Dr. Manmohan Singh - A Tempestuous Tenure 9819218048, 9833814223

Citation preview

Dr. Manmohan Singh A Tempestuous Tenure

Written by Sujay Shastri and Aashay Gune

Contact: Sujay Shastri B-301, Vasant Park, Thakurli, Dombivali (East), District Thane – 421201 9819218048 [email protected] Aashay Gune 101, Nisargdeo Society, Opposite Saraswat Bank, Swami Nityanand Marg, Panvel, Navi Mumbai – 410206 9833814223 [email protected] Cover Image Credits: Pradip Mhapsekar

Prologue In the Sixties, the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru opted for Non-Alignment as a principle for India's Foreign Policy. India chose not to support the United States or the Soviet Union, and this step assured her a place of respect among the World Nations. There was courteousness in Nehru's personality, and it was valued everywhere. Additionally, it had the morality, culture, modesty, scholarship and rationalism which is very much essential in politics. As a result, Nehru was not only a popular figure in India but also was an influential leader at the global level. His comprehensive view of International Affairs and his direct friendship with Leaders of various Nations gave India an ideal place in World Politics. During his time, the country did not dream of becoming an economic superpower. The media also did not cultivate any such sentiment. Rather the point of discussion was whether India's unity and secularism would stand the test of time. The discussion was also on whether India would overcome the poverty and unemployment that had engulfed her and whether she would become successful in achieving progress in Science and Technology. It has been six decades since Independence, and we have made advances in many fields. A lot still needs to be accomplished. Till 2004, social inequality, terrorism and caste issues greatly influenced Indian politics. The Nation lacked an efficient leadership that could navigate it through economic matters. When Dr Manmohan Singh took over as the Prime Minister in 2004, the country expressed a sentiment that it now had a serene, cultured and a scholarly leadership at the top. The Media, Corporate Houses and Business Leaders also expressed a similar sentiment. They felt that the economic problems of the country were now under an able ‘doctor', and hence the country would march towards rapid economic progress. There were speculations that after China, India would also become an economic superpower.

However, the Prime Minister of India is always at the tip of an erupting volcano. There are the seeds of hatred and jealousy below this seat, waiting to sprout at any given moment! On becoming the Prime Minister, Dr Singh became a villain in the eyes of the BJP. And for the unsatisfied traditional leaders within the Congress, he became a major political hindrance! In the later years, he became a topic of mockery for the media. This book is not a biography of Dr Singh. Instead, it is a small attempt to review his stint as a scholarly economist; as the Finance Minister of the country for five years; as the Prime Minister of the country for ten years and an able administrator for forty years. This book is also a review of all the political difficulties, plots, conspiracies that he had to face as a Prime Minister. Additionally, the book also attempts to explore the storms of corruption and the associated baseless allegations that were purposely initiated to malign his image! Dr Manmohan Singh's foreign policy, which is an independent topic of study, also finds a place in this book. Dr Singh faced many allegations at home. However, he had resolved to uphold India's image at the global platform, and he was successful in doing so. In the twenty odd years of his political stint, he managed to paint a positive picture of India on the global canvas and was successful in portraying India as a large marketplace and an economic powerhouse. It is for this that the world today sees India progressing with the likes of the United States, China, Europe and Japan. Apart from reviewing the political tenure of Dr Singh, the book also attempts to portray that it is possible to rock the Prime Minister's chair by taking the help of the establishment. All the content in the book is a result of an extensive study of newspaper articles, columns on political and economic issues in

leading English, Marathi and Hindi newspapers, certain important books, write-ups on the Internet, discussions on Social media forums and panel discussions on electronic media. There are also references from the articles that I wrote in ‘Dainik Divya Marathi.' I must admit that I faced an extreme paucity of time while writing this book. Hence this book does not consist of personal interviews with people who personally know or associate with Dr Singh. And this is an accepted limitation of this book. The content in this book is about political instances and that could experience contradiction with the passage of time. That would depend on how the politics in the country takes its course in the coming years. However, despite Dr Singh's stormy stint as the Prime Minister, the nation still owes a lot to him for his vision in generating an ambition among the people that India could be an economic superpower. It was Dr Singh's dream to bring India in line with the ‘middle-income group' nations. Though this dream did not fully materialize during his stint, India can still achieve the same in the coming years if she walks the economic path laid down by him. As we see the nation turning towards an unfortunate anarchy, Dr Singh's vision and his ability to interpret global developments assume a lot of significance and importance. The generation of today and tomorrow will have to understand these to have a profound understanding of national and international affairs. I would like to thank my mentor Mr. Kumar Ketkar, my friends Mr. Shekhar Deshmukh and Mr. Shailendra Devlankar for their valuable cooperation in writing this book. Without their help, it would have been impossible for me to pen down this broad subject. Sujay Shastri

Foreword The representation of Dr. Manmohan Singh's political life can be analogous to a ‘snakes and ladders' board. While he is not a politician in the usual sense, it would be improper to assume that he does not understand politics and the overall political processes. The media has always associated politics with conspiracies, corruption and fraudulent practices and Dr. Singh by this associated definition is not a politician. His staunch critics also do not shower these allegations on him. Dr. Singh on his part is neither bullying nor is self-assertive. No one felt that he would become the Prime Minister. In 2004, the road was clear for Sonia Gandhi to become the Prime Minister. For it was because of her the United Progressive Alliance came to power. However, she declined the position and instead made way for Dr. Singh to accept the position. The nation had a Prime Minister who before this was responsible for giving a new shape and meaning to the modern economic revolution in the country. Dr. Singh was not a politician in the traditional sense of the term. However, he has imbibed in himself the thoughts and practices of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru on the political field of the country. The Congress party has intellectually flourished largely under the thought processes of these two luminaries. However the country today faces a strong anti-Congress wave. The BJP and the media have consistently projected that the nation has achieved nothing since independence and the people of this country are always living in a state of a subjected oppression. And it continues even after the oath taking ceremony of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The BJP used this as a major election plank during its campaign. However, it is a fact that our country has made tremendous progress in the past 67 years. When India became independent, around 8085% of her population was under the poverty line. The figure is now around 25-30%. The country's population then was 35 crores. Now it

is around 135 crores. The middle-class population of the nation was 1-2% of the total population. The same figures are now 35-40%. The country lacked basic equipment. We did not have the technology to manufacture even a small needle. Now we are a proud initiator of ‘Mangalyaan' and ‘Chandrayaan'. The country then was dependent on Western Countries for modern technologies related to food production. The same has been transformed into self-sufficiency now. In the 40 years between 1960 and 2000, many doctors, engineers, computer experts, scientists have migrated from this country and settled in Europe and the United States, occupying high professional positions. Rajiv Gandhi used to refer these people ‘Brain Bank' of the country. The beneficiaries of the development that occurred during the times of Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi are today seen ungratefully criticizing them. But within the slogans of a ‘Congress-Mukt Bharat', the efforts taken to bring the nation to this level of development were overlooked by the same educated middle class of India that was its beneficiary till now. So when Narendra Modi blamed all the Congress leaders from Pandit Nehru to Dr. Manmohan Singh, Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, it was this class of people that cheered and clapped the loudest! These ‘Modi hallucinations' started after the year 2011. The ‘India against Corruption' agitation of Anna Hazare at the Ramleela Grounds and Jantar Mantar successfully ploughed the political land to sow the seeds for Narendra Modi's entry. The political crucifixion of Dr. Manmohan Singh began from that point. RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat and BJP leader Nitin Gadkari later openly declared as to how they had managed the agitation of Anna Hazare. From then till 2014, Dr. Singh faced with all sorts of criticism, ridicule and defamation. This slander went on to attain such a notorious peak that the media conveniently forgot that two years back, the same middle class had projected Dr. Singh as the Hero of modern India. To studiously present the political and economic aspects of Dr. Singh in such a spurious and anarchic situation was a challenge in itself. Sujay began to analyze Dr. Singh's work since the beginning of his

career in journalism. Co-incidentally he became a working journalist around the same time when Dr. Singh became the Prime Minister. So when Mrs. Gandhi conferred the Prime Ministerial position on Dr. Singh, Sujay had begun to take stock of the latter's personality. However, it was also necessary to include the analysis of the year 1991 when Dr. Singh became the Union Finance Minister. There was also need to analyze how Dr. Singh's personality began to flourish from that year and how the economist in him was conferred with political responsibilities despite he not being a politician. It is indeed breathtaking that a Sikh boy from a poor village, that now lies in Pakistan, and with a low-income family background eventually became the Prime Minister of the country. Had P. V Narasimha Rao not appointed him as the Finance Minister, he would have served some bureaucratic position and then retired from public life in the Nineties. No one would have seen him as a political commentator. Some people say that Rajiv Gandhi had decided to confer some important responsibilities on Dr. Singh post the year 1991. But Rajiv was assassinated when the election process was halfway. The other half of the election process was completed post his assassination. In those elections, the Congress secured a maximum of 227 seats. The party decided to elect the Prime Minister through a vote by its elected Members of Parliament. Two leaders threw their hat in the ring. One was P. V Narasimha Rao, and the other was Sharad Pawar. However the latter realized that he had no chance of winning the contest and hence pulled out from the race, making Rao the unopposed choice. Mr. Rao became the Prime Minister after securing support from three to four political parties. Mr. Rao was known to have proximity towards the ‘Leftists' within the Congress party. Additionally, he had a keen inclination towards literature, art, and politics and was a learned scholar. He had participated in the post – independence struggle of Hyderabad against the Nizam and by his political orientations, he was close to Jawaharlal Nehru and Ramanand Teerth. Mr. Rao and Mr. Pawar and all the members of the Congress Working Committee had requested Mrs. Gandhi of accepting the Congress Party's Presidential position and later the nation's Prime Minister.

However, Mrs. Gandhi was firm in her denial, and hence both these posts were occupied by Mr. Rao. In the later years, Sitaram Kesari became the Party President. So it can be said that Mrs. Gandhi declined becoming the Prime Minister twice – once in 1991 and later in 2004. Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated in the year 1991. The two years that preceded his death marked an abnormal sensation at the global level. It could also be said that Rajiv Gandhi's assassination was one of the disconsolate tragedies that formed a part of these events. This tragedy also gave a twist to the politics at the national and International level. To be honest, the mystery surrounding the death of Rajiv is still unsolved. That the assassination took place at the terminal stage of the Cold War can't be a mere coincidence. Exactly seven months after this killing, the Soviet Union – a nuclear missile superpower - collapsed. The entire nation broke into 15 new countries. Then President of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev was thrown at the periphery of world politics. And eventually out of the periphery too. It was just two years before this that ‘Time' magazine had called Gorbachev as the world's most popular and capable leader. These rapid turn of events was a perfect example of a person getting thrown from zenith to nadir! This reference of Gorbachev is cohesive with the appointment of Dr. Manmohan Singh as the Finance Minister. India and the Soviet Union had experienced warm and friendly relations right from the former's Independence. These relations had crossed the boundaries of sharing common principles and policies and had entered the levels of business, trade, defence and politics. The Soviet Union had assisted India in the industrial sector, science and technology sector and business. The Capitalist Nations of Europe and United States had expressed hatred and grudge against India. However, the Soviet Union had supported India on the issue of Kashmir and also on its foreign policy of Non – Alignment. The biggest help that it provided was in the scientific sectors. Additionally, the two nations had agreed on a trade that would be at the Rupee – Ruble level and hence there was no ‘hard currency' (read the Dollar)

involved! Apart from the Soviet Union, Socialists Nations from Europe like Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Rumania also traded with India on these principles. In addition to being convenient, this was inevitable for India. However, the year 1985 marked the beginning of adversities for the Socialist Economies of Europe. They reached an adversarial nadir in the year 1989. The Berlin Wall collapsed in the month of November in the same year, and this marked the beginning of the end of Cold War Politics. There was an uprising in East Germany, and soon the nation of Rumania also followed suit. These developments began to move towards the Soviet Union. Rajiv Gandhi was killed in the year 1991 in the month of May. Around that time, the Soviet Union had almost attained a state of emaciation. And it collapsed later within a span of seven months in the same year. This had an effect on India's economic transactions with the Soviet Union that was agreed on the Rupee – Rubal interchange. The value of the rupee experienced a significant degree of global depreciation. However, if India would have traded with that rate, Soviet Union would have experienced bankruptcy and the same would have significantly reduced India's exports. And to add to this situation, India's economy experienced instability. The country found it difficult to pay back interests of the loans it had obtained from global financial institutions. Consequently, India had to mortgage 20 tones of its gold to the Banks in England. When Dr. Manmohan Singh took over as the Nation's Finance Minister, the nation was bankrupt. The tremendous progress made after independence was on the verge of a grinding halt! V. P Singh's actions of creating a deadlock for Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi were responsible for creating a state of political anarchy and economic instability in the country. The former had quit the Congress party after betraying the Opposition Parties as well as Rajiv Gandhi. Neither was the Soviet Union available for help nor were the European Socialist Nations. The financial institutions and Corporate Capitalists of the United States and Europe had adopted a typical ‘bania like' attitude. Their attitude resembled the description in Munshi

Premchand's novel ‘Godaan', where the money lender first asks to pay back pending interests and then ask for new loans! On one end, the Indian Capitalists did not possess the ability to invest in the country on their own. And on the other end, the government did not have enough funds to invest in the public sector. Hence it was impossible to wheel the Economy without foreign investment. There would be no businesses without investment. Lack of activity would result in increased unemployment. Unemployment would mean no source of income for the people and this would ensure a lack of marketplace. A lack of marketplace would further ensure that there would neither be businesses nor trade. This situation is called a state of stagnation. This state can make the society move to the path of anarchy. Many incidents occurred during the terminating phase of the Cold War which was a testimony to the rapidly changing political and economic circumstances in the world. The declaration to introduce the recommendations of the Mandal Commission (August 1990); the fall of the V.P Singh government (November 1990); mortgaging of nation's gold in foreign banks (April 1991); Iraq's defeat by the United States to ensure freedom of Kuwait from the Iraqis (February – April 1991) and Rajiv Gandhi's assassination (May 1991) were some major representatives of the rapid change in global events. A new era emerged after the end of the Cold War, and the United States became the new Capitalist (and a neo – Imperialist) superpower in the World. Dr. Manmohan Singh became the Finance Minister at the backdrop of these developments and beginning of this new era. Many eyebrows around the world were raised in surprise when Mr. Rao appointed him as the Finance Minister. He faced allegations from all ends. Many people alleged that he was acting as an agent of the United States, World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. On the other hand, there were people who also raised concerns that it was time to bury the Nehruvian model that had influenced the Indian Economy so far. Dr. Manmohan Singh, however, clarified in the Lok Sabha that Nehru himself had introduced changes in his policies as per the changing

circumstances. Nehru was of the opinion that a mixed economy would enable private capitalists, foreign investment and a marketplace along with the public sector and government interference. He also stressed that a comparison between the Economy during the Cold War and the economy post- Cold War was illogical. If India does not embrace change as per the changing circumstances, her condition will match that of the Soviet Union. Hence India should align with the global economy and ensure herself as a marketplace through economic liberalization. When Dr. Manmohan Singh became the Finance Minister, the economic growth rate of the country was around 4%. He declared the policies of economic liberalization and globalization and opened the doors for foreign capital in the country. (The issue of ‘Enron' is from the same period, 1993 – 2000). In the coming years, the manufacturer in India got a boost, and the marketplace of the country widened. The Economy was back on track. But Dr. Singh then was surrounded by critics that consisted of Communists and Socialists on one end and traditionalists cadres of the RSS and BJP on the other end. This criticism was similar to the criticism that occurred between 2011 and 2014. The RSS cadres burnt trucks carrying Coca-Cola to mark their opposition to globalization. The Shiv Sena- BJP declared to sink the Enron Project deep in the Arabian Sea. The ‘Swadeshi Jagran Manch' frequently criticized the ‘World Trade Organization' as part of its protest. The Narsimha Rao – Manmohan Singh' government did not pass the electoral test as a consequence of this campaign. Their government was followed by the Third Front that had Prime Ministers as H.D Gevegowda and Indra Kumar Gujral. The Third Front was followed by the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance. However, all these governments further pushed the policies of liberalization and globalization. The ‘Swadeshi Jagran Manch' was silent all through this process. The BJP government went on to claim that they were the producers and directors of this new economic policy. In fact, the ‘India Shining' campaign of the BJP was no different from the policies

of Dr Singh. However, their government could not pass the electoral test in 2004 and was defeated. As Sonia Gandhi was an architect of the Congress –led alliance, around 350 Members of Parliament declared their support to her becoming the Prime Minister. However, Sonia Gandhi refused the position and rejected this offer. She handed the mantle to Dr. Manmohan Singh. This book by Sujay Shastri refers and reviews these ten years of his as a Prime Minister and the past twenty years including the years of his being the Finance Minister. - Kumar Ketkar

From the Translator's Pen While this book was getting translated, I chose 5th June 2016 – my birthday - as the day to write this little piece. Birthdays are meant to be celebrated. However, at times celebration is coupled with introspection. We tend to peep into the past and rediscover our experiences. It is hence appropriate that I express my intention of translating this book on Dr. Manmohan Singh, written in Marathi by my friend Sujay Shastri. That is because I have grown up in an era that will be called ‘Dr. Manmohan Singh's India' in the years to come. When I look back at the first twenty-nine years of my life (1987 – 2016), I find that Dr. Singh's India (1991 – 2014) has coincided with twenty-three of them! Hence the growth of Modern India has been parallel to the years when I grew up. This India found its beginning in 1985, the year Rajiv Gandhi became the Prime Minister. As a kid, I do not remember any particular political incident. I was four years old when Rajiv Gandhi was killed. And I turned six when the Babri Masjid was demolished. The Mandal agitation was at the same time. However, I remember P.V Narasimha Rao as the Prime Minister in the later years of his tenure. Some ‘Doordarshan' commercials (which I vaguely remember) that were broadcasted with the aim of national integration featured his face. However, the first political memory for me is when the nation faced the Lok Sabha elections of 1996. We then lived in a two storey building that had not more than seven flats, and all of them being middle class families. The air was filled with a severe anti-Congress sentiment. During the declaration of election results, every family in that small building was rooting for the defeat of the Congress. Their preferred candidate was Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Some days later, during a post-dinner walk, my grandmother had her version to share. The Congress, according to her, was responsible for price rise and hence should never be voted back to power. This is how people responded to the government policies of P.V Narsimha Rao and Dr. Manmohan Singh (his Finance Minister then).

