transformative measures: MGNREGA, RTI, food security, the Right to Education, and tribal rights initiatives. These policies are aimed at reducing inequalities. They were meant as a counterbalance to liberalisation, which the Left had warned would only help create new oligarchies. These concerns proved prescient, as oligarchs have since exerted tremendous influence over successive governments. Though ideological differences over liberalisation created friction with the Left, the debate remained respectful and focused on policy, a far cry from today’s personal tirades. Those who thrive primarily in launching personal tirades against political opponents could very well take notes from those years.
One can’t help wondering if we would have been living in a different India had UPA-I survived. I want to play the Devil’s Advocate here: Was the risk that Singh took in alienating the Left worth it? And more importantly, did he or Congress gain anything out of this? True, Congress was not the only one who took the hit, the Left also suffered setbacks. But the downward spiral of the UPA without the Left’s guidance was quite astonishing. It came back to power in 2009 — on the back of policies it followed thanks to the Left’s interventions — but began to rot within months. As for the nuclear deal that was supposed to end India’s nuclear isolation with the US supplying nuclear technology and fuel, hardly anything tangible came out of it.
The decision to sever ties with the Left made the Singh-led government in its second term vulnerable to attacks. It lost its way in the face of an anti-graft movement that eventually opened the doors for the BJP to return to power and work towards establishing a majoritarian rule. The exclusion of the Left was a costly misstep, leading to instability and a loss of public trust.
most read
But Singh’s equanimity and integrity set him apart in Indian politics. Despite personal attacks, including harsh remarks from figures like L K Advani, Singh maintained his composure. Contrary to the “Maunmohan Singh” label, he was far from silent. Between 2004 and 2014, he held numerous press conferences and engaged openly with the media. During that period, he spoke to the press on his foreign trips 72 times, besides holding annual pressers 10 times and on state visits on 23 occasions. Unlike many contemporary leaders who rely on theatrics to distract from core issues, Singh’s focus remained on substantive governance. His critique of demonetisation in Parliament was particularly striking, as his warnings about its consequences proved prophetic. He had called it a monumental mismanagement.
The Left has always championed democracy, secularism, and federalism — principles Singh upheld throughout his tenure. For his unwavering focus on governance and national unity, history will undoubtedly be kinder to him. Lal Salam, Dr Singh.
The writer is a CPI(M) member of the Rajya Sabha
Why should you buy our Subscription?
You want to be the smartest in the room.
You want access to our award-winning journalism.
You don’t want to be misled and misinformed.
Choose your subscription package