Years later while doing my MBA; I read that the ‘Rao-Manmohan' model of growth is a landmark and the most significant milestone in India's Economic Growth Story. My birthday introspection begins from here. And as I look back, I realize that India has travelled a long path and achieved great strides in its path towards economic development. Middle-Class Families like mine are the ones that have immensely benefited from the government policies that began in 1991. My generation will remember the entry of landline telephones in our homes. We were the ones who excitedly welcomed the ‘Colour TV' sets at home. Bicycles were in plenty, but they underwent subsequent replacement by motorbikes and two wheelers. Ours was the generation that cautiously welcomed the entry of computers and wrote essays in school that also mentioned their ‘disadvantages.' There were protests and strikes against the use of computers. (Our parents' generation would remember it) As a consequence, many from this generation (those who are now in their late fifties and early sixties) have had late adaptation to technology. The political parties who were a part these strikes (through their Unions) were largely the BJP and the Communists. Our generation also witnessed an entry of McDonald's in the Metro cities. This entry was soon to make way for the entry of other foreign Brands in the country. I remember visiting Nepal in 1993. Katmandu was the place where I first tasted Coca-Cola and Fanta. These soft drinks had not entered the Indian market then. Later generations will find this tough to believe. In the last few years of the Nineties, ‘Information Technology' was on its way to become a principle career option. The middle class called it a ‘career of scope.' My generation saw Prime Minister Vajpayee calling I.T as ‘India Today.' Many from my generation aimed for a degree in Computer Engineering and planned for a career outside India. As we passed the nineties and entered the first few years of the Twenty-First Century, mobile phones had already outpaced the 'pagers' and my generation had started to use them. Colour television was no more a new thing, and computers no longer had a

‘disadvantage.' Most of us reached college using a motorbike and bicycles were almost wiped out from the landscape of towns, midcities and metros. McDonalds and Dominos had nothing new associated with them. Cyber Cafes opened up in every corner of the city. E-mails were checked once in a week, and the Internet was on its way to becoming a way of life. We also saw our relatives visit their sons and daughters in the United States and Europe and got a daily comparative report about life in those countries and India. Against the background of these changes, we saw Dr. Manmohan Singh becoming the nation's Prime Minister in 2004. However, we fail to acknowledge these changes and refuse to link them with the process of economic liberalization and globalization that began in 1991. Dr. Singh's Prime Ministerial tenure was an opportunity for the country to enter the economic growth of the next level. A peep into the changes in the past decade will convince us that India has now matched the world when it comes to modernity and is synchronized with the changes in the global developments. We saw Metro rails and Monorails getting sanctioned in almost all the main cities of the country. Malls and multiplexes became a way of life. Multinational companies entered India, and most of them employed people belonging to my generation. The number of mobile phone users increased which now has made way to the Smartphone revolution. Technology penetrated rural India, and overall rural consumption began to show an increase. The Internet became a way of life, and now we see people transacting on it like never before. People in cities began to commute in Air conditioned buses (but conveniently missed the ‘JNNURM' logo on them). And to sustain all these, our incomes experienced a huge rise. Dr. Singh - in his last press conference as the Prime Minister - rightly pointed out that the middle class of this country does not acknowledge that their salaries have surged in the past decade. The generation born in the late Eighties has been a witness and beneficiary to all these developments.

Despite this, we find voices who say that no development has taken place in the country since independence. Surprisingly people of my age and generation are seen joining and expressing the same sentiment. More surprising is the voice of the NRIs and the Indian students abroad. It was the process of Globalization that ensured these Indians could fly abroad either for work or studies. To not acknowledge and be incognizant towards the development of your country is nothing but being unpatriotic! Surprisingly, these people follow a party that was fundamentally opposed to the very stages of this national development – the BJP. This is the party that called Dr. Singh a ‘World Bank Agent' when he stood up as a Finance Minister to introduce the process of economic liberalization. They further opposed the entry of India into GATT and WTO. Around the same time, their trade unions struck work as a protest against the use of computers. During the UPA, they were seen opposing the Nuclear Deal and till as recent as 2012, objected to the FDI in retail. But times have changed in the past two and half decades of modern India. The mad youth that went on to demolish the Babri Masjid embraced opportunities that were created due to the process of liberalization. Diversity in jobs - one of the principle consequences of liberalization – ensured their professional and personal growth. Many of these ‘religious patriots' scaled professional heights and settled abroad. Due to these happenings, National Development became an important agenda for all political parties. So significant was this that the BJP that had used ‘Hindutva' as a plank to win elections in 1996 used ‘development' as an agenda in 2014. That is the underlined effect of India's growth story. Dr. Singh, in his last Prime Ministerial press conference (January 2014) confidently stated that history would be more kind in judging his policies and decisions. If we remember, he was criticized for his policies of liberalization. The media reported that liberalization has

brought havoc in the country. However, that decision today stands as a milestone in India's economic growth story. Even the Opposition parties now accept that his decisions as a Finance Minister were visionary. History has been kind to him than the media for his Finance Ministerial tenure. He thinks the same about his Prime Ministerial tenure. And going by the ‘U-turns' and fiascos of the current government it all seems very evident. -Aashay Gune

Index India 2015-16 An Unexpected Selection Shining India The Struggle with the Left Singh is King A Surprising Comeback The storm of Corruption Charges New entrants on the political horizon The arrogance of the Army Chief ISRO, Kudankulam, Coal Blocks and the Poverty Line Political and Parliamentary Deadlock Economic Discontent At the root of Unrest and Discontent Four Years of Crusades Dr. Singh’s Foreign Policy Loss of Confidence within the Congress A Sage called Dr. Manmohan Singh The journey to the Prime Minister’s Office Epilogue Monumental Mismanagement Dr. Singh’s Last Press Conference References

India 2015-16 The year 2016 was projected as the year of firm decisions, renewed hope and fresh enthusiasm by the media. All eyes were focused on the Union Budget as it was the first Budget of the majority BJP-led government after their landmark sweep in the Lok Sabha Elections of 2014. While in the real sense, it was their third budget. The first was the Budget in July 2014 and the second was the annual Budget of February 2015. However, in the Budget of 2016, the government had completed almost two years of its own. Hence this was an opportunity for the government to fulfill the expectations of an ‘aspirational India', to quote journalist Rajdeep Sardesai is his autobiography. Need not to mention, with the necessary majority in hand! However, the New Year began with an article by Mr. Manishankar Aiyar which he wrote as an opinion on the NDTV website. He reminded Prime Minister Modi about the rural distress in the country by pointing towards the 1.1% growth in the agriculture output in 201415 and also about a failure in the increase in the rural wages and minimum support price. He also pointed towards the slash in the outlays of Social sector schemes, principally the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which had resulted in the decline of rural demand. He further pointed towards the Manufacturing growth which was around 4%, the lowest in the past few years. The banking sector, as written by him, was also under stress with the mounting of unpaid debt and a decline in current lending. There was also a decrease in Private Investment along with the drop in Exports which were 24% lower as compared to the last year. He quoted former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram by saying that the economy was ‘like a car running on two wheels', as out of the four components of demand, only public expenditure and private consumption were powering whereas Exports and Private Investment languished. In a strongly worded criticism he pointed out that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had not seen ‘Acche Din' in 2015

as with these statistics, he also lost two crucial elections in Delhi and Bihar. So why was 2015 as a year significant for the Narendra Modi government? On 4th July 2015, The Economist came up with an article titled ‘Nutrition in India – of Secrecy and Stunting.' This article talked about a report it had obtained which was called ‘Rapid Survey on Children' (RSOC), and it was based on a study conducted by the Government of India and UNICEF. The article says that the report claimed of a steady and evident fall in malnutrition. However by measures of ‘stunting' and ‘wasting', India has a long way to go and is vastly hungrier than Africa. The Economist highlighted the following from the report: ‘Unicef's nutrition adviser for South Asia, Victor Aguayo, says India's overall gains have been "unprecedented". A decade ago 42.5% of all children under five were underweight. Now the reported rate is just below 30%. That improvement coincided with a period of rapid economic growth, rising household incomes and more spending on welfare such as free cooked midday meals in schools. Madhya Pradesh in central India cut the proportion of its children who go hungry from 60% to 36%; Bihar in the north, from 56% to 37%. The case of Maharashtra, a wealthy state on the western coast, is revealing. The proportion of children there who are underweight fell from 37% to 25%. Mr Aguayo cites Maharashtra as a "good example" of how to deal with malnutrition, identifying four significant changes there: better and more frequent feeding of infants, more care for pregnant women, higher household incomes and a rise in the age at which women begin having babies. Officials and politicians in Maharashtra played a crucial role in helping to target worst-afflicted groups such as tribal people known as Adivasis. Coincidentally or otherwise, states run in the past decade by Mr Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) appear to be laggards compared with several states that are (or were) under the control of rivals. The most sensitive example is Gujarat, which Mr Modi has touted as a

model because incomes there are high. The RSOC shows that the proportion of hungry children in the state fell from 44.6% to 33.5%, but that remains worse than the national average. Maharashtra next door has similar incomes and has fared much better. Gujarat is also worse than average for stunting (42%), severe stunting (18.5%) and wasting (18.7%). Nearly two-fifths of its population defecates out of doors.' This report pointed towards a sharp contrast between the projection and marketing of Gujarat as a ‘model state' and the report that had these statistics. More worrying was the fact that The Economist speculated that the Indian government was sitting on this story for months, possible because the pride of Gujarat (and Prime Minister Modi) was at stake. In the same month, news came from the same ‘model' state of Gujarat which highlighted the contrast in its projection of prosperity. In July 2015, the Patidar community of Gujarat held demonstrations to demand the status of Other Backward Class (OBCs) and reservations in government jobs and education. The agitations later involved incidents of violence and property destruction. The Hindu, on 26th August 2015, reported that around half a million community members attended a rally to press for these demands at Ahmadabad. The details of large-scale violence were made available in various news reports that covered this agitation and are available online. However, this agitation was enough to question the existence of a ‘model state' called Gujarat, as projected everywhere before the Lok Sabha elections of 2014. While it is perfectly alright to believe that agitations everywhere have a political motive behind them, it is equally important to see the number of people participating in such agitations. Is it easy to manipulate all in a crowd whose population totals almost half a million? Christophe Jaffrelot in his The Indian Express column titled ‘Patels and the neo-middle class syndrome', while elaborating the history of the political developments in Gujarat on reservations, remarked the following ‘…it is difficult to imagine that hundreds of thousands of Patels could be so manipulated. There is always some substance in mass

movements. In that case, the Patels may well be victims of the neomiddle-class syndrome. Those who have not yet arrived, who are part of this aspiring class, and find it difficult to achieve their goals because jobs are scarce, education is expensive (especially if you can't buy your degree), buying a car is hard, to say nothing about a home. The so-called Gujarat model has not favored the SMEs as much as the capital-intensive industries that do not create as many jobs. Frustrations are particularly acute when expectations have been fanned in the name of "achhe din". As a result, young Patels fall back on the old issue: reservations. Not necessarily to get their share of it — even if they try, they know it will be hard — but to destabilize the system and dilute it. In that sense, their movement is not too different from the "aandolans" of the 1980.' Another setback that the BJP faced in the same year was its electoral rout in rural Gujarat in the Panchayat elections. While the party could retain power in the cities, it lost considerable ground to the Congress in the countryside. Its analysis by Christophe Jafferlot in his The Indian Express column titled Blowin' in the Gujarat wind further exposed the shallowness of the Gujarat model. He wrote: ‘This model never appealed to the common people who have been its casualties for years. Gujarat's social indicators contrast starkly with its growth rate. Gujarat has slipped in the human development index from 10th in 1999-2000 to 11th in 2011. This is largely due to the condition of three groups: Adivasis (15 per cent of the state population), Dalits (7 per cent) and Muslims (9 per cent). In the last decade, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India has repeatedly reproached the Gujarat government for failing to ensure that the development funds allocated to Adivasis and Dalits were in proportion to their population. An indication of the socio-economic backwardness of Adivasis and Dalits in Gujarat is their indebtedness. While the proportion of indebted rural households has increased from 35.7 per cent in 1999-2000 to 56 per cent in 2004-05, it has risen from 44.80 per cent to 62.95 per cent among Dalits, and 32.9 per cent to 60.1 per cent among Adivasis. Given the communal violence they have repeatedly suffered from, Muslims in Gujarat face specific

problems. According to the Sachar Committee report, they are underrepresented in most state government departments: They occupied 1.7 per cent of higher positions and 4.5 per cent of lower positions in the education department as well as, respectively, 5.6 per cent and 5.6 per cent of the home department, 2.2 per cent and 1.5 per cent of the health department. Low levels of education compounded this problem. Only 26 per cent of Muslims in Gujarat reached matriculation, the same proportion as for SCs/ STs, against 41 per cent for others. Twenty-four per cent of urban Muslims in the state lived below the poverty line, against 17 per cent of SCs/ STs, 18 per cent of OBCs and 3 per cent of other urban-dwellers. These figures suggest that the Gujarat model relies on a twofold process of polarization, religious as well as social. But another dichotomy deserves some attention, as evident from the rural-urban differential of the average monthly per capita expenditure calculated from National Sample Survey data. This differential grew from 49.8 per cent in 1993-94 to 68 per cent in 2007-08, and remained the same in 2011-12. Which means that urban-dwellers consumed twothirds more than villagers. These inequalities did not prevent the BJP from winning elections, because its urban supporters were sufficiently numerous to ensure its victory. If Gujarat had been only rural, the Congress would have won the 2012 state elections, according to a CSDS survey, but the state's urbanization rate is among the highest in India. So why is the BJP losing ground today? Because of the growing alienation of rural and semi-rural (important in a state known for its "urbanization" process) voters after two years of bad crops and the prospect of an agricultural crisis, and also because of the growing frustrations of those aspiring to "neo middle-class" status. Young Patels from the lower middle class are a case in point. The government has antagonized this major caste group — 14 per cent of society — by repressing their demonstrations this summer. But why were young Patels in the street? Largely because of another feature of the Gujarat model: It has not created that many good jobs. It has relied on an effort to attract Indian and foreign big companies, whose investments have

resulted in growth. But it has had two unintended negative consequences. First, these activities developed at the expense of the micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), which were often located in rural and semi-urban areas and largely run by Patels. A study by the Institute of Small Enterprise and Development showed that in 2012, the non-performing assets of the MSMEs had grown by 43.9 per cent. This was attributed to the poor financial support that the MSMEs received, thanks to the high interest rates and indifference shown by local banks. The share of the MSMEs' credit as a percentage of gross bank credit halved between 1997-98 and 200607. It started to rise again to reach the 10 per cent mark in 2009-10, but it was too late by then. In 2014, Central government data showed that there were 48,000 sick MSME units — one-fifth of those registered with the government — in Gujarat. Clearly, the MSMEs are not in a position to hire as many people as before. For that matter, even the big companies are unwilling to hire. Reason: They are very capitalistic, especially in the energy sector. Between 2009-10 and 2012-13, Gujarat was the state with the highest investment in industry. But this mainly reflected the acquisition of machine tools. For instance, while the industries in Tamil Nadu account for lower fixed capital than their counterparts in Gujarat, they have a much higher share in the number of factory jobs created. Clearly, these two models are in competition.' 2015 also marked two significant electoral losses for the Bhartiya Janata Party in the states of Delhi and Bihar. The elections in Delhi in January 2015 marked the rout of the BJP and the Congress and the victory of Arvind Kejriwal's Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). In a spectacular display, AAP managed to win a big 67 seats out of 70 with the BJP winning three seats. The Congress could not win a single seat in these elections. The BJP's rout was surprising because the Narendra Modi government at the Center had not even completed a year in power since their landslide victory in May 2014 and the Prime Minister himself had campaigned a lot along with Central Ministers and BJP lawmakers. The elections in Bihar in November 2015 also came as a rude shock to the BJP amidst its claim of a ‘Modi Wave' in

the country. Nitish Kumar led ‘Mahagathbandhan' secured victory in a whopping 178 seats out of the total of 243 seats whereas the BJP-led ‘National Democratic Alliance' secured victory in only 58 seats. In reality, the Gujarat Model began to display contradictions as early as 2014. In July 2014, DNA reported the following regarding the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) observations about the state of Gujarat: The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report on the state of Gujarat highlighted grave financial irregularities in the administration of the state. The report, which was tabled in the Gujarat Assembly on Friday, showed that irregularities of as much as Rs 25,000 crore were noticed which included Rs 1,500 crore worth of undue benefits to companies like Reliance Petroleum, Essar Powar and Adani Group. The report also noted that the much publicized solar projects of the Gujarat government were awarded to 'ineligible bidders' in turn created excess burden of Rs 473 crore on the power consumers of the state, reports the Indian Express. The inability of the Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL) to fix delivery points after finalizing the power agreement led to 'undue benefit of Rs 587.50 crore to Essar Power Gujarat Ltd'. The CAG also noted that the government was short of Rs 118.12 crore in recovery due to the non-supervision 'of the construction quay in phase 1 of the Adani Group-owned Mundra port'. The low wharfage rate applied by the Gujarat Maritime Board resulted in the government being short of as much as Rs 649.29 crores with Reliance Petroleum Limited. Thus, even though the Gujarat development model had been the centre point of the prime minister's campaign, these irregularities reported by the CAG spring up serious questions about the so-called 'progress' in Gujarat. Hence with the ‘Gujarat Model' getting punctured and the electoral losses by a huge margin, 2015 for the Bhartiya Janata Party was in sharp contrast to its performance in the Lok Sabha elections a year

before. All this made us wonder where would Rajdeep Sardesai's ‘aspirational India' go in the year 2015? However, 2015 also witnessed certain reports regarding the country that were in sharp contrast to the mood and the sentiment that had developed around the year 2014 (actually since 2011-12) about the government of Dr. Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of Congressled United Progressive Alliance. In May 2015, Dr. Singh addressed the National Students Union of India where he reminded the audience and the nation that when he left office in 2014, his government had ensured an average growth rate of 8.5% which was a record and India then had become the fastest growing economy after China. He also emphasized on the initiatives his government had taken for both rural and urban areas in the form of National Rural Health Mission and Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission respectively. Two months after this address, World Bank released data in July 2015 that India had now become a Two Trillion Dollar economy. The report said that India became a Trillion dollar economy in 2007 and it took 60 years (since 1947) for it to achieve this landmark. However, it added the next Trillion Dollars in the next seven years to become a 2 Trillion Dollar economy in 2014! Phenomenal as this achievement was, it was not covered by any form of media – print, electronic or social. It reminded us of equally lethargic media coverage of another such development that the nation experienced in July 2013. Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar in his column in The Economic Times had then questioned as to why there was no cheer that 138 million people in India crossed the poverty line in a period between 2004 and 2012? However, in August 2015, The Hindu reported about a study that seemed to concur with what Dr. Aiyar claimed in his column. The news piece titled 'MGNREGS reduced poverty, empowered women' said about a survey carried out jointly by National Council for Applied Economic Research (NCAER) and the University of Maryland in the rural households of the country. The study estimated that the program helped reduce poverty by 32% and prevented approximately 14

million people from falling into poverty. Sonalde Desai, principal author of the study, was quoted in the report, "Economic growth contributed to overall poverty reduction during this period, but we found that the MGNREGS also played a significant role." MGNREGS – Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme was the flagship project started by the Manmohan Singh government in 2005 and the year 2015 marked the tenth year since its inception. Another significant development took place in 2015 in the month of December. Telecom Regulation Authority of India (TRAI) in its statement said that the country had crossed 1 Billion mobile-phone subscribers in October the same year. This development was significant for a country that had witnessed a Telecom Revolution way back in the late Eighties. Because there are people with more than one mobile phone connection on their name, this data did not mean that India had one billion individual mobile phone users. However, the significance of this number still could not be denied. It was a thirtyyear journey for India, started under former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and his technocrat friend Sam Pitroda in the late Eighties. The latter is the reason the Telecom Revolution could take place in India. Mr. Pitroda also played a pivotal role in Technology Initiatives during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government. During the launch of his book ‘Dreaming Big: My Journey to Connect India' he recalled his years with Rajiv and stated that ‘Digital India' was an initiative that had started during his time and the Narendra Modi Government was snatching away all the credit from its inceptors. He said that the concept of ‘Digital India' had started Twenty Five years ago and would continue for the next two decades, as it is not a thing that happens overnight. 2015 was also the year when certain scams suggesting an alleged involvement of the leaders of the Bhartiya Janata Party surfaced. The most mysterious and lethal of them was the Vyapam Scam from the state of Madhya Pradesh. ‘Vyapam' is the acronym for ‘Vyavsayik

Parisksha Mandal' which in English is ‘Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board'. This Board is responsible for conducting the entrance exams for recruitment in government jobs and educational institutions in the State. Though the scale of this scam came to light in 2013, the year 2015 made it notorious for the news that pointed to the sudden rise in the number of mysterious deaths of people associated with the scam. In May 2015, The Times of India reported that at least 40 people had died under mysterious circumstances over the period of three years' police investigation. In July, two more deaths were added to the list when on July 5, Akshay Singh, a reporter of Aaj Tak Channel, who was investigating the unnatural deaths in this scam, died in Meghnagar near Jhabua. On July 6, Dr. Arun Sharma, the dean of Jabalpur Medical College, who had allegedly submitted 200 documents to the Special Task Force probing the scam, was found dead in a Hotel room in New Delhi. Additionally, news also surfaced of the massive irregularities in the Public Distribution System of rice. It was named the ‘PDS rice scam', and there were allegations that the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh, Raman Singh was involved in this scam. The Congress asked for a probe into this matter and demanded the Chief Minister's resignation as they felt he could influence the investigations because of his interests. But the issue that was perhaps the most discussed one was the ‘Lalit Modi issue.' This issue not only kept the media houses occupied but also rocked the Parliament as it involved Senior BJP leader Sushma Swaraj and the Opposition parties, the Congress in particular, demanded her resignation. Sushma Swaraj, Union Minister of External Affairs, accepted that she had helped the Cancer-struck wife of former IPL Commissioner Lalit Modi on ‘humanitarian grounds.' Lalit Modi is in Britain since 2010, and there are allegations on him of indulging in forex violations and hence he is a wanted by the Indian Enforcement Directorate. He wanted to travel to Portugal to be with his wife during the latter's surgery. As Mr. Lalit Modi approached the British authorities to grant him permission to visit, the former asked

the Indian government for their position on this issue as Mr. Lalit Modi was a wanted criminal in India. If the Government of India had no issues with his travel, they were ready to allow him. Mr. Lalit Modi also requested Sushma Swaraj to allow him to go to Portugal. Ms. Swaraj asked the British authorities to allow Mr. Lalit Modi to move and provide him with the necessary help and assured them that this would not hamper the relations between India and Britain. Senior Congress leader P.Chidambaram reminded the Bhartiya Janata Party that it was the UPA government that had cancelled the passport of Mr. Lalit Modi and had asked them to take steps to send him back to India. However, this decision of cancelling the passport was overruled by the Delhi High Court. Hence Mr. Chidambaram asked whose decision was it to not appeal against the Delhi High Court's order. He specifically asked Ms. Swaraj as to why Lalit Modi directly contacted her instead of contacting the Indian High Commission and why did she feel that he should have UK travel documents rather than Indian travel documents? Other than these, questions as to why Ms. Swaraj did not inform Prime Minister Modi, Home Minister Rajnath Singh and her own Ministry while taking these decisions were raised! This entire chain of events had reached India through a British newspaper. So does it mean that all these developments would have been in the dark had the British newspaper not published them? And on top of this, the silence of the Prime Minister on such a serious issue was enough to raise a lot of questions and concerns! Later in 2016, Arun Shourie, in an interview with Karan Thapar asked where the Modi government stood regarding investigating these scams and was it serious regarding its 'zero tolerance towards corruption?'

Budget - 2016 So as 2015 made way for 2016, there was an increased sentiment for reforms in the Budget. For this was the government that had secured an absolute majority - for the first time in 30 years - and had completed almost two years on its own since its formation. Hence key bills were also expected to be passed in the Parliament. However, when Finance Minister Arun Jaitley presented the Budget, it took many people by surprise with its emphasis on Fiscal Consolidation. The Budget also made an emphasis on rural India, the agricultural sector and the welfare schemes. More surprising was that there was no major mention of any reforms in the Budget. The media too did not remind the government of any reforms after the Budget and emphasized on the Fiscal Consolidation part as described in the Budget. Dr. Manmohan Singh described this budget as ‘a mixed bag with no big idea.' He referred to what Narendra Modi had said a day before that the government plans to double the farmers' income in the next five years. However, Dr. Singh was quick to dismiss this as an ‘impossible dream' and said that to make this happen, there should be an increase in the farm income by 14% for each of the next five years and there is no roadmap with the government to execute it. Senior Congress leader P.Chidambaram addressed a press conference on 29th Feb 2016 and gave an insight about the Budget. He described the budget as ‘no big idea, with every section equally disappointed' and termed it as a ‘wasted opportunity.' While mentioning the details, he said that there was an increase in excise duty on petrol and diesel on numerous occasions and an introduction of new cesses and surcharges. He stated that there was little to encourage and attract private investment and also a very little new investment in the core sectors. Additionally, there was no significant mention of Exports in the entire budget. Apart from being critical on the points of Private Investment and Exports, he was also critical of the Center's approach to the rural economy. He said that the Center had ignored the social sector, agricultural sector and rural India since assuming power and also pointed out to the little or no increase in the

Minimum Support Price in the Budget. Overall he said that the Budget had no bold, structural reforms despite the government being in an absolute majority. Another Congress Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor also echoed similar sentiments about the Budget in his speech in the Parliament on 10th March 2016. He said that the Budget ‘disappointed the ‘Aam Aadmi' (Common Man), frustrated the Economist and proved a mixed-bag for the politician.' He too said that the Budget emphasized on Indirect Taxes and pointed out to the fact that they are regressive as both poor and rich have to pay more for the same essential services, and hence they hurt the poor more. He went on to say that the government is meeting its fiscal deficit targets at the cost of the Common man. He also questioned as to why when the oil prices go down, the excise duties associated with it go up? Also questioning the government's prediction of a 7.5% GDP growth rate, he pointed out to the stagnancy in wages, exports, jobs, production and profit. To support this question, he also indicated that growth in all the key sectors had slowed down. He also added his concerns to the budget by stating that there were budget cuts in food security, fertilizers subsidy, the Ministry of Minority Affairs, the Ministry of Women and Child Development and also in the Ministry of Environment and Forest. There was also a withdrawal of the customs duty exemption on 76 life-saving drugs, cancer and HIV drugs. He also pointed out that there was no adequate spending on health and education as compared to global standards. Moreover, according to him, the Capital expenditure on agriculture was missing from the Budget. Dalit and Adivasi groups also expressed disappointment over the Budget. ‘National Campaign for Dalit Human Rights' analyzed the Budget and found out that instead of earmarking 16.6% funds for Dalits – as in the previous years – only 7% were earmarked. Similarly, instead of the required 8.6% for the Adivasis, only 4.36% were designated. What both Mr. Chidambaram and Mr. Tharoor pointed out was the continuation of the schemes from the previous government – the

UPA. Was the situation similar to what the nation experienced between 1996 and 2004? India underwent Economic Liberalization in 1991, and the decision then was opposed by all non-Congress parties irrespective of the ideologies they flaunted. They also had declared that the Congress government under P.V Narsimha Rao had ruined the nation and a lot of media houses had described liberalization as ‘havoc to the country.' However, none of the subsequent governments had managed to make a significant difference to the policies they had inherited from the Congress government. There was one person who was common in both these developments. He was Dr. Manmohan Singh - Finance Minister in the 1991 government and the Prime Minister himself in the ten years of the UPA government from 2004 to 2014. Hence it becomes imperative to understand his tenure as the Prime Minister of India.

An Unexpected Selection On 18th May 2004, the President of India invited the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance to form the government at the Center. The Congress Party had fought the elections under Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, and hence it was safe to assume that she was the choice as the Prime Minister. Moreover, she was the selection of all the parties that formed the alliance. But the Central Hall of Parliament experienced a moment of shock and surprise when Mrs. Gandhi refused the coveted position. This surprise soon percolated through her party workers to the vast majority of Indians and many global NRIs and all who were following this election. Everyone used to raise questions about Mrs. Gandhi's knowledge of politics and showering of allegations on the Gandhi family was a general routine. This decision was able to put a full stop on all these. Television channels were broadcasting these proceedings. This decision had shocked the members of the Congress present in the Central Hall. One could sense the helpless expressions on their face. Some were rather outspoken in stating that they would feel orphaned without Mrs. Gandhi. Renuka Chowdhury was spotted crying helplessly. Thousands of Congress workers assembled outside 10, Janpath. Some of them climbed trees and threatened to commit suicide. The electronic media – though not as effective as it is now – was equally stunned by this decision. Mrs. Gandhi had sensed a growing restlessness among these supporters and hence sent a message that aimed to pacify them. The message read - ' I have taken the decision by hearing what my conscience tells me. Please allow me to make my own decision.' Mrs. Gandhi gave a small speech at the Central Hall. In the speech she said, Friends,

Throughout these past six years that I have been in politics, one thing has been clear to me. And that is, as I have often stated, that the post of prime minister is not my aim. I was always certain that if ever I found myself in the position that I am in today, I would follow my inner voice. Today, that voice tells me I must humbly decline this post. You have unanimously elected me your leader, in doing so, you have reposed your faith in me. It is this faith that has placed me under tremendous pressure to reconsider my decision. Yet, I must abide by the principles, which have guided me all along. Power in itself has never attracted me, nor has position been my goal. My aim has always been to defend the secular foundation of our nation and the poor of our country- the creed sacred to Indiraji and Rajivji. We have moved forward a significant step towards this goal. We have waged a successful battle. But we have not won the war. That is a long and arduous struggle, and I will continue it with full determination. But I appeal to you to understand the force of my conviction. I request you to accept my decision and to recognize that I will not reverse it. Our foremost responsibility at this critical time is to provide India with a secular government that is strong and stable. Friends, you have given me your generous support; you have struggled against all odds with me. As one of you and as president of the Congress party, I pledge myself to work with you and for the country. My resolve will in fact be all the more firm, to fight for our principles, for our vision, and for our ideals. Sonia Gandhi chose Dr. Singh for the Prime Minister's position over senior Congress leaders like Pranab Mukherjee and Arjun Singh. Dr. Singh was clean by character and serene by personality. Moreover, he was a world-renowned economist and a visionary who was well aware of the internal problems the country faced. Being the Congress Party President, this decision was her own. She did not have any intention of hurting the lobby of Arjun Singh and Pranab Mukherjee within the party. Nor had she intended to plant the seeds of discontent within the party.

Dr. Singh had served as the leader of opposition in the Rajya Sabha during the Vajpayee government. He had a large administrative experience, and as a person, he was very soft spoken and preferred to be away from the media glare. His actual political experience, it must be said, was way below to that of many political leaders in the party. However, no leader in the Congress possessed a clean image and at the same time was experienced in handling the massive bureaucracy. Not many in the party shared an excellent relationship with leaders at the National and International level like he did. Additionally, he understood the pulse of the nation as he had an experience in opening up India's economy in 1991. Mrs. Gandhi had built a strategy of the new government by stressing on clean character and an efficient administration. It was because the nation had rejected the 'India Shining' campaign of the previous NDA government and had rendered it baseless. In 2004, the Congress party had secured seven more seats than the BJP. According to some political analysts, this verdict was more of rejecting the BJP than the acceptance of the Congress. Some referred that the BJP did not live up to the expectations of the Indian middle class while some reasoned the loss of the BJP by pointing towards the 2002 Gujarat riots. The national media compared Sonia to a saint and concluded that the people of the nation were tired of the constantly polarizing, hatred-filled politics of the BJP. The growing religious extremism in the country had worried Mrs. Gandhi. Though the Congress was in daily conflict with its ideology, Mrs. Gandhi had sensed the need for being practical. Hence she stood behind Dr. Singh with a firm belief that the country needed a scholarly leadership. It needed a leader who would understand the voice of the commonest of people. Dr. Singh's political and economic thoughts stating 'liberalization with all inclusive growth' were always acceptable to her. Hence he was chosen over the traditional khadiattired Congressman. A person with no practical political experience; with no participation in any political agitation, with no nationwide ‘charisma'; without any

political agitations bestowed upon him by the opposition leaders and importantly, with no corruption charges against him, got elected as the nation's Prime Minister. It was indeed a remarkable democratic development! (In his later years Dr. Singh was accused of allowing corruption right under his nose and doing nothing!) But it was not only for his clean character (and the reasons mentioned above) that Dr. Singh became the Prime Minister. It was also in the best interests of the circumstances and for the overall change in the country. An economist is aware of the pain the common man faces. He is aware of the economic opportunities he can avail. Apart from the religious and social factors, a nation needs a robust economic framework. For a country like India that consists of a rigid framework of caste and religion, time had come to deliver on the expectations of each and every such segment. The ironed curtains of the Cold War began melting soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. The world was dragged into the process of globalization. The winds of free trade had started to flow in the form of GATT. At the global level, many nations had begun to liberalize their economies. Government regulations began to disappear, and the marketplaces were now open for the flow of foreign goods and currency. Dr. Singh had explained in detail about this situation in a detailed interview with Charlie Rose, an American talk show presenter, "When we launched this reform program in 1991, I was opposed by both the extreme left as well as the extreme right. In fact, when I in 1992 when I moved -- when I rose in parliament to present the budget of the government of India, all the opposition rose in revolt and said they want to move a breach of privilege motion against me, because what I'm doing is nothing else but carrying on the dictates of Washington and the IMF. Now, from that day, lots of things have changed. Since then, there have been three changes of government. From 1996 to 1998, there was a united front government. The left parties were part of that. That government did not change the

direction of policies that we set. Then we had a BJP-led government from 1998. They wrote viciously against liberalization, that we were selling India to foreigners. But when they came to office, they also did not change. In fact, they expanded on what we had done. So I think we have seen three changes of government -- right, left, center -- but the direction of economic policies has been towards progressive liberalization. There may be a difference of the pace at which India moves, but there should be no doubt whatsoever about the direction in which India is going to move in years to come. It is truly an irreversible shift in our policies." What was it that made Dr. Singh so acutely aware of the nation's potential? India is a vast country, and back then she had more than 40% of her population that lived below the poverty line. The nation was also going through a political turmoil. Under those circumstances, it was but natural that people demanded a leader who they felt would address this situation by providing a stable government and an equally stable economic policy. The Green Revolution was able to solve the food crisis in the country. But the youth then had begun to express frustration due to the lack of employment and economic opportunities. Rajiv Gandhi had sowed the seeds of a computer revolution. However, it met an extreme political opposition. There was a constant propaganda that introduction of computers would bring with it a rise in unemployment. As a consequence, Insurance companies, Banks, Government Offices, and Schools struck work in protest. Chennai, Mumbai, Delhi, Pune, Lucknow, Bangalore, Kolkata witnessed agitations and ‘morchas' against computers. The media would broadcast news in a manner that was enough to infuriate the youth. The thinkers and Intellectuals of the society were for the use of computers. But their voice was too bleak and rather unheard in this chaos. There were no 24-hour media then. But the sentiment rooted by the media against the process of liberalization penetrated the commoners of the nation. All this was evident from the successful Hindi films that released then. Films like ‘Ankush', ‘Arjun', ‘Tejaab', ‘Iljaam' had their plots that revolved around the issues of unemployment, corruption, murder and

love. These movies were indirectly revealing the scenario of the nation. However, they never had in them the dynamically changing global scenario. Around the year 1990, the nation experienced an agitation through the Mandal Commission. The consequence of this was an eruption of self-pride among the Dalits, OBCs and certain other backwards castes. The eventuality of this phenomenon was the rapid expansion of the Bahujan Samaj Party. Caste and individual-centric politics gave rise to leaders like Kanshiram, Mayawati, Mulayam Singh, Nitish Kumar, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Navin Patnayak and Jailalitha. These leaders occupied the national stage with an individual identity. One of the manifestations of these developments was that the Congress was forced to be in the backseat in North India. The Congress party lost its base as these newly emerged political parties took ownership of particular castes. All this is evident even today in states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar where the Congress has failed to root its secular ideology. Another significant aspect of the Mandal Commission agitation was that it could pose a challenge to the Babri Masjid agitation of the BJP. Politics became more explosive as the caste pride of the former and the religious pride of the latter entered into a direct conflict. The population in North India became more inclined to the former than the latter. However economic reforms gathered a secondary status as compared to these agitations. The politics of the OBCs demanded political power in addition to the reservations. The recommendations of the Mandal Commission resulted in reservations of almost 50% of seats in government jobs. The state of Tamil Nadu extended them even further to 69%. Under these circumstances, it was necessary to connect the Indian society to the rapidly changing global events. The class who had evolved through education and urbanization chose to alienate themselves from the politics of caste and religion. They rather demanded a transparent and fair administration. On 6th December 1992, the demolition of the Babri Masjid took place at Ayodhya and what followed later was a wave of polarization that rocked the nation. The country lacked a political will that could avert

this extremism. On the global front, the World was moving away from the shadows of the Cold War. East and West Germany had unified. The United States had attacked Iraq and was seen setting up its existence in the Middle East. India, however, was experiencing religious extremism and an unstable environment. The sentiment was that the government is not promoting business growth in the country. The youth that went to the United States felt unhappy at the prospect of returning. IIT and IIM graduates queued outside the United States consulate. ‘Brain Drain' was a favourite topic for daily conversations and discussions. Banks at that point dispersed home loans that were hugely expensive. The middle class could only dream of moving to a selfowned home. Agriculture, real estate, education, business and IT sectors had government regulations. Dr. Singh was closely following this economic canvas. He was apt in knowing which economic reform to introduce at that crucial juncture. Charlie Rose asked a question, "How could you as a Finance Minister sense the situation in 1991 that no capitalist or any other political leader could do?" To which Dr. Singh replied, "I don't claim that I had any extraordinary vision. I have been associated with the management of the Indian economy since 1971. Even my work as an economist when I was in the academic field, was also about economic management. And- I've seen the administration in our country from several angles. I was in the ministry of commerce; I saw it in the ministry of finance. I went to the Reserve Bank of India. I was on the planning commission. And I would like to give this credit to Rajiv Gandhi. Because he saw when he became the Prime Minister in 1985 that India has to change. So a lot of work was done. There was a broad consensus among the thinking segment of our population that India has to liberalize. That the old command economy cannot, I think, give India the mileage, the dividends that we need in terms of growth. And so my task in ‘91 was relatively easy."

Some could interpret his crediting Rajiv Gandhi as his loyalty to the Gandhi family. Many still say that Dr. Singh became the Prime Minister by him being lucky and also due to the internal struggles within the party. But what these people fail to acknowledge is that in 2004 many names were circulating within the Congress for the Prime Ministerial position. And it was completely unknown to the media and also to the UPA allies that Dr. Singh's name would be announced ultimately. So what was so different about Dr. Singh? And what did Mrs. Gandhi think before assigning this responsibility to a person who neither had any experience in politics nor could win a Lok Sabha seat on his own? (In the 1999 elections, BJP's Vijay Malhotra had defeated Dr. Singh by 30,000 votes for the elections to the South Delhi constituency) In 1964, Dr. Manmohan Singh wrote an economic thesis titled ' Indian export trends and the prospect of self-sustained growth.' This thesis had in it a detailed description of how international businesses work. He wrote that the developing countries could move out of poverty by opting for foreign business and capital. Additionally, the thesis also supported trade and export promotion. However, in the sixties, any advocacy of export promotion was immediately met with criticism. Economists all over the world argued that developing countries should develop their local marketplace and through that way focus on their economic independence. Economists like Ragnar Nurkse, with whom Dr. Singh shared some intense discussions, propagated that 'balanced growth' could be achieved through local businesses and local needs and not only through export promotion. Dr. Singh correctly pointed out that poor and under-developed nations can find their path of economic development through International Business. The incredible economic development of Japan in the sixties occurred due to the policies of export promotion. The country then had experienced rapid industrialization and accordingly the Japanese government had initiated the policies of export promotion and import restriction. These policies were further carried out by South Korea, Taiwan, China and Thailand. However, Dr. Singh maintained that the

policies of economic development should be implemented keeping in mind the needs of the common people. And a widening of the economic system was required to achieve this, without which the gap between the rich and the poor would intensify. It would further result in social conflicts. According to him, widening of the economic system would help in decreasing the rift between the rich and the poor and the society as a whole could get a cushioning of financial security. He wanted to build a nation where many businesses would prosper and that in turn would reduce unemployment. When many companies enter an economic system, employment opportunities arise in every sector related to that particular business. All this was not possible in a day! But for this to happen, the step of liberalization, enabling foreign investment, was the best available choice. Dr. Singh also had experienced that the enterprise and business skills were waiting to spring up within the country for a long time. Government imposing restrictions on an individual irked Dr. Singh. The Indian society was already entangled with restrictions and caste-driven thought. Hence the historic decision of liberalization was responsible for the surge of hidden and suppressed entrepreneurial skills that the nation possessed. The dreams of the people saw a new horizon. The caste based demarcations began to get loose. In the interview to Charles Rose he further said, "When I became finance minister in 1991, I discovered that the wealth tax rates income -- there was taxation on wealth. It was so atrocious and so high that actually nobody could accumulate money in an honest way. I removed that tax, and the result was that Indian companies for the first time acquired an incentive to grow big, to grow rich. And you see the results of that in Bangalore. You see it happening elsewhere. So I am convinced the entrepreneurial spirit of the Indian people, if allowed to express itself freely in the marketplace, India will be all right. I have always believed India is a country blessed by God with enormous entrepreneurial skills. Now, this entrepreneurial spirits were kept suppressed by the command and control system that started out

with well, with good intentions -- maybe it served us well in the beginning -- but after a time, it became a fetter on our progress. I believe if we remove these fetters, the flowering of the entrepreneurial spirit of India would I think bring about a sea change in the way our economy works and functions. And that is happening. In 1991, where was the IT industry? I think Mr. Narayanmurthy, Mr. Premji, they were all I think insignificant entities." While he was the Finance Secretary in the Indian Government, he implemented policies that were framed by the government. But post1991 in the P.V Narasimha Rao's government, the scholarly and reflective economist in him got a laboratory for research, and he did not leave this opportunity. In his very first budget, he pointed out to the potentials of an emerging and a rising India. ‘I do not minimize the difficulties that lie ahead on the long and arduous journey on which we have embarked. But as Victor Hugo once said, ‘No power on earth can stop an idea whose time has come.' I suggest to this august House that the emergence of India as a major economic power in the world happens to be one such idea. Let the whole world hear it loud and clear. India is now wide awake. We shall prevail. We shall overcome.'' The budget that he tabled was implemented for the next five years. A glimpse on the economic reforms introduced by Dr. Singh is enough to convince us that he had indeed challenged the traditional policy making and traditional politics of the Congress party. 1991 - As part of the new industrial policy, all sectors excluding strategic and defence had their permit related rules relaxed. The Monopoly Act was revoked, and new businesses were encouraged. Permits to 18 major industrial sectors in the country were made a binding. The rupee was devalued by 20%. The telecom equipment manufacture industry was excluded from a permit. (This was the base for India's telecom revolution). The Electricity Dispersion Law of 1948 was corrected.

1992 - Radio Paging, Mobile, and Telephone services were made open for investment from the Private Sector. Enron power plant with the generation capacity of 2000 Megawatt electricity was approved. (This power plant was later shelved by the Shiv Sena - BJP Government in Maharashtra) 1993 - Announcement of the National Mineral Policy 1994 - National Telecom Policy announced whereby ‘Mobile phone' services in the Metro cities were open to private sector investment. The Aviation industry was thrown open for private sector participation and investment. 1995 - Mobile Services were approved in 19 circles of the country. 20 new proposals of more than 1000 megawatt power generation capacity were approved, and for them, a new power policy was framed. Airport Authority of India (AAI) was established. 1996 - The private sector was allowed to enter the airways transportation of goods. Dr. Singh's first budget saw a massive cut in the fertilizer subsidy. The financial help given to the public sector establishments was curtailed. Welfare Schemes were cut down. This budget resulted in a huge discontent among the senior leaders of the Congress party. They felt that subsidy reduction would result in a massive repulsion of rural votes from the party. There also emerged a thought within the Congress that policies of Dr. Singh were against the interests of the poor. In the Congress working committee, almost 60 odd MPs openly spoke against these policies. But Prime Minister Rao stood firmly behind his Finance Minister. However, it was now evident that the opposition to Dr. Singh was not only from the Left and the BJP but also from his party. Many leaders within the Congress had lost direct touch with the people. The government of P.V Narasimha Rao had a massive experiment to conduct for the nation. There were two major challenges before the government – Secularism and Economic Development. Dr. Singh had placed a new roadmap for economic development in the country, and further Prime Ministers including Mr. Vajpayee could

not divert that road. In 2004, Dr. Singh assumed power as the Prime Minister. However, he met his policies (initiated in 1991) in office without any significant change. Mrs. Gandhi and Dr. Singh almost had a consensus when it came to economic development. Government regulated economics were not acceptable to her as well. Both of them had discussed these issues many times. Mrs. Gandhi was convinced that careful handling of market economics would benefit the poorest of the people in the country along with the affluent sections. Hence she could convey the heavy industry captains and the middle class of the country that her party would continue the liberalization process. Dr. Singh also clarified that instead of dancing on the Share Market's tunes, his government would endorse fair and transparent practices that would be conducive to industries and their head honchos. To strengthen the policies of Dr. Singh, Mrs. Gandhi roped in successful business personalities from various sectors and assembled them in the decision-making process of various administrative areas. The list of these personalities consisted of names like Kapil Sibbal, Jayram Ramesh, Sam Pitroda, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Narendra Jadhav, C. Rangarajan, Shashi Tharoor and Nandan Nilekani. Of these, some were incorporated directly into the Cabinet while some were roped in through the Planning Commission, National Advisory Council, Finance Commission, Knowledge Commission, Science Advisory Council and other such prime bodies. Some were even roped in to negotiate with countries like the United States, Pakistan and China. The other leaders of the Congress were given different portfolios. No one opposed Mrs. Gandhi, and she also ensured that the chair of the Prime Minister remained firm and strengthened.

Shining India There were huge expectations from Dr. Singh when he became the Prime Minister. When he assumed office, almost a decade had passed since the inception of economic liberalization. Even though there was no industrial revolution of any kind, there was a rapid change in the Indian economy. Urbanization had grown rapidly. The growth rate of 5.6% in the nineties had moved to 7.7% in 2000. As per the census of 2001, the population of the Indian Middle Class was 31% of the total population of 1 Billion. There was a transformation of villages into towns, and the latter experienced a change to cities. The cities were eyeing the road to become Metros. As per the Goldman Sachs report of October 2013, there was a speculation that after Brazil, Russia and China, it would be India that would elevate itself and become a superpower. The concept of ‘Free Market' was firmly rooted in the country. Under this concept, private investments and profits received top priorities whereas Government authorities got a secondary status. This post-liberalization decade had resulted in the creation of a massive consumer class in the country, and these changes had resulted in a huge and a significant shift in its lifestyle. The Decade from 1991 to 2001 challenged and thwarted the monopoly of ‘Maruti' as an automobile Brand in the country. Companies like Honda had entered the Indian market and they were well received. The middle-class dream of buying a car was now a reality. Similar was the growth story for Motorbikes and their reach to the rural areas. Debit cards and Credit cards found many users. The mushrooming of Cyber Cafes started in the cities, and the same followed suit in the villages. This decade did not fetch enough cell phone users, and its usage was restricted to the wealthy and the upper middle class. Colour televisions replaced the ‘black and white' models. The entry of companies like Zee and Sony signaled the start of new businesses in the private television sector. The lower middle class was eager to march towards becoming the middle class. A neo-

middle class was born as a consequence of the boom in the Information Technology Industry. A large social sector that worked in Banks, Government Institutions, Insurance Companies, Agriculture and small private enterprises saw their sons and daughters enter the IT industry, and as a consequence, these families experienced a huge surge in their income. The phrase 'Khate Pite Ghar ka' (the meaning in Hindi of 'being well fed' and hence indicating an affluent family) that was used only for well-to-do middle-class families gradually entered extinction. The academic environment in these middle-class families flourished, and they emphasized on the perusal of additional computer courses to reach higher educational qualifications. Medicine and engineering courses no longer enjoyed a monopoly when it came to career options. New sectors of employment like Foreign Banks, Insurance, financial institutions and multinational companies came up, and to get a job in these areas, courses like the ‘MBA' began to mushroom on the education scenario. The IIMs matched the IITs and experienced a cut-throat competition in the admission process. The education sector experienced growth and hence saw the birth of various institutions. Private Coaching classes registered a wave across the country. Housing, Electronics, Health, Engineering and Transport Sectors recorded a significant growth. Many new businesses were established owing to the increased opportunities of self-employment. ‘Doordarshan' had the monopoly in television entertainment in the Seventies and Eighties. This monopoly was challenged after the arrival of private television channels. The year 1992 witnessed the screening of 'Zee TV' - the first satellite channel - for only three hours. In 1993, the television serial ‘Tara' on the same channel portrayed the image of the then Urban India. Another entrant in 1995 with the name of ‘Sony Entertainment Television' struck an emotional chord with the then younger generation. Their famed dance program 'Boogie Woogie' created both a trend and business in the entertainment industry. In 1998, another satellite television channel - 'Star TV' - broadcasted the serial 'Saans' that aimed to showcase the struggle faced by the women living in

urban India. And in 2002 'Kaun Banega Crorepati', hosted by Amitabh Bachchan, revolutionized the television industry and connected these satellite channels to the larger rural India. Hindi cinema shed its traditional attire and sprung up with a new life. The rise of Shah Rukh Khan was analogous to liberalization. The portrayal of a villager by him in the film ‘Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman' won many hearts. The film depicted the story of a villager who despite his lack of command over English progresses to occupy a major position in a private company. This is when the concept of ‘career building' entered Bollywood and it replaced the traditional storyline that mainly focused on fights against injustice or the system. Superstars like Salman Khan, Aamir Khan and later Hrithik Roshan portrayed on screen the feelings of the middle class, their ways of entertainment and all the concepts that revolved around their world. The Producers-Directors like Suraj Barjadtya, Karan Johar, Aditya Chopra changed the Hindi movie landscape. The lead character of the film was now portrayed having a healthy financial condition as against the age-old concept of portraying only the Villain in that manner! Bollywood movies till then characterized the ‘Hero' as someone who would avenge the murder of his father or a rape attempt on his sister/girlfriend or someone who would fight against the corrupt system. Movies now began to portray a storyline where there was a peep into the underworld or something that would provide entertainment to the entire family. Films now began to include humour, love, friendship or even politics on a large scale. The film industry now saw the emergence of positions like an Art Director, Editor, Cameraman or a Costume Designer. Films like 'Khuda Gawah',' Hum Aap ke Hain Kaun', 'Dilwale Dulhaniya le Jaayenge'. 'Kuch Kuch Hota Hain', Pardes', Dil', 'Bazigar' became super hits. Production Houses like 'Mukta', 'UTV', and ‘TIPS’, ‘Balaji' began to spread their presence in the television and the film industries. The process of dubbing Hollywood movies and screening them in India started. Liberalization became a safety valve for all the hidden potentials in the country. It was a delightful change for the middle class that

otherwise felt that the values of knowledge, talent and hard-work were not respected in this country. However, it also was a slap in the face of that white collared section in the society which always went on to equate higher education with foreign countries. Above all, the liberalization process was responsible for making the middle class realize and be confident about their potential. A much-needed impetus was provided to the skills of small-scale entrepreneurs, factory owners and farmers. This first-decade post liberalization saw the English language reach the ground levels of the country. This was the language that otherwise initiated a feeling of an inferiority complex amongst many people. The rigid walls of caste began to develop cracks. Computer usage was absorbed, and eventually, the Internet usage became common among the people. As everything of this was making its presence felt, the first decade of liberalization also saw the rise of a ‘curly haired' boy on the nation's horizon. His name was Sachin Tendulkar. (Why did the phenomenon of ‘Sachin Tendulkar' not take place in cricket's homeland England or the then talent pool of the West Indies or Australia? Why did it not occur in any other restless country like Pakistan, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka?) Sachin Tendulkar was the product of the new vibrant Indian society. With a height that measured five feet five inches, curly hairs, shrilled voice, gentle eyes and a world-conquering ability from within, Tendulkar represented a dream of the Indian middle class - a dream of conquering the world! Hence when Sachin broke records after records in his career spanning 24 years, crores of Indians had a feeling of their dreams getting fulfilled! Indians felt that they now were a force to reckon with. Manas Gupta, in his article in the Times of India, has written on the record creating spree of Sachin. He writes, "As our economy began its majestic rise, the nation saw hope in this genius from Indian cricket capital. Finally, we had a player who went after the impossible. If Gavaskar was the man who staved off defeat, Tendulkar was the prodigy who always eyed victory. He was the competitor who gave the opposition a taste of their own medicine.

Cowed down, for years, it was time for India to hit back, whether in business or on the cricket pitch – and hit back we did, with aplomb." This change in the country was unbelievable and incredible! Indian students that went abroad for higher studies managed to grab top positions in the Information Technology companies of Europe and the United States. Giants like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, IBM and Microsoft started entering the Indian market for investments. The life of the ordinary Indian began to change, and with this change, he embraced new hopes and expectations. This neo-middle class gave primary importance to the newly generated economic opportunities, and hence it was futile to expect any proximity to a particular political ideology from them. The new class that rose was not the one who liked dwelling in past values. It desired to live a life of comfort and prosperity. Malls and multiplexes were the places where he chose to spend his weekend. This class not only visited the traditional holiday destinations like Kashmir, Kanyakumari, Bangalore or Ooty but also added to its list the destinations like Rajasthan, Kerela, Darjeeling, Ladakh, Karnataka, Orissa, Maharashtra or Tamil Nadu. The open outskirts of cities experienced a mushrooming of amusement parks. Resorts became a usual visiting place. This emerged class chose to travel in self-purchased or hired vehicles instead of the otherwise routine of railways and bus services. Air Travel did not remain the monopoly of the rich. Similarly, goods like air conditioners, microwave, flat screen televisions, and double door refrigerators were not limited only to the super rich. The psyche of the Indian society drastically changed in the first ten years since the start of the liberalization process. The nation all these days was used to discussions that mentioned its glorious past. However, the topics of routine discussion now focused on the glorious future that lay ahead for the country. The dining table conversations of the middle class at one point lamented over the lack of opportunities in the country. However, this perception gradually began to decline, and it began to discuss the limitless opportunities provided by the country. The image of India was notorious as the nation of snake charmers and street magicians. But the same foreign press

now reported about India as a huge fashion market. The image of India as a software exporter to the world superseded her image of using traditional commodities. New magazines entered the marketplace that focused on fashion, lifestyle, music, furniture, automobile, technology, interior design, Bollywood, sex, etc. Many new writers mushroomed, and they began writing on new issues. These issues included the changes in the vibes of the Indian nation and its social, political and economic manifestations. It was not surprising that the changes in the Indian society affected the modes of connectivity. The bullock carts and bicycles on urban Indian roads were replaced, and their places were taken up by motorcycles and cars. Young entrepreneurs, businesspeople, share traders, newspaper editors and ministers discussed the prospects of India becoming the next superpower. The developments in the cities of Tokyo, London and New York were followed by the urban Indian middle class through satellite television. They began to take an avid interest in world economics. This class began to understand that the implications of global developments – both positive and negative – would have either a direct or an indirect impact on their lifestyle. (The burst of the ‘dot com' bubble made this class aware about the global developments) The forced labourer and landless farmers of Rajasthan, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar began to migrate to the cities of Mumbai, Pune, Kochi, Vishakhapatnam, Bangalore, Bhopal, Indore, Jaipur, and Ahmedabad for work. The class that was for centuries subjected to economic and social backwardness became a consumer of a newly opened market. In 2013, the United Nations published a report titled, 'The Rise of the South' that mentioned the middle class as one of the rapidly growing class in the past 150 years and its growth was attributed to the liberalization process. This report indicated that the rapid rise of the middle class was not seen in the United States or Europe. Rather, it was observed in Asia. In 1990, the typical middle-class individual in the world had an income in the range of 10 to 100 dollars a day and the total population of this class amounted to a billion and 30 lakhs. The report predicted that by 2020, this class would total itself to a

population of 3 billion and 20 lakhs. In the 20th century, the rise of the middle class in the United States and Europe was unilateral and homogeneous, and hence economic pundits were well aware of the know-how of this class. However, post-Nineties, the middle class of the Asian nations and particularly India showed signs of a complex heterogeneity. Wealth, income, employment, business, education and caste were responsible for the rise of different levels within this class. For example, there developed a class that purchased branded, expensive goods from foreign countries. There was a class that travelled abroad every year and within the country preferred to travel in first class A/C compartments of Rajdhani and Shatabdi expresses or in Volvo buses in case of road transportation. This class possessed two or three apartments of its own. Their investments were not only in gold but also were in the share market, mutual funds and land dealings. Most of the middle class was in the double-income group. They did not have expectations of becoming super rich, but they did not prefer a life of toil and hardship either. They had at one point of time worked in tertiary positions in mills, agriculture or small scale businesses and did not entirely favour a life full of hard work. Now they eyed the economic opportunities that rose due to liberalization. A section of the middle class was happily shopping in malls and patronizing 'Made in China' products. This class gladly patronized technology. Technological progress made a positive impact in the lives of the middle class, and it added in making their overall approach more confident. As this class patronized technology, the corresponding poorer sections also followed suit. The middle class began to express itself through television, telephone, mobile phones and through the vast spreading network of the Internet. Today almost 90% of the urban middle class has access to television and this statistic holds true for about 62% of the corresponding rural middle class. In rural India, 24% of the population possesses cars, and this statistic holds true for 40% of the urban population. The large section of the Indian middle class is associated with agriculture while the rest aligns itself with banks, businesses, government jobs and the private sector.

So is there anything similar to the Indian middle class and their counterparts from the other developing countries? Social Scientist Dipankar Gupta in his book, 'Mistaken Modernity' (2000), comments on the Indian middle class. He says, ‘In most modern societies, the middle class is not about acquisitions, but the extent to which the ethic of modernity is internalized. In a modern society, there is a built in, un-thought-out, un-self-conscious acceptance of the ‘other' as equal to you in the most basic respects. In India, we confuse modernity with things or with habits (like drinking, driving or using machine guns or nuclear-tipped missiles). Even slums and urbanization do not define urbanization. At best, they give indications of it. This is because urbanization signifies a release for rural India and the culture of the past where a person was not known by achievements but by birth, and so on. Unless relations between people do not change fundamentally, urbanization can coexist with patron- client relationships, where the privileged and the underprivileged are programmed from the start to lead separate lives.' Some economists in the country credit the middle class for the process of liberalization. They claimed that Dr. Singh had to open the economy for the expectations of this class. But economist and sociologist E. Shreedharan differ on this argument. According to Mr. Shreedharan, "While several scholars say it's the middle class that has pushed the state to go for economic reforms, I see contradictions. More than 58% of the middle class has its origins in the public sector. So while it wants market goodies, it also wants free or subsidized water, power, fertilizers or credit." But one thing was prominently observed. The middle class that rose in the urbanization process was keen to snap its ties with rural India. The generation of people that migrated to the cities during the seventies and the eighties had children who were born in the cities. This resulted in multiple layers within the middle class. They began to

differentiate between rural and urban culture. They felt a direct contradiction between the age old traditions and beliefs and the general concept of progress. The city was the place where they could not burden themselves with these traditions and thus experience individual freedom. They also did not have to go through the daily struggle for essential commodities like their village counterparts. The fight for water, electricity and shelter was also comparatively reduced. As urbanization began taking care of these problems, this class lost its connection with politics! They experienced frustration at the pro-poor decisions made by the government and dismissed them as vote bank politics or poor appeasement. Consequently, this class began to distance itself from the process of voting. They also were heavily influenced by the media and certain intellectuals that openly propagated subsidies as a waste of tax payer's money. The presence of this class began to increase in the media, and as a consequence, they began to highlight the issues that revolved around them! The middle class of the 19th and the 20th century was not recognized by its financial power but rather by its influence in the field of literature, intellectual magazines, progressive thoughts and the spread of knowledge. It was recognized by the fact that it campaigned for the causes of the poor and the downtrodden. Though it did not have a significant financial presence, it was recognized by its progress in the field of education. The picture, however, drastically changed by the end of the 20th century. The middle-class post liberalization had layers within it - the upper middle class, neo-middle class; lower middle class and so on! This class was neither very keen nor very aggressive when it came to political aspirations. But it felt the need to fight for its rights when problems due to urbanization increased; when government services began to develop cracks and corruption began to rise! Post-2009 when scams like the Commonwealth, 2G spectrum or Coalgate came into light, and many digits were flashed by the news channels, the frustration of this class was seen getting vented through the movements of Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal.

But was this outbreak real or was it politicized to make it sound real? Was this done to uproot the system of parliamentary democracy from the country or was there an attempt to showcase that politicians are responsible for all problems that arise in this country? Was the second independence movement (?) a movement or was it a cruel attempt to end the Nehru-Gandhi family from the political scenario of the country? Was this movement a replica of the similar International movements in Tunisia and Egypt or was it a phantom campaign engineered by the help of the social media? Was this action aimed at the character assassination of Dr. Singh and Sonia Gandhi? Or was it engineered to lay the stage for Narendra Modi to assume importance on the political scene? Was this an attempt to hand over the political reins in the hands of the middle class or was it a conspiracy to malign the gigantic administrative tenure of Dr. Singh? Or was it an attempt to stall the massive strides the Indian economy was about to take? Was it a political strategy of the Sangh Parivar to malign Dr. Singh and through this malign the Gandhi family and reap the seeds of hatred against them? The changed political scenario gradually unlocked the answers to these questions.

The struggle with the Left In the year 2004, the Left parties decided that they would provide external support to the Congress-led government. It was not a cakewalk for the Congress as it had to accommodate 59 members of the Left parties. People had voted for the Congress to carry forward the process of liberalization, privatization and globalization. But the Left had a fundamental opposition to these concepts. They did not agree to this synchronization of the economies of the developing countries (in this case India) with that of the global process. The picture, however, gets clearer when the then global scenario is understood. The unrest in the West Asian countries due to the United States' attack on Iraq and the concern about the Sars disease around the world was beginning to subside. It had its effect on the South Asian countries. There was a record production of food grain. The demand for agricultural produce in the national and international market had increased, and this had made India, and the other south Asian countries shed their economic sluggishness. The increase in production, control of fuel prices and a friendly investment climate created an increase in economic opportunities. In the urban areas, the service sector was seen expanding rapidly. On the other hand, the American economy grew at a rapid pace. The world's economic development rate was 2.4% in 2003 which went up to 3.5% by 2004. The quick surge of the Chinese economy was one of the primary reasons behind this. The Japanese economy also gained prominence in the global economic scenario. Foreign capital was seen entering the Latin American countries and African nations. Hence, the environment was very conducive for investments to flow in India and also for businesses to flourish. Dr. Singh sensed the opportunity to ride over these positive developments. However, the process of synchronizing the Indian economy with the World economy required a political will and Dr. Singh was able to display the same. During its tenure from 1999 to 2003, the BJP could not make any significant change in policies that were introduced by Dr. Singh

as a finance minister way back in 1991. Those policies had stood the test of time then. At the same time, they were visionary and were in a complete tandem with the world economy. Rather, it was the BJP that hastily began to implement the ‘liberalization-privatization-globalization' policies without even thinking about the general administration. As a consequence, the financial management and food securities were severely affected. The stacked food-grain in government storehouses was not used properly by the government. Rather, they exported about 10 million tonnes of food grain at a price that was much lower than the price at which the poor bought them. The ‘India Shining' campaign was in sharp contrast with antiagriculture policies of the NDA government. The repercussions hence were felt during the 2004 general elections where the Congress won 145 seats while the BJP had to content itself with 138. The difference in seats was a mere 7! The intellectuals then had stated that it was the middle class that had ousted the BJP and favoured the Congress. It had shifted its loyalty from the former to the latter and this was more evident during the general elections of 2009. However, the major challenge for the Dr. Singh – led government was the interference of the Left parties who viewed every decision of his with suspicious eyes. The left parties put forward their demands in the form of three major economic policies: Every nation develops around the robust nature of its land acquisition law, and the UPA government should be more sensitive towards this issue. Incorporating Rural India in the development of the country is necessary. The central government should be firm in stressing on infrastructure and industrial structure, research and development, health and education related human resource. As India is very diverse in nature, decentralization is a powerful political tool for the empowerment of society. Hence the centre and the state should curtail their rights and transfer the power to local self-governing bodies at the ground level.

But was it possible to amalgamate these demands of the left with the liberalization - privatization - globalization of policies? The left parties claimed that the policies of the governments so far had devastated the agricultural economy of the nation. They put forward their claim by the following five arguments: The reduction in government subsidies has resulted in an increase in the price of agricultural goods. Restrictions on the import of agricultural goods have directly impacted the production capacity of the peasants, and as a result, they have been economically affected. In the past decade, the development focus was on the urban areas, and hence rural development took a backseat. There has been no significant investment in the agricultural sector, and hence the same has declined. As a consequence, employment opportunities have decreased. The increased migrations to the cities are a failure of the economic policies and not a success of urbanization policies. Globalization and liberalization policies have ruined the peasants to the extent that farmers are getting strangled by the moneylenders. The cases of farmer suicides were a visual form of this strangle according to the Left. Apart from this, the Left claimed that the public distribution system had collapsed under the NDA regime and hence it had led to an increase in cases of hunger and poverty in the rural areas. The liberalization process had resulted in attempts on the government's part to reduce the fiscal deficit. It further led to a reduction in demand for commodities and this, according to the Left parties had declined the industrial production in the past six years. These demands of the Left parties implied that the government was a weak executioner. Further, it became apparent that these parties wanted the government to abolish the triple policies of ‘liberalization privatization- globalization'. However not only were these demands perverse but they also were regressive and not in tune with the time!

And this was especially at a time when the country had begun to reap the benefits of these decade-old policies. Under these circumstances, it was suicidal to take the country back to the Socialist path. It was indeed a political danger for the Manmohan Singh government to tackle all these issues. Sparks began to flow when the UPA government completed a year in power. In 2005, Dr. Singh publicly expressed regret that owing to some principle differences within; his government could not implement certain important policies. He valued his performance as six over a scale of 10. The BJP, on the other hand, said that the first year of the government was a year full of bad governance. They further predicted that this government would collapse and would make way for Atal Bihari Vajpayee to be the Prime Minister. The Left parties complained that the government had done nothing concrete on the common minimum program. Mr. Prakash Karat (the then general secretary of the CPM-India) was open in voicing his displeasure and even went on to announce that his party would vote against the government. The conflict now had stretched even further. The Left parties alleged that the government was not keen on implementing the employment guarantee act. When the UPA had come to power, it had announced that it would introduce reservations for women in the Central and Provincial Bodies and also would present the concept of reservations in the private sector. However every political party, with the notable exception of the Left parties, had opposed those steps. Around the same time in Bihar, Ram Vilas Paswan and Lalu Prasad Yadav showered allegations of corruption on each other and this had its repercussions at the Central. Moreover, both these leaders were cabinet ministers at the Center and represented the same government. This was enough to malign the government. However, the BJP being the principle opposition party could not reap benefits from this situation. The Left parties finally managed to land the government in trouble on 15th June 2005. They cited the common minimum program as they wrote a letter to the UPA-Left coordination committee while highlighting the critical issues faced by the nation. These were

attempts to embarrass the government and raise speculations about the rise of a third front that would include the Samajwadi Party, Telugu Desam Party along with the BJP. And what did the letter include? The UPA government took a courageous decision of divesting in the public sector company 'Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited'. The repercussions of this decision were such that the Left decided to boycott the meeting of the coordination committee. They criticized that this decision was against the interests of the workers, and was taken with an aim to appease the capitalists and in response to the sections within the government that lobbied for liberalization. They also claimed that this decision was a direct violation of the common minimum program. Further, they also felt that this decision was against the mandate received in 2004. (The mandate of 2004, however, was against the communal policies of the BJP-led NDA and in support of the liberalization policies of the Congress) However, Sonia Gandhi had to intervene following the Left parties' decision to boycott the proceedings. She entered into discussions with the Left leaders A. B Vardhan and Prakash Karat and made the government reverse the decision of divesting from BHEL. The meeting of the coordination committee on 15th June 2006 further demonstrated the rift in the views of the Congress and the Left. The Left found it impossible to move away from their ideology and their principles, and they put forward 11 demands before the government. The summary of these implied that the government was unsuccessful on the issues of inflation, agricultural woes and unemployment, education, health and infrastructure services. They stressed that the government should immediately take concrete steps on these matters. This was an indirect way of threatening the government. Apart from this, the Left demanded explanations from the government on the fronts of economic policies, foreign policies, and rise in petroleum prices, agricultural policies, food security and planning.

The Left, through these issues, wanted to oppose the 'US-appeasing' policies of the government. (The UPA government had supported the decision of granting an 'observer' status to the United States in the SAARC summit and had also raised objections towards the nuclear program of Iran.) Opposition to the capitalists and imperialists was a common ideological reference point of the Leftists. These developments made them oppose the government in its US-leaning policies. On assuming power, Dr.Singh stated that the nation needed energy for its development and announced that his government would prioritize non-traditional sources of energy. He was confident that nuclear power could solve the energy problems the nation was facing. He also indicated that his government would deregulate the subsidies on petroleum products to reduce the fiscal deficit. The Left, however, felt that these steps were against the poor of the country. On this background, the Left was back in power in the West Bengal state assembly. In Kerala, the Left Democratic Front assumed power by defeating the Congress-led United Democratic Front. The Left felt that these decisions were an indication of them getting successful in their policies. Mr. Karat, in one of the interviews, stated that these results were a slap in the face of the liberalization policies of the Congress and the Leftist ideologies will now assume a nation-wide significance. (Mamta Banerjee was responsible for proving Mr. Karat wrong when she defeated the Left in West Bengal in 2009 and halted their rule that had stretched for 35 years. Also in the Lok Sabha elections of 2009, the Left could manage only 24 Members of Parliament (MPs) in the country.) The Left was overjoyed after its success in the States of Kerela and West Bengal and also because of the moderate image of Dr.Singh. When the government increased petrol prices, there were violent demonstrations in the country. The Samajwadi Party, though itself being in power, declared a bandh in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The Left could generate support of the Telugu Desam Party and Ajit Singh's Rashtriya Lok Dal. The Samajwadi Party unexpectedly

declared support to the movement, and this corroborated the formations of the non-Congress, non-BJP government at the Center. There were some who triggered talks of the Congress needing to change its candidate for the Prime Ministerial position. The Samajwadi Party's stand of opposing the United States was of immense help to the Left. On this background, Prakash Karat, in an interview given to 'Frontline', stated that the Left would oppose the government on the issue of increase in petrol prices and conduct agitations for a month. The government hence went on the back foot. Sensing these developments, political parties like the DMK, RJD, LJP and some sections within the Congress began to move towards the Left. But as Dr. Singh had taken up the responsibility of making India a superpower; he began to display his political skills. While addressing the nation on 15th August 2004 in what was his first Independence Day Speech, he had quoted the famous poet Robert Frost and said, I do not want to make new promises; I want to fulfill the promises that I made The reference to this quote was not to make India a nuclear superpower but to make it as a nation flourishing under nuclear energy and technology. He was firm to end India's exile from the group of nations who possessed nuclear energy. The country was in need of nuclear energy, especially in the background of 45 nuclear energy supplying countries jointly boycotting India. The 'Common Minimum Program' of the UPA government specifically mentioned the nuclear deal. Hence it was important to see how was he to fulfill the promise given to the nation. However as the Deal progressed, Dr. Singh not only triumphed over the Left parties but also punctured the BJP and made way to build UPA-2. And this started a cold war between Dr. Singh and the senior and experienced leaders within the Congress. The nation witnessed the effects of this war after two years.

Singh is King In 2005 it was made official that Dr. Manmohan Singh would be meeting the then United States President George W Bush. The political scenario in the country was quick to turn volatile. When Dr. Singh reached the United States, he was given a rare guard of honour by firing 21 gun shots. The United States President reserves this honour for highly important dignitaries like the President/ Prime Ministers of England and Australia. However, the United States and Indian media raised its eyebrows when Dr. Singh was given a red carpet welcome! During his visit, the Indian Prime Minister held meaningful discussions with the representatives of the American Congress. In the media brief, India's foreign secretary Mr. Shyamsaran Singh stated that the meet between Dr. Singh and Mr. Bush was a start of a new phase in Indo-American relations. Mr. Bush mentioned India is a responsible nation in his statement. (Some media representatives compared this to the meeting of KissingerNixon with the Chinese) This meet was important in many aspects. First, Dr. Singh was here to seal the Indo - US Nuclear civil agreement. The United States had imposed sanctions on India after the latter under Prime Minister Vajpayee had conducted nuclear tests. These sanctions resulted in many legal and political hurdles in the transfer of nuclear technology to India. In the past 30 years, the United States had not entered into any agreement with India. Considering India's energy requirements, Dr. Singh stressed on the implementation of this deal. However, this had many political moves. Apart from the energy needs, this deal was to keep a check on Pakistan and China. The joint statement of Bush and Dr. Singh stated that India was a responsible nation in accepting modern nuclear technology for civilian development. Secondly, this deal was a way to teach a lesson to the Left parties by stressing them to get in sync with the changing times.

According to this deal, India could buy nuclear fuel and modern technology equipped nuclear reactors from the United States. However, lobbies in both nations had almost entered a wrestling arena and made various attempts to thwart the implementation of this deal. Mr. Bush required approval from the United States Congress whereas Dr. Singh had to coax the Left parties. The latter's failure would have made him face a no-confidence motion in the Parliament. Additionally, the Indian media took an extreme step by projecting this deal as a national prestige. On his way back, Dr. Singh underlined the importance and need of nuclear energy in the growing Indian economy. He was firm on his position and clear in his thoughts. He said, "When the cost of oil reaches 100 dollars per barrel, it affects India just the way it affects the United States. India fulfils about 70% of its energy through imports from other nations. These rates keep on fluctuating all the time. This fluctuation can also be a burden on the country's economy. India has vast reserves of coal. But to excavate them, one needs modern technology which in turn may cause environmental hazards. There are legal hurdles too. As energy is fuel for economic development, one needs to search alternative options to make it available." Another reason for Dr. Singh emphasizing on the nuclear deal was that the proposed gas pipeline from Iran was facing many hurdles. This proposed natural gas pipeline project emphasized on Iran providing natural gas to India via Afghanistan and Pakistan. The then petroleum minister Mr. Manishankar Aiyyar was very keen on this project. But the United States pressurized both India and Pakistan not to go ahead with this project. The former reasoned that valuable natural resource like natural gas could end up in the hands of the terrorists. It was a huge blow to India's attempts of acquiring its energy needs. Though a constructive discussion took place between Mr. Bush and Dr. Singh, the media from both sides began to propel how this

proposed deal would not be a good outcome. The newspapers in the United States questioned calling India a responsible nuclear nation. They stressed that India had not signed the ‘Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty' and hence supplying nuclear technology to India would raise a lot of political difficulties. Through the ‘Washington Post', the Democrats questioned the double standards of the United States government by pointing out that on the one hand, it lodges a protest when Russia supplies nuclear technology to Iran but eventually does the same with India. One of the influential leaders from the Democrats, Edward Murky alleged that Mr. Bush was playing a dangerous game through this deal. Some opined that Pakistan might ask for such a deal shortly. Britain expressed its displeasure over this deal. France welcomed this deal on condition of its use for peaceful implications. Before the United States, France and Russia had agreed to sell nuclear technologies to India and discussions to that effect had already taken place. Condoleezza Rice, the then Foreign Minister of the United States had briefed Mr. Mohommad Al El Baradei, the President of the International Atomic Energy Agency about all developments associated with this deal. She also had discussions with the then Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf and assured him that signing this deal with India won't have any implications on the United States relations with Pakistan. However, Pakistan was restless by these developments. Thus on the International Platform, Dr. Singh had used his skills for India's success. However, at the domestic level, he began to experience criticism from the Left parties as well as from the Right wing. Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee said it was "difficult to resist the feeling that while India has made long-term and specific commitments in the joint statement, the U.S. has merely made promises which it may not be able to see through in the exclusive nuclear club. The Bush administration had called India "a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology", it was still far from recognizing the country as a "responsible nuclear state."

However, Mr. Vajpayee did not extend his opposition ahead. While the Left parties were preparing to move a motion of ‘no-confidence' against the government, Dr. Singh visited Mr. Vajpayee's official residence and discussed the implications of this deal for over an hour. However, as these discussions began to gather a positive outcome, Mr. Advani termed Dr. Singh, an opportunist who knocked the doors of the BJP because his government was in danger. He also declared that it was too late to ask for BJP's support. However, this statement reflected that the Party now did not give much importance to Mr. Vajpayee's comments. But it was Mr. Vajpayee who had first held discussions with Mr. Bush over this deal. It was during his tenure that the relations between India and the United States saw a new offshoot. The Left intensified its opposition by positioning itself on the streets of the country. There were ‘Morchas' and processions against the deal in many parts of the country. Mr. Prakash Karat, the then general secretary of the CPM, said that if India would become a nuclear superpower through the assistance of the United States, then he would oppose such a move. He, however, failed to understand Dr. Singh's motive. The Left circulated a statement saying that India should have a nuclear program of its own. He also thundered that this nuclear deal would be an acid test for the UPA government. Later in the days, when Mr. Bush visited India, it became apparent that this deal would go ahead. Additionally, the clearances of safety inclusions by the International Atomic Energy Agency implied that all obstructions in the deal would get clear. It was going to be a political struggle for the UPA government. But this deal also underlined Dr. Singh's commitment towards the nation's nuclear policies and also towards making India a global superpower.

The Actual Storm The Left parties sensed that Dr. Singh was very keen and aggressive towards the nuclear deal. Hence they adopted their strategy. They began announcing their intention of withdrawing the government support. Mr. Chandrachoodan of the Nationalist Socialist Party went on to state the same in the Parliament. The then Home Minister Pranab Mukherjee expressed anger at this statement and asked Mr. Prakash Karat if he agreed with the same. Karat, in turn, stated that Mr. Chandrachoodan had spoken the views of the Left parties. During the Left-UPA coordination committee meet on 16th November 2007, the former tried to lay a trap around the government. They stressed that if the nuclear deal gets clearance from the IAEA, it will be a violation of the agreement between the Left parties and the UPA. They demanded that the government should keep the Parliament informed about all the proceedings with the IAEA and then enter into a discussion. Mr. Sharad Pawar assured that the government would do the same. However as the opposition of the Left Parties became more pronounced, they found a partner in the BJP. But the DMK, RJD and the NCP were against withdrawing support from the government. Importantly, there was a faction within the government that opposed the deal, and it included President Sonia Gandhi herself. Many leaders within the Congress party felt that the government should wait for the elections in Gujarat (December 2007) and Karnataka (June 2008) and then proceed with the deal. They also felt that a Congress victory in these States would increase their overall political clout. Dr. Singh and the supporters of the deal within the party stressed that the deal would go ahead after forming a consensus with everyone. However, the Congress lost Karnataka and also experienced defeat from the Narendra Modi-led BJP in Gujarat. It was a setback for the Congress, and it resulted in the postponement of the coordination committee. At the same time, there were growing demands within the Congress that this deal should be dropped. Additionally, there was a

consensus on not having midway elections. As this consensus developed, the United States Congress amended two legislations and carried out correspondence with 45 nuclear technology supplying nations indicating a further clearance over the deal. A step back from India at this stage would have meant a personal defeat for Dr. Singh. Additionally, this would have hampered India's image at the global arena. Under these circumstances, the Congress called for a meeting with the Left leaders on 22nd October 2008. Pranab Mukherjee acted as a mediator, and he proposed that, "Give us an honourable exit, and we'll not go ahead with the deal. The government would keep its discussions with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In these talks, if the government does not agree to certain conditions of the IAEA, then it would respectively pull out of the situation without insulting the United States." The Left leaders agreed to this. However, they demanded that the government should discuss the same with the Parliament before their discussions with the IAEA. On 10th November 2008, there was a secret meeting held at the Prime Minister's Residence and the same was attended by Dr. Singh, Sonia Gandhi, Pranab Mukherjee, Prakash Karat and A.B Vardhan. However, Dr. Singh found himself a loner in these developments. He patiently listened to what the others had to say and did not open his views then. It was indeed clear that his attempts to make India a superpower faced a roadblock from the Left and the Anti-America faction within the Congress. But this was a silence before the storm for Dr. Singh. His mind became a centre stage for unexpected political moves. Two days later Dr. Singh met his predecessor Atal Bihari Vajpayee at the latter's residence. Mr. Advani as written earlier maintained a different stand on this development. The Parliament meanwhile initiated discussions about the deal, and the government also began its meetings with the IAEA. The Left

parties maintained their assurance of not withdrawing the government support. However, the BJP was stubborn! In a move that surprised many, Dr. Singh visited the Samajwadi Party Supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav and his colleague Amar Singh. One of the reasons for the surprise was the defeat of the Samajwadi Party in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly Elections. This loss had reduced its political importance in the state. Secondly, the then Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister and the CBI were investigating cases of disproportionate assets against Mr. Yadav. When the Congress won the elections in 2004, Mulayam Singh Yadav had raised the issue of Sonia Gandhi's foreign origin and hence had distanced himself from her and the Congress party. However much to Dr. Singh's relief, he assured his support to the government. However, these developments increased the political clout of Dr. Singh in the national capital. He even convinced Sonia Gandhi that the government would survive as it had the support of the Samajwadi Party. Delhi's political conversations then were abuzz with talks that Dr. Singh had threatened to resign had the deal faced a roadblock. Dr. Singh's administrative experience of 40 plus years came handy in this situation. He was a witness to the fact that P.V Narsimha Rao had taken the help of coalition partners when his government was in trouble. It is said that history repeats. It is common sense that timing is most crucial in politics and ‘an enemy's enemy is our friend' is the principle to be adopted. Around the same time, 'Wikileaks' through its tapes indicated the secret understanding between the Congress and the Samajwadi Party. The Left parties were – without any surprise - perplexed! They called a press conference on 8th July and declared that they were withdrawing support from the government. However before the introduction of the no-confidence motion, Dr. Singh had made sure that his government had acquired the necessary political support. Sanjay Baru, Dr. Singh's media consultant, writes,

"Don't forget, he learned real politik from Narasimha Rao, who was a clever old goat and a master craftsman. I keep telling people, never underestimate Manmohan Singh." On 22nd July Dr. Singh was to face the no-confidence motion. Before that on 11th July, Sonia Gandhi and the UPA leaders expressed confidence that the government would survive the no-confidence motion. She did not comment on the Left leaders but said that their decision was unfortunate and that the Congress party was ready to face the situation. Some of the constituent political parties within the UPA did not voice their opinion, but some parties tried to generate trouble for the Congress. An example of this was the 'Indian Union Muslim League', an old political friend of the Congress in Kerela. They stated that the Muslims in India were against the Nuclear Deal. 'Jharkhand Mukti Morcha' was a party that threatened to step out of the government. JMM was miffed because its President Mr. Shibu Soren was not made a Cabinet Minister. Five Members of Parliament of the JMM started their talks with the BJP. The deal was to make Soren a Chief Minister under the BJP support. Two major troubles surfaced before the Congress. First was that 62 Members of Parliament from the Left parties had withdrawn support and hence this number had to be filled in. Secondly, it was important to cash on the political environment that had developed in the country because of the deal. After the Left had withdrawn their support, the UPA government's support number came down from 292 to 230. But 39 Members of Parliament from the Samajwadi Party agreed to give an external support to the government. Their total number now became 269, and now they needed only three members to achieve the magic number. But at the last moment, two of the members of the Samajwadi Party Munnavar Hussain and Jaiprakash Ravat - decided not to support the government. But the Congress continued its talks with Mayawati's Bahujan Samaj Party. Support from their 10 Members of Parliament was very crucial.

Finally, on 22nd July, the UPA government won the no-confidence motion. Out of the 542 Members of Parliament (including the Speaker of the Parliament), 275 voted for the government while 256 voted against them. Ten Members of Parliament abstained from voting. In this count, 28 votes were against the whip of their parties. Of these 28, 21 votes were from the opposition and seven from the UPA. Out of the 21, 13 supported the government, and in these 13, eight were from the BJP, and five were from the NDA alliance. The remaining 8 Members of Parliament abstained. However, the UPA's political victory was not comprehensive. This success came with allegations made by the BJP that votes were bought by cash. Ashok Argal, Phakkansingh Kulste and Mohan Singh Bhagora of the BJP brought a gunny sack filled with currency notes and emptied it on a table in front of the Speaker. The Parliament session was broadcasted live on television, and hence these developments generated shockwaves throughout the country. Lal Krishna Advani claimed that the government had bribed Parliament members to vote for them by spending crores of rupees. He also stated that the Congress party could go to any extent to remain in power. Further, he claimed that the BJP MPs took his permission to expose the government in this scam. Dr. Singh was seen looking at the proceedings with disappointment. Many Congress MPs were shocked by these developments. The Left parties were also in a state of disbelief. The media too began to question the government's motive. Pranab Mukherjee, the foreign minister, was asked by the press, to which he replied, "It is a legal, constitutional and political victory for the government. The vote of confidence has not only cleared the way for the government to go forward with the ‘India-U.S. nuclear deal' in a rightful manner but has also accorded political sanction to the agreement since a majority of legislators of the Indian Parliament has put their stamp of approval. An inquiry would be conducted into the allegations and promised appropriate action if anything amiss was found."

There was one person who was viewed with suspicion in this entire episode and it was Amar Singh of the Samajwadi Party. There were allegations that he had bribed the members so that they could vote and save the government. He was later arrested but eventually acquitted. The three members of Parliament of the BJP were suspended, but by November 2013 they too were acquitted. This victory of the UPA was an example of the firmness displayed by Dr. Singh in his resolve to make India a superpower. On that day while addressing the nation, he said, "This gives a clear message to the world that India's head and heart are sound and India is prepared to take its rightful place in the comity of nations". The media also realized that Singh was indeed a king. The print media sang praises for the firm, an honest and moderate leadership of Dr. Singh. Some also claimed that Dr. Singh had even challenged Sonia Gandhi in his attempt to move up the country's interests. As a consequence, Dr. Singh's image experienced a build up among the masses. People liked the fact that a calm, silent Prime Minister was also firm and decisive. The BJP camp however experienced restlessness. Dr. Singh's image had defeated Mr. Advani's image of 'Loh Purush' and with this Dr. Singh defeated the BJP in the 2009 general elections. He became an ideal personality for the middle class in India. They felt that after many years India was experiencing a leader with a good character, honest approach and commitment towards national interests. They felt confident that their leader could go to any extent in defending a situation and maintaining national interests. With this background, the Congress won 206 seats in the 2009 general elections and routed the BJP led National Democratic Alliance. However, the BJP made sure that it targeted the Prime Minister's image in the coming years. This image was then at the receiving end of many political and personal attacks from the RSS, BJP, some leaders within the Congress, the bureaucracy and the media. Dr. Singh's quality of being a man of few words eventually

turned out to be his weakness, and his learned behaviour came under a lot of mischievous attacks. Dr. Singh became a prime target for opposition leaders in UPA-2 and from then people began to lose faith in the government. But one thing was very clear. In the ten year tenure as the Prime Minister of the country, the Indo-US nuclear deal was a personal victory. He lived up to the promise made on 15th August 2004. He did not fear the political consequences and also did not pay any heed to the politics of forming groups within the UPA. On 3rd January 2014, when Dr. Singh assessed his Prime Ministerial tenure before the media, a journalist asked him: Sir, which was the most important moment in your tenure? Dr. Singh promptly replied, "The moment the Parliament accepted Indo-US nuclear deal." According to Dr. Singh, the nuclear deal recognized India as a nation equipped with nuclear armaments and technology. He predicted that due to this treaty, the country would experience changes in its social and economic sectors and a rapid technological progress. The people who criticize the nuclear deal always put forward two questions. First - why does Dr. Singh lists the nuclear deal as his prime achievement, despite the UPA listing RTI, MNREGA, Food Security, the right to primary education as its significant accomplishments? The second - It has been some years since the signing of the deal. There has been no rise in the production of electricity (regarding megawatts) in the nation. Dr. Singh was overjoyed with the success of the nuclear deal. However, failure in acceptance of the deal would have resulted in the failure of national commitment. Hence to save the government, he started talks with the Samajwadi Party. He met Mr. Vajpayee and requested for BJP's support. After

the deal was agreed and passed, Dr. Singh called Mr. Vajpayee at his residence and said, "I gave a full stop to what you have started." The answer to the second question begins with the fact that by the year 2000, the fuel that was required to run the nuclear reactors, was getting depleted. Uranium excavated in India is hard to transform into fuel using modern technology and hence has limitations. As India performed nuclear tests under Mr. Vajpayee, there were sanctions imposed on her, and hence she could not import nuclear fuel. Under these circumstances, the nuclear deal signed with the United States solved many problems. As the United States signed a 123 deal with India, many lobbies in the United States and many nuclear fuel suppliers (this included China) agreed to supply nuclear fuel to India. It was because of this deal that the production capacity of India's nuclear reactors that had dropped down to 30% rose up to 80%. It was due to this deal that works on Jaitapur nuclear reactor in Maharashtra, and Kudankulam nuclear reactor in Tamil Nadu began. In them, however, were tangled many political roadblocks and politics of many International NGOs. The accident of Japan's Fukushima reactor added more apprehensions towards these reactors. In the midst of all these issues, Dr. Singh was firm and adamant in his resolve. At the same time, he remained humble and moderate to the core.

A surprising Comeback As the mood gathered for the 2009 general elections, the Congress began to build its strategy. The Bungalow at 15, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, Delhi was the war room for the party. 17 senior leaders of the Congress began to assemble every day at this war room. Jairam Ramesh took charge of the proceedings. The leaders who assisted him were Digvijay Singh, Ambika Soni, Ahmed Patel, Oscar Fernandes, Vishwajit Prithvijit Singh, Prithviraj Chavan and Janardan Dwivedi. It was agreed to project the personalities of Dr. Singh and Sonia Gandhi during the campaign. The Congress as a party was unseen against the backdrop of coalition politics. Hence a strategy had to be made so that while voting, the people should have the Congress party in mind. The media had reported that the electoral mood in the nation did not favour the Congress. There was a factor of anti-incumbency. These leaders agreed that to bring back the Congress; there has to be a theme line in place. But the challenge was to sync this with the personalities of Dr. Singh, Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. This think tank emphasized on three important aspects. First, it was necessary to highlight a change based on consistent efforts and make it reach to a maximum number of people. Secondly, it was important to highlight the Congress party rather than the personality of the candidate that would face the electorate. Thirdly, it was important to emphasize the difference between the Congress and the other political parties. In 2004, the 'India Shining' campaign of the BJP had disappointed the people. The Congress learned from this experience. It got itself away from the gruff style of campaigning and decided to have a soft approach. The campaign was on through newspapers and televisions. But this medium had its limitation. Hence, the party went over to FM radio stations and started bombarding their message on a nationwide basis. Because of the radio, local and regional level problems were highlighted quickly before the people. Additionally, the medium also was straightforward and convenient. It was agreed upon

that 70% of party's advertisements would get a broadcast through the local and regional level media. The BJP, with no surprise, projected Lal Krishna Advani as their Prime Ministerial candidate. Their projection was with a theme line, ‘Majboot Neta …Nirnayak Sarkar'. Dr. Singh's participation in the 2004 elections was very limited. The Congress requested him to campaign against the backdrop of the 'Iron Man' image of Lal Krishna Advani. The then Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Office, Prithviraj Chavan, used to meet Dr. Singh with new issues. Dr. Singh was enthusiastic as well! In his tenure as the Prime Minister for five years (2004-2009), Dr. Singh had displayed an incredible patience. He had never compromised on his balance while sustaining all the criticism thrown at him by the opposition leaders. But while campaigning, he would say, "I patiently sustained the criticism made by an experienced and a critical leader. However, now the time has come to reply them in strong words. How can we keep quiet now?" Dr. Singh criticized Mr. Advani in a highly dignified manner. But on a given occasion, he would hit the nail accurately. He did not possess any linguistic artistry. His speech had a limitation of being monotonous and cumbersome. Still, it maintained a dignity. The people felt that he spoke from the bottom of his heart. Hence it would appeal to the listeners. Knowledgeable voters used to pay attention to these issues. The middle class - the real consumer of media attaches a lot of importance to many problems. On many occasions, Mr. Advani would term Dr. Singh as a 'kamjor pradhanmantri' (weak Prime Minister). Dr. Singh, in reply would softly say, "I may not be a great orator like Mr. Advani. But I realize a simple thing that when parents nurture you the right way, they tell you not to criticize your opponent in an undignified manner." To hit the 'Iron Man' image of Mr. Advani, Dr. Singh would mention about the Parliament attacks. "Those who call themselves Iron Man, were the ones who bowed and melted before the terrorists", he would say. In a speech at Kochi he criticized the Left and said,

"The Left leaders are used to travel the wrong path. Be it the 'Quit India' movement or the 'Green Revolution' or the 'Telecom Revolution.' They always stood at the wrong end." While mentioning the Left parties during the Nuclear Deal, he said, "The Left leaders aren't aware that the Cold War has ended. The American nation that was declared Supreme after the Cold War is seen fighting its economic problems at the start of the 21st century. At this juncture, it is essential to look at the United States with a fresh approach. Both, India's growing middle class and the knowledge that develops from India need the United States. We need to acquire knowledge to become a superpower. If we do not realize the expectations of the commonest of Indians, there would be roadblocks in development. After independence, the Left leaders said that this freedom is not real. Since then power has always evaded them. They have always split the secular votes and increased the strengths of the communal forces like the BJP." On 16th May 2009, the Congress emerged as the preferred choice to lead the nation. It became apparent that the people trusted a firm, development-oriented and a secular Congress party to govern the country. Minutes after this victory, Congress President Sonia Gandhi reached '24, Akbar Road'. Making a comment on the electoral outcome, she said, "The people of the nation know what is right for them and hence they always take the right decision. They choose the best available option." The victory of the Congress was unexpected. Every exit poll had predicted around 150 seats for the Congress and a government of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance. Sharad Pawar and Mulayam Singh openly spoke of a third alliance. Mulayam Singh at one point said he was fine seeing Sharad Pawar as the Prime Minister. But seeing the Congress get 206 seats on its own, it was said everywhere that the nation voted for the clean image of the Prime Minister. In this election, the Left parties were routed, and the

BJP led National Democratic Alliance got only 157 seats. Within that, the BJP could manage only 116. The BJP projected Advani as a leader in this election, but it did not have any effect on the electorate. The people ignored the issue of Black money stashed in Swiss Banks or the National Security issues. They viewed the 2008 terror attacks by Pakistan as an act of International Terrorism. Additionally, they also were convinced that politics of polarization was not a solution. Hence they chose the clean image of Dr. Singh and also preferred a stable and secular government of the Congress. The programs like MGNREGA and waiving of farmers' interests ensured that the Congress got a lead in the nation. In Uttar Pradesh under the leadership of Rahul Gandhi, the Congress won 20 seats, and this brought Secularism as a front line issue. The Muslim voters of the BSP and the SP once again voted for the Congress. The year 2009 was important for another aspect. Because the Congress won a maximum number of seats, they could approach like-minded political parties to form a new coalition and then form the government. In 2004, Sonia Gandhi got in touch with many political parties while forming the government. The situation had changed in 2009. The Congress accommodated all those political parties in the alliance who supported the progressive, development-oriented and liberalization-based ideology of Dr. Singh. The parties like Trinamul Congress and the DMK became a part of the government. Incidentally, the same parties were later responsible for eclipsing Dr. Singh's performance as a Prime Minister. After the general elections of 2009, the assembly elections in the states of West Bengal, Kerela, Rajasthan and Delhi saw the victory of the Trinamul Congress, the UDF and the Congress respectively. Mamta Banerjee's Trinamul Congress displaced the Left parties in West Bengal thus breaking the latter's stint of 35 years in that state. But there was another chapter added to the nation's political history. Dr. Singh became the third person since Jawaharlal Nehru to become the Prime Minister for consecutive terms. Was it because his image

earned a lot of respect? Was it a necessity before the nation? Or was this an ultimate solution that had emerged from the internal politics of the Congress party? In his first tenure as the Prime Minister, Dr. Singh was away from any political controversies. He did not raise a storm within or outside the party by taking any political decisions. He never became cosy with the media. In his tenure, he was criticized for being close to Mrs. Gandhi, but this criticism lacked substance. With all this at the background, it was a political miracle that the Congress under his leadership assumed power for the second term. Dr. Singh was an economist who was not having any political experience. He had spent around 40 years in the administrative services. He did not have a mass base. He did not have a lobby in his party. He understood politics but never practiced the art. He did not favour any Corporate Houses of the country. He was never pressurized by his party workers. It was hence unbelievable that a person of these qualities could assume the role of the Prime Minister for two consecutive terms. However, this disbelief transformed itself into restlessness in the political circles of Delhi. Dr. Singh took over the Prime Ministerial position in 2004 under unexpected and unstable circumstances. (Just the way he took over the Finance Ministry in 1991) But a second term as the Prime Minister caused discomfort to many within his party. A favourable environment always breeds instability, restlessness, jealousy and hatred. A clean and honest personality hence begins to generate more enemies and opponents. Same eventually happened for Dr. Singh. First the Prime Minister's Office, then the media and eventually the middle class of this country began to raise questions about his ability to take decisions, his honesty and his commitment towards the nation. The media more than the opposition parties became an anchor to these proceedings. The Prime Minister was questioned on all that was happening in the country. These questions were on the issues of corruption, national security or matters relating to the safety of women. Character Assassination is an ultimate option to end someone's political career. It is repeatedly done in politics to make the targeted

person lose his confidence, commitment and ultimately lose his psyche. In the latter years, these became the practices to target Dr. Singh. These Goebbels techniques were so effectively practiced that the positive image of Dr. Singh during UPA-1 soon assumed a sense of negativity around it. It became so negative that not only the media but also the country's intellectuals, socialites, people in business, middle class and the younger class termed him as the villain. First, he was joked and laughed, which was replaced by mockery and eventually by jealousy. The sparks of this jealousy began to flow four years after he took oath as the Prime Minister for UPA.

1999 Lok Sabha election Campaign

The storm of Corruption Charges The process of liberalization had resulted in an end to the Permit Raj which in turn saw a decline in corruption at an individual level (notoriously referred as ‘under the table'). However, this process also saw a plunder of national wealth by big corporate companies, medium-large businesses and politicians. When the government initiated policies towards infrastructure, telecommunications or finances, these business houses started to pressurize those who were to implement these policies. The sole aim behind this was profit, and it soon became a practice. Further to this, many Corporate Houses began to associate themselves with political parties. During elections, they clung to certain political parties who would promise them benefits after assuming power. They would sponsor their campaigns and programs and in return gobble land pieces at low prices. Liberalization also meant less government intervention in markets that were now open to business. It generated risks of huge irregularities that were unheard before. The irregularities in the Nineties by Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh were some of the notable examples. An open economy began to give an autonomous status to many businesses, and hence big businesses owners, political leaders and the bureaucracy began to capture these fields. 'Global Financial Integrity', one of the International surveillance agencies shed some light on post-liberalization corruption in India. The agency in its report claimed that through corruption and tax evasion, India faced losses worth billions of dollars. The report also argued that this money was routed out of the country and was invested again in the Indian economy. This agency created two eras of corruption in India - pre-1991 and post-1991. The report said that within a few years after 1991, corruption in India surpassed the corruption made before 1991. The report claimed that from 2002 to 2006, India experienced an annual corruption worth 16 billion dollars.

The 'Permit Raj' brought with it, 'under the table' form of dealings but there was an association of guilt in mind! But post-liberalization, this guilt began to disappear. Corruption on the social scene was now a daily exercise. November 2010 hit UPA - 2 like a powerful cyclone. This cyclone not only contained allegations of corruption but also bore within it the seeds of the anti-corruption crusade of Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal. This crusade was to result in the birth of a Fascist leader named Narendra Modi. The 'Brahmastra' directed at Dr. Singh was from an IAS officer who was appointed by Dr. Singh himself! His name was Vinod Rai. This 'Brahmastra' not only made people lose faith in the UPA government but also made people raise doubts about the 40-year-old selfless career of Dr. Singh. Soon it turned out to be a clash between CAG and the government. And through this struggle, a nationwide attempt to bring down the Manmohan Singh government was planned. In November 2010 the CAG report on spectrum allocation reached the media before it could reach the Parliament. This report mentioned that during spectrum allocation, mobile network companies had made the government incur losses worth Rupees 1 Lakh 76 thousand crores and thus had severely affected the nation's economy. The report also mentioned that between 2001 and 2008, the country saw a tremendous rise in the number of cell phone users. But notwithstanding this, the government allocated spectrum to mobile companies in 2008 with the price that existed in 2001. The report further claimed that in 2001, people using cell phones were four crores in population which increased to 35 crores in 2008. It hence argued that by allocating spectrum at cheaper rates, the government had digressed many rules and regulations. The report pointed fingers at Union Telecom Minister and DMK Member of Parliament A. Raja and the Prime Minister's Office. The figures of this report were enough to cause uproar in the country. The opposition alleged that this was independent India's biggest scam and it had crossed the Bofors scam regarding the amount involved. The winter session of the Parliament was a washout due to these

allegations. The BJP was firm in stating that this matter should be handed over to the Joint Parliamentary Committee and it would not let Parliament run its proceedings as long as the government does not agree to the same. The amount of 1 lakh 76 thousand crores had raised many eyebrows. Additionally, the government began to make different statements, and it made many people sense irregularities in the entire issue. The government had to take a defensive stand while answering the opposition and the media. The media's 'Investigative Journalism' wing was quick to pop its head up and began a public display of the concerned government papers. For the next three years, there were views and counter-views and analysis of different figures and amounts. Some newspapers and television channels pointed fingers towards Dr. Singh. There were allegations that Dr. Singh knew the government was facing losses but instead of taking action, chose to ignore the issue. But were these claims valid? In 2006, on the issue of spectrum allocation, Dr. Singh decided to appoint a six-member committee to take a decision on spectrum rates. Thus, he made this a collective decision instead of keeping it a choice of one Cabinet minister. But Dayanidhi Maran, the then Union Minister of Telecommunications, objected to this and claimed that this decision is under the Telecom ministry and during the previous NDA government, it was this ministry that was fixing the spectrum rates. Dr. Singh did not raise any objection to this. Meanwhile, Mr. A Raja, also from the DMK, replaced Dayanidhi Maran and became the new Telecom Minister. Mr. Raja too kept the previous terms intact. Around the same time, many big telecom companies had written to the Prime Minister's Office on the issue of spectrum rates. These letters mentioned that Mr. Raja had favoured individual businesses and indulged in corruption. Further to this on 2nd November 2007, the Prime Minister wrote to Mr. Raja and raised five critical issues. The letter also questioned Mr. Raja on conferring spectrum to specific companies. He also mentioned that either the spectrum should be charged under current rates or there should be an auction. Mr. Raja replied that such a step would confer injustice

and discrimination towards smaller companies as they also participate along with the larger ones in buying spectrum. Dr. Singh did not push his views any further. But in the International Telecom Conference, he put forward the need to auction the spectrum. He said that countries all over the world - to generate revenue - follow the same practice. Mr. Raja again wrote to the Prime Minister stating that his attempts were to increase the number of mobile phone users in the country and prices will fall when this would happen. Dr. Singh did not make any letters correspondence with Mr. Raja after this. P. Chidambaram, while being the Finance Minister, accepted the spectrum rates forwarded by the Telecom Ministry. But on 15th January 2008, Mr. Chidambaram echoed the views of Dr. Singh and stressed on auctioning the spectrum. He notified the same to Mr. Raja. But on 4th July 2008, he suddenly changed his stand. He met the Prime Minister and informed him that there would neither be an auction nor an increase in the spectrum rates and also stressed that it is an understanding between the Telecom Ministry and the Finance Ministry. Dr. Singh did not insist anything further during this meet. However, when there was a shower of allegations, he had to make it clear that the rights of auctioning spectrum were not under him. Dr. Singh had sensed that there were some errors in Spectrum distribution and he made it a point to brief all those who were concerned with it. When a person is an intellectual, he/she remarks his/her colleagues about the wrong that is happening around. It implies that if there are mistakes, those concerned and accountable are expected to correct them. They should also understand the implied intention behind this mention. Dr. Singh never forced anyone in doing any work. He also did not punish anyone or attempted to generate terror. All this was testified by many who worked under him. Dr. Singh was a moderate personality. Hence it cannot be denied that there might be people who would have taken an undue advantage of this.

Later on 23rd January 2008, the Prime Minister's Office received a file from the Telecom Ministry about Spectrum Distribution. As a reply to this file, the secretary of the office responded that the PMO is no more concerned with the Spectrum distribution. Amidst this uproar, Dr. Singh demanded Mr. Raja's resignation and replaced him with Kapil Sibbal for the ministry. Mr. Sibbal declared in Parliament that nothing has happened that can be termed as a scam. This statement worsened the situation even further. His theory of 'zero loss' increased the uproar in the country. On the other hand, Mr. Raja stressed that the policies he worked on were the same policies implemented during the NDA regime and the Finance Ministry and the Prime Minister's Office were aware of those. By saying this, he pointed fingers at Dr. Singh. The latter, however, gave a paltry answer and stated that he does not know anything about this. The media was quick to pounce on the entire situation. The weak stand of the government and the statements exchanged between them, and the opposition became fodder for the media. The 'tamasha' of the media made way to the anti-corruption crusade. As a follow up to these proceedings, the Prime Minister asked Mr. Raja to resign. Later DMK Chief Karunanidhi's daughter Kanimozhi had to spend days in jail. That was because the real fruit grabbers of the entire issue were the Karunanidhi family. Further to this incident, the intensity of the conflict between the Congress and the DMK party workers increased. Finally, the DMK withdrew support from the government and later in 2013 broke its alliance with the Congress. The 2G spectrum issue painted the picture that the UPA government was not very firm towards its coalition partners. It generated an impression that political parties like the DMK blackmailed the government and usurped crores of rupees in corruption. The sentiment that the government, including the Prime Minister, is helpless spread wide across the country. The society felt that leaders like Chidambaram and Sibal who were intellectually qualified and had an experience of administration or leaders like Montek Singh Ahluwalia who had an experience with the World Bank and the IMF could not stop the corruption worth billions of rupees. The Nira Radia

issue highlighted the nexus between the corporate companies, politicians and media houses and hence displayed before the nation a holistic view of corruption. It made way to a wave of anger and helplessness in the country among the people. But one question surfaced at the backdrop of all these incidents. Is it appropriate to point fingers only at the Prime Minister for the rise in corruption? In April 1992, when Dr. Singh had completed just ten months as the Finance Minister, the Bombay Stock Exchange scam of Harshad Mehta came into light. The Share Market slipped by 13% as a consequence. Mehta had used all the Public Sector Banks (those who were under the purview of the Finance Ministry) to pour money into the market and had artificially dropped down the prices of many Shares and earned money in crores. The Finance Ministry had sensed the irregularities of Mr. Mehta. Dr. Singh held discussions with the then Cabinet Secretary Mr. Naresh Chander, the then Finance Secretary Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Financial Advisor Mr. Ashok Desai. He had predicted that the bubble created by Mr. Mehta would soon burst. One of the three told Dr. Singh that it was better to question Mr. Mehta and throw him and his colleagues out of the share market. On this, Dr. Singh replied that the same would create uproar in the country and the media would express its fiercest opinions. Finally, when the ‘Harshad Mehta scam' came to light, there was a hue and cry in the country. The opposition members questioned and criticized the Finance Ministry. Later the Parliament appointed a joint committee to probe this irregularity. This committee did not find Dr. Singh guilty but expressed regret that the Finance Ministry did not take appropriate steps at the right time. Dr. Singh, while speaking in Parliament on this issue, said that he had sleepless nights seeing the volatility of the share market. The JPC commented that it was good that the Finance Minister experiences sleepless nights but there should be a firm wake-up call when something serious is seen happening in the country.

About all these events, there arises a necessity to see what the CAG has to say. CAG, in its report, has mentioned that the Prime Minister's Office, Law Ministry and the Finance Ministry had repeatedly notified the telecom ministry, but they all were ignored by the latter. In 2003, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) had given a ‘Spectrum Allocation' roadmap to the Telecom Ministry. However, it was rejected by the latter. The government then was the NDA government. In the report, it is also mentioned by CAG that by 2008, 85 out of 122 companies received permits. But these companies failed to comply with the underlying fundamental conditions expected from them. Nine real estate companies had given conflicting information about them to obtain the spectrum. Out of these nine companies, the company that got the maximum benefit - Unitech Company - had included six new businesses within itself. Shippingstop.com (which is now Loop Telecom), Alliance Infratech (that later became Etisalat DB Telecom), Swan Telecom (which is now Etisalat DB Telecom), Datacom Solutions (which is today Videocon Telecommunication) and S Tel. All these companies were allocated spectrum despite they not possessing enough capital to sustain it. CAG audited the Spectrum permits from 2003-04 to 2009-10. As per this audit in 2008, the Telecom Ministry cleared 120 permits on a single day for Unified Access Services (UAS).However; the charges levied were as per rates valid in the year 2001. The biggest beneficiaries of this were Reliance Communications headed by Anil Ambani. Additionally, the Telecom Ministry distributed spectrum in large quantities (more than the set rules) and at a lower market price to Airtel and Vodafone Essar. The declaration to this effect was made at a press conference by the Assistant Director General of CAG, Ms. Rekha Gupta. Swan Telecom was the company that belonged to the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) and the then Minister A. Raja had shelved the 'first come first serve' rule. So how did CAG arrive at the figure of 1 lakh 76 thousand crores? What analysis of theirs brought them to this number? When it comes to irregularities or scams, a larger number generates a

correspondingly bigger discontent and anger among the people. The media also is non-cognizant towards small figures, and so are the political parties. Soon a perception developed in the country that the Prime Minister (who was himself a Finance Minister at one point of time) is unable to control the corrupt practices of his ministers. The figure of Rs. 1 Lakh 76 thousand crores surprised many when it first surfaced in the media. That was because people were used to ‘smaller' amount scams of the capital market. The media was also not well equipped to explain the concepts of Spectrum to the average viewers. When the veracity of the amount got questioned, there were speculations raised that the number mentioned could be an exaggeration. Gossips surfaced that the then CAG chief Mr. Vinod Rai was close to the RSS. Some theories stated that Dr. Singh was perhaps not individually corrupt, but his colleagues were. Finally, when doubts surfaced on the functioning of CAG, Rekha Gupta came forward and clarified that out of the 51 circles in the country, the spectrum distributed to 13 operators were priced as per 2001 and the amount came up to 2.561 crores. The rate as per 2010 would have been between 12 thousand crores and 37 thousand crores. The figure of 1 lakh 76 thousand crores was for the 3G allocation as per the current rates. The auction had fetched the government an amount of 67 thousand crore rupees. In this way, CAG criticized the way of functioning of Telecom companies and the Telecom Ministry, and later the Supreme Court of India rejected all the 122 permits. So why didn't CAG come forward to mention the actual reality? Why was it a mute spectator when media began passing its selfinterpreted judgments on the government? Was Mr. Rai a mere spectator or he was given a responsibility to topple the Manmohan Singh government? Or was this a plot to make matters difficult for Dr. Singh and the entire establishment? These issues ran parallel to the inception of Anna Hazare's anti-corruption movement. So was this after all a conspiracy to provide acceleration to Hazare's agitation? In 2008 when Mr. Rai assumed office as the CAG, he had put forward a road map for the functioning of the body. He had made some questions to his team.

‘Will this constitutional body be restricted to auditing the government or will it go out of the way and do something different?' The Constitution has given many responsibilities to CAG other than just submitting reports to the Parliament. This organization prepares 235 reports every year and only 65 of them enter the Parliament and rest of them invite a little discussion. The Public Accounts Committee of the government does not take into account all the reports; rather it considers only 10 to 15 of them. Rest of them remains untouched. So it is indeed painstaking to prepare these reports. So don't you think these reports should reach the people? We cannot hold a press conference on every report. Our duty is to generate awareness among the people and no sensation of any kind.' After his retirement, Mr. Rai gave a detailed interview to the Times of India on 20th May 2013. In the interview, he stated that he had informed the Prime Minister of his intention of involving the media while tabling the CAG report in the Parliament. But if Dr. Singh had known the amount mentioned in the report, what made him remain silent and allow the danger of his government labelled as corrupt? Around that time there was an internal struggle taking place between the Prime Minister's Office, South Block, North Block, Mr. Chidambaram, Mr. Rai, Mr. Pranab Mukherjee and the retired officers of the administrative services. But on which issue was this conflict centred? Was it on the Anna Hazare agitation? Or the larger issue of toppling the government? In November 2011, there was again an auction on the spectrum. But the five top telecom companies in the country did not give a favourable response, and this was a huge setback to the economic policy processes of the UPA government. But it became apparent that the figures stated by CAG that was amounting to 1 Lakh 67 thousand crores were utterly false and misleading! Had the spectrum auctions been so profitable, then the top five companies would not have given a lukewarm response to the process. The media asked the then Telecom Minister Mr. Sibbal about the same to which he asked the media to analyze. In 2010, the 3G spectrum auction could fetch the government a revenue worth 67 thousand 719 crores of

rupees. Comparatively, the government expected revenue from 2G spectrum auctions to reach around 14 thousand crore rupees. Had the government used the 2010 rates for 2G spectrum auction, it would have fetched 1 thousand crore rupees. But in practice, they could bring in 9 thousand four hundred crores of rupees. That means CAG's claim that the government would have generated revenue of 1 lakh 76 thousand crores of rupees from 2002 to 2007 was baseless and was made to create confusion. In 2011 the growth rate of the economy had slowed down, and it faced a financial deficit worth 5.6%. Under these circumstances, the government thought of reducing this deficit through the revenue earned by the 2G and 3G spectrum auction. But the response generated by these companies indicated that they were not in sync with the practices carried out and felt a danger of expanding their business in the country. The response by the capital oriented market indicated that these companies had lost trust in the government. The CAG report on 2G spectrum auction was questioned by many prominent economists of the country. In 2007 when the 2G spectrum set foot in the country, Europe and the United States were talking about 3G frequencies. 3G technology and the soon to be launched 4G technology was to hit the Indian market soon. Under these circumstances, the fundamental question remained that which Telecom company was ready to spend 1 lakh 76 thousand crore rupees on the 2G spectrum for a period as long as 20 years? The government tried to stress this fact. But the political environment in the country had become so turbid that even after the entry of 3G and 4G technologies in the Indian market, this question remained unanswered! People in India had begun to buy I-Phones, touch screen mobile phones, I-Pad and the Tabs. Still, the anti-corruption crusaders could not distinguish between 2G and 3G technologies and present it before the nation. However, this does not mean there were no flaws in the spectrum auction allocation. A. Raja had allocated spectrum to the Telecom companies on a first come first serve basis. But CAG had inflated this entire procedure and by producing huge numbers,

tried to make matters difficult for the government. The BJP shouted against the government about these irregularities. But it conveniently forgot similar irregularities that existed during the NDA government. Moreover, the Supreme Court started new 2G spectrum auctions on 2nd February 2014. That was two years after it had rejected the previous auctions. The auction that lasted for a week fetched the government a revenue worth 50 thousand crore rupees. The government had estimated around 48 thousand crores, but it turned out to be more than that expectation. Hence the government could find some relief in decreasing the current account deficit at the start of 2014. Because the government had begun the procedure of eauction, these auctions went without hassles. The government also decreased the base price of the spectrum and allowed 100% foreign investment in the Telecom sector. Had there been a scam worth crores of rupees, the telecom companies would have cautiously entered this process. But nothing of that sort happened. However, the political storm generated in 2010 conceived a new terminology called ‘governance'. This term implied a firm and a clear leadership to prevent the rise of corruption post-economic liberalization. The media also advocated the same. Further to this, the then Prime Ministerial candidate of the BJP, Mr. Narendra Modi stressed in his speeches that if he became the Prime Minister, he would be a protector (chowkidaar) of the national treasury! He also made promises of strict action on anyone who would plunder national wealth. The term 'governance' was never used in Indian politics before. Government red tapes or general bureaucratic lethargy is a part of Indian society. This society does not hesitate in giving certain 'addons' to government officials to get their work done. Social transactions increased in the past 20 years, especially after the advent of technology and rise in the private sector. But that did not result in an elimination of corruption! But why did corruption become an underlined issue in the Indian society when there were problems like economic disparity, crime, casteism and poverty? And how did national politics revolve around this very issue? Is there any relation

between the anti-corruption crusades of Anna Hazare- Arvind Kejriwal and a national discussion about the Gujarat model of governance of Narendra Modi that followed immediately after these crusades? It is not true that corruption occurred in the country only between 2008 and 2010. It was there before independence, and it continued to be there for all sixty-odd years after independence! But the middle class was spellbound by the issue of Commonwealth Games corruption and the massive numbers of the 2G spectrum issue. As the spell cast on the middle class continued to linger, the feeling that the country needs a leader with a firm resolve (one with dictatorial tendencies) began to grow within this class. The BJP and the Sangh Parivar were smart to insert the word 'governance' in the political vocabulary around the same time. They could generate a feeling in the minds of people that the country needed a leader who could free the nation from corruption. The media too sided with them. But the Sangh Parivar also could generate a feeling of anarchy in the country, and this was its first step towards toppling the government. Many economists had expressed concern that the country that underwent economic liberalization twenty years back was now in the hands of a very few capitalist. The economy, on the one hand, grew at around 7 - 8% but on the contrary, the issues of corruption and social inequality also were on the rise. There was a sentiment that Indian capitalists instead of generating wealth for the nation were plundering it for their benefits. And while this was happening, our representative bodies were mute spectators. Some intellectuals claimed that Indian democracy had learned the lesson that if a few people keep on enjoying power at the top, the national politics and the economy would be drastically affected. Some intellectuals went ahead and claimed that due to the active leadership of Narendra Modi in the state of Gujarat, there was prosperity all around and no loot of national treasury took place. The word governance was made to sound synonymous with Narendra Modi for four long years which finally led him to announce himself as the Prime Ministerial candidate of the country for the 2014 elections.

Dr. Singh had got an indication about the political-economic storm that began around him. But owing to the limitations he faced, he could not stop it. Was it because of his nature? Or was it because of the situation that made him helpless? But the government had to face another political storm as the 2G spectrum issue began to recede. The government was already weak, and soon another agitation was at its doorstep. It was by the trio of Anna Hazare, Arvind Kejriwal and Baba Ramdev. Meanwhile, on 21st December 2017, a special court in Delhi acquitted all 35 accused, including A Raja and Kanimozhi in the 2G spectrum case and criticised the CBI for its failure to submit any evidence against the accused. The Congress Party and Dr Manmohan Singh welcomed this verdict and stated that their stand was hence vindicated. Dr Singh said that this was an example of a massive propaganda against the UPA government and did not have any foundation.

New entrants on the political horizon It was now clear that the 2G spectrum issue had weakened the government. It became increasingly evident from the changes in the political shifts and currents in Delhi that there were attempts made to topple the Prime Ministerial position of Dr. Singh. The statements raised in the media accepted Dr. Singh as an honest politician but pointed out that under his leadership the government was generating scams worth crores of rupees. But who would take responsibility for this situation? The media pointed its fingers at Dr. Singh and Sonia Gandhi. To stretch the situation, the BJP threatened that it wouldn't allow Parliament to run till the government appoints a joint parliamentary committee to probe the 2G spectrum. And they went with it. The BJP disrupted the winter session of 2010 and the entire budget session of 2011 and obstructed major bills proposed by the government. The struggle between the government and the BJP was seen getting intense outside the Parliament and in media talk shows. In this situation, the BJP's intention was to impose the issue of 'governance' and stall the proceedings of the government. This political instability generated a base for a high political drama that lay ahead. The political scene that followed developed a situation of anarchy in the entire country and created a feeling that the Manmohan government could be brought down. Many members of Parliament were worried about a probable revolution that seemed taking place in the country. The Commonwealth Games scam, Maharashtra's Adarsh Housing Scam and the 2G spectrum allocation had angered the nation's middle class against the Manmohan Singh government. As the RSS and the BJP were looking to translate this anger into anarchy, the national political horizon saw the rise of a social worker from Ralegansiddhi in Maharashtra. His name was Anna Hazare. Anna had come to limelight due to his work at Ralegansiddhi. His work on

the agricultural and environmental issues in the village had generated a halo around his name. Though Anna Hazare was the leader of the masses, all his experiments in the communities came with aid by government officials and the financial aid received from the government. Anna's way of working was more like a Fakir and was incredibly self-centred. That he was free from aspirations was highlighted by the fact that he was not married and preferred a simple living. During the Shiv-Sena BJP government's tenure from 1995 till 1999, Hazare compelled four ministers of the government to resign through his anti –corruption agitation. When Anna Hazare used to undertake such agitations in Ralegansiddhi or at the Azad Maidan in Mumbai, it was only the Marathi media that took notice of it. There were no prominent electronic channels (to be specific Marathi) in 2003. So his agitations then made him famous in Maharashtra. His agitations at the Azad Maidan did not receive a response from more than 400 to 500 people. And his fame was restricted. But he entered the politics of Delhi citing the Lokpal Bill and became a Messiah for the electronic media and the self-centered middle class of India. From 5th April 2011 to 9th April 2011, Anna fasted for this cause, and as a response, the government agreed to take his team's help in drafting the Lokpal Bill. Anna's agitation at Delhi had the backing of the NGO named 'India against Corruption.' Arvind Kejriwal was the mentor of this NGO. He was working in the customs department but had started a movement in Delhi for the 'Right to Information' Act and hence had generated a mass base for himself. He was also a recipient of the Raman Magsaysay award. Joining him were dignitaries like former IPS officer Kiran Bedi, Delhi's (father- son) lawyer duo Shanti Bhushan (who was prominently aggressive in the Jaiprakash Narayan movement of the 70s) and Prashant Bhushan, former minister Manish Sisodiya, RTI activist Gopal Roy and Professor and poet Kumar Vishwas. This team began talks with the government at the primary level. But it turned out that these discussions were a farce. The team refused to come to terms with the government on any issue and started

becoming headstrong. The Lokpal Bill was in the Parliament for the past 40 years. But it was pending due to a lack of political consensus. There was a view among intellectual circles that the Lokpal would generate a dictator within the Parliament. In spite of this background, Team Anna (as it was called then) and the RSS that was providing a hidden support to it, refused to enter into a compromise. They wanted to prolong the agitation and transform that into the government formation of their own. India is a vast country with a population comprising of different religions, castes and creeds. All of them possess different aspirations. The Parliamentary democracy of this country has sustained all these segments, and it is due to this the unity of the country has remained intact. Thoughts inspired by Fascism always find it necessary to break the national unity and play the politics of polarization. When the Congress came to power for the second time in 2009, extreme restlessness marked the BJP. Hatred and jealousy marked the party from within. The RSS never believed in Parliamentary democracy and hence wanted to project Anna Hazare to install an agitation and thus eventually topple the government. They were expecting an embarrassment for the government on ethical grounds. The strategy was to project two personalities with clean, honest and non-aspiring qualities against each other and let the people of the nation judge who they would choose. If the face of the Congress or the UPA was Dr. Manmohan Singh, then the face of the anticorruption crusade was the Gandhian(?) Anna Hazare! ( It was very immature on the part of the media to call Anna Hazare as the second Gandhi. Anna himself said on many occasions that he is too small to be compared to Gandhi. Many historians and intellectuals also had expressed displeasure over calling Anna Hazare as the second Gandhi) To use Anna's image was a part of a well-planned strategy. Civil society was formed under Anna's leadership, and they began to discuss the Lokpal Bill with the government. It was an insult to the democratically elected government, opposition parties and the

Parliament. The Team eventually began to insist only on their version of the Lokpal Bill. This approach further intensified the struggle between the government and the civil society. Anna sensed that the national sentiment was going against the government and on this background decided to start his hunger strike on the Ramleela Maidan in Delhi on 16th August 2011. The Sangh Parivar wanted to land the government in a difficult situation and wanted to spread anarchy in the nation. This movement saw an addition of a Yoga and Ayurveda teacher named Ramdev Baba. Ramdev Baba had generated a considerable following in the country owing to his Yoga classes. Ramdev was witty enough to gain political mileage out of this support and tried to get an entry in Delhi politics. Ramdev Baba began to express his views about the black money stashed abroad. The government respected Ramdev’s popularity, and at one points it so happened that when Ramdev visited Delhi to meet the Prime Minister, the then Cabinet Ministers Pranab Mukherjee, Pavan Kumar Bansal and P. Chidambaram went to the airport to welcome him. However this in a way portrayed the helplessness of the government. But who was anchoring this drama? Were Mr. Chidambaram and Pranab Mukherjee keen on toppling the Prime Minister from his chair? If these ministers were taking such decisions without informing the Prime Minister, then the entire conspiracy could have had many players! Ramdev Baba wanted to create his base in Delhi politics. He asked the Delhi government to grant him permission for conducting a Yoga program on the Ramleela Maidan in June 2011. The government gave him permission, but Ramdev started to criticize the Prime Minister in a rather non-parliamentary language. These attempts were, in fact, a second edition to the agitation of Anna Hazare. To agitate under the disguise of religion and ethics and oppose the government was a part of the RSS politics. Ramdev entertained the national media on all nine days of his yoga program. The media broadcasted the hate-filled speeches of Ramdev every day. This reality madness show also comprised of people like Sri Sri Ravishankar, Krupalu Maharaj and Morari Bapu and they all talked about a 'second revolution' in the country. BJP leader of opposition in

the Parliament Sushma Swaraj described these events as the 'dawn of the second independence' in the country. But the police saw that this game was creating law and order problems and hence decided to arrest Baba Ramdev. His followers sensed these developments and while they saw the Police advancing towards them with lathis in hand ( not even guns!), these 'patriots' who some time back claimed of a 'revolution' or a 'second independence', chose to run away from the spot! Even Ramdev disguised himself in a lady's attire and ran away from the stage. The government later arrested him but could not erase the entertainment component that integrated itself in a serious issue like corruption. Though Ramdev's show did not last long, the agitation in the larger context did not die down. Rather it was in the interests of many to keep the movement alive. On 15th August 2011, while addressing the nation, Dr. Singh said that the government was fulfilling the expectations of the people. He also said that the government is sensitive to the issue of corruption. But the government appeared spineless. Hazare's agitation from 16th August 2011 had made him a national icon. The stage management, for this to happen was handled by Arvind Kejriwal and company. The RSS also had in mind people like Baba Ramdev and Dr. A.P.J Abdul Kalam to support this movement. But seeing Anna Hazare's agitation gain widespread support, they decided to support it instead. The electronic media began to project Anna throughout the day. The college going youth of Delhi also participated in this movement - one for the naive idealism of something against corruption and second to find themselves expressing through the celebrity culture! This widespread publicity of the media not only scared those in the government but also generated demoralization within the Parliament. The media ran news-lines which made Anna as the 'second Mahatma.' His felicitation with national awards began. On his stage, the nation saw members from the Samajwadi Party, Janta Dal (United), BJP and the Left standing hand-in-hand. Even Dr. Singh gave a standing salute to Mr. Hazare in the Parliament. The Loksabha unanimously greeted this new (!), Mahatma. All this

publicity went in Anna's head so badly that he started to consider himself a prophet. And while this prophecy began to lose control, he began to threaten the government and dictate terms to the Parliament. He began to preach people to fight till their last drop of blood. Young workers, with caps on their head reading ' I am Anna' were seen creating chaos on Ramleela grounds and Jantar-Mantar. The media also refused to entertain any questions that went against Anna Hazare. At some instances, questions cropped up about Hazare's background as he was someone who used to drive army vehicles. The questions were aimed to understand Hazare's role in the Indian Army apart from driving Army vehicles. The media instead countered this argument by comparing Hazare's role to Lord Krishna who also was a charioteer in the War of Mahabharata. Hazare and his colleagues began to preach while on their agitation against corruption. In that mood, he started to give new interpretations to the Parliament. With his voice note reaching the highest octave, he began to address the crowd by saying that the Gram Sabha was far superior to the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha. The youth sitting in front also used to get excited and would shout the ever famous slogans of ' Bharat Mata ki Jay' or 'Inquilab Zindabad'. Just as we get '2-minute noodles', the nation got a leader who preached like Lord Krishna and coincidentally had an experience of riding an army vehicle (analogous to a chariot in the Mahabharata war). Around this 'Krishna', were Kejriwal, Sisodia, the Bhushan father-son duo and Kiran Bedi, all analogous to Arjun, Bhima, Nakul, Sahadev of the Mahabharata and were all set to fight the government that had its comparison made with the Kauravas. When it was apparent that the situation was getting out of control, the government decided to arrest Anna Hazare. (Around that time, Sonia Gandhi had gone outside India for a month for her medical treatment). It is not clear if this decision was of Home Minister P. Chidambaram's or the Delhi police or a joint decision of the Cabinet Ministers. However, the Prime Minister looked helpless in the entire happenings.

The result of this Mahabharata was similar to the original epic Victory of the Pandavas over the Kauravas. But this story experienced an interval for some time. The curtain fell, and during this period, there was a struggle within the participating 'Pandavas'. The media was not only interested in glorifying the cause of the agitators. It decided to dig deep and scrutinize them too. Arvind Kejriwal headed an organization named 'India against Corruption (IAC). Those who were willing to help the agitators in their cause had donated to IAC. Anna Hazare headed the organization named 'Nyas'. Hazare's secretary, Mr. Pathare, at a meeting in Nanded claimed that as people were donating money by seeing Anna's face and influence, all the donations should be made to 'Nyas' and not to 'IAC.' Sparks began to flow between Anna Hazare's team and Arvind Kejriwal's team as a consequence. Around the same time, a new row started between the Government of India and Chief of Army General V.K Singh on the issue of latter's age ( This was also a conspiracy, and one whole chapter of this book is devoted to the same). Kejriwal's team wanted to pounce on this situation and spread this issue in the country on patriotic lines. The strategy was to make General Singh occupy the stage once Anna calls off his fast. However as Anna sensed this move, he called over General Singh. To counter this move, Team Kejriwal targeted Dr. Singh. On the other hand, Anna expressed sympathy towards the Prime Minister. To combat this surprise, Prashant Bhushan came up with a sudden logic that Anna Hazare does not understand English. As if this was not enough, Anna Hazare invited Baba Ramdev at Jantar Mantar and announced a symbolic Ganga-Jamuna confluence. The situation was in parallel to what the Sangh Parivar does by showing multiple faces at the same time. But the consequence was entirely different. Arvind Kejriwal went over to Ramdev's stage and started targeting everyone, from Dr. Singh to Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mayawati and Lalu Prasad Yadav. Baba Ramdev stopped him from taking names. (Ramdev was worried about the fact that officers in the Finance Ministry were preparing a list of properties owned by him, each of it worth crores of rupees.) But

Kejriwal was furious to what Ramdev said and made a walk-out from the stage. The scenario witnessed an increase in confusion. It was not clear who supported whom in the entire camp. It gave another opportunity to the media to scrutinize the participating agitators instead of supporting their cause. Suddenly, Kiran Bedi made her presence felt! She said that the anticipated Lokpal should generate fear in the minds of the people indulging in corruption, in the same way as the medieval punishments in the Arab countries (to cut the hands of those who indulge in theft and so on) did to the minds of the wrongdoers! (But around the same time, it emerged that Kiran Bedi herself had indulged in the theft of air tickets!) Finally, with the intervention of Vilasrao Deshmukh, Anna Hazare decided to end his fast and did that by drinking lime water offered to him by the Army Chief. The show ended temporarily. However, Anna became more famous following his arrest. Had the arrest not taken place, his agitation would not have become popular. But with media's assistance and Kejriwal and team's smart teamwork, a 'legend' called Anna Hazare was created. It was not only the RSS that was responsible for the creation of this legend. It also had various administrative officers that had spent 3040 years in service. Theirs was an influential think tank within this agitation. In a country like India, it is possible to remove any prominent leader from power, but to challenge the massive administration is not easy. This think tank had studied the ways and possibilities to rupture the administration, the means to bring it to its knees, the influential groups within the government and ways to trap it on moral terms. This group did tricks like planting false news in the media or promoting false implications of news. In the 70s, students in Gujarat agitated against the then Chief Minister Chimanbhai Patel on the issue of inflation and this soon transformed and translated into an anti-Congress agitation in the country. The situation here was very similar. Back then, Jayprakash Narayan entered national politics and became a national face. Anna

Hazare did a similar thing. Jayaprakash Narayan not only endorsed the 'Navnirman agitation' but also appealed the people to participate in the nationwide agitation against corruption. He requested the people to form a people's democracy as against the Parliamentary democracy. He had asked the youth of the country to participate in the agitation and drew it parallel to the Quit India movement of 1942. The agenda in Hazare's agitation was the same. Even the script of it matched. The only difference from the 70s was the addition of the electronic and social media. These two forms of media continued to pour fire against the Parliamentary democracy. He claimed that the ethical environment in the country had gone for a toss and that democracy was in danger and all social and political institutions were corrupt. A fascist tendency was disguised under Anna's image of being the 'second Gandhi.' On 20th August 2012, the Indian Express reported that the anticorruption crusade of Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev was not in the real sense an agitation to remove corruption. It was, in fact, an agitation to uproot the Congress. The report clearly said that the agitation had the blessings of the RSS. However, it was not only the RSS that was secretly behind this agitation. The agitation had the blessings of the former chief of the IB, the former head of the RAW, former army chief, certain former officials of the Air Force, a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and an officer who served at a higher rank in the Indian Administrative Services. The report also mentioned rather clearly that this group of people were very much planning to destroy the very features of the Parliamentary Democracy.

What was this news? -----------------------------------------At centre of stirs against graft, a body with RSS links, ex-babus – 20 aug 2012

A high profile institute-cum-think tank in the heart of New Delhi's diplomatic area in Chanakyapuri, set up on land allotted by the then Narasimha Rao government, a clutch of former intelligence officials running the place, and a group of well-known RSS swayamsewaks — they are the silent force behind the recent anti-corruption movements in the country, especially the one led by Baba Ramdev. In fact, it was at the Vivekananda International Foundation last year that a decision was taken to form an anti-corruption front under Baba Ramdev — this was just days before Anna Hazare sat on his first fast. The foundation's director is Ajit Doval, a former director of the Intelligence Bureau. It was at the foundation again that the first serious attempt was made to bring Ramdev and Team Anna members together. Inaugurated in 2009, the Vivekananda International Foundation is a project of the Vivekananda Kendra, founded in the early 1970s by former RSS general secretary Eknath Ranade and headed now by RSS pracharak P Parameswaran. It was in April last year that the foundation, together with RSS ideologue K N Govindacharya's Rashtriya Swabhiman Andolan, organised a seminar on corruption and black money attended by both Ramdev and Team Anna members Arvind Kejriwal and Kiran Bedi. At the end of the two-day seminar, held on April 1 and 2, an "anticorruption front" was formed with Ramdev as patron and Govindacharya as convenor. The members included Doval; RSS swayamsewak S Gurumurthy; Bhishm Agnihotri, who was India's ambassador-at-large during the NDA regime; and Prof R Vaidyanathan of IIM-Bangalore, who co-authored a BJP task force's report on black money along with Doval and Ved Pratap Vaidik. The two-page statement at the end of the seminar said that Ramdev had declared an "all-out war on corruption and that the front would announce immediate actionable programmes and reach out to likeminded anti-corruption organisations, institutions and individuals". Soon after the seminar, Hazare's fast began, and in April end, Ramdev announced his June 4 Ramlila Maidan protest — his first

public showdown with the UPA government. Apart from the fact that it operates from government-allotted land, the foundation's advisory board and executive council consist of a host of former intelligence officials, retired bureaucrats, diplomats and exmilitary men. These include former RAW chief A K Verma, ex-Army chief V N Sharma, ex-Navy chief Vijai Singh Shekhawat, ex-air chiefs S Krishnaswamy and S P Tyagi, former BSF chief Prakash Singh, exforeign secretary Kanwal Sibal, former deputy national security advisor Satish Chandra and ex-home secretary Anil Baijal. Asked about the seminar, Doval said it was on an issue of national importance and was attended by, among others, Subramanian Swamy, Justice M N Venkatachaliah, Justice J S Verma, former Lok Sabha secretary general Subhash Kashyap and ex-chief election Commissioner N Gopalaswamy. However, Doval added that while he supported anti-corruption agitations, the Vivekanand Internation Foundation had no role in the protests. "We strongly feel that it is time a stronger, stable, secure and prosperous India plays its destined role in global affairs and finds its deserved place among the comity of nations. Corruption and black money are draining India. We not at all feel defensive about talking about these issues," he said. Interestingly, apart from Ramdev and Team Anna members, another of those who had attended the seminar, Swamy, also announced the formation of an anti-graft front — ‘The Action Committee Against Corruption in India'. While Ramdev was the chief guest at its first meeting, the committee's members included the same cast of Govindacharya, Gurumurthy, Doval and Vaidyanathan. Asked about Ramdev's connection to the foundation, Govindacharya said he has been a "frequenter". "Ramdev and I have been in constant touch since August 2010 (Ramdev had travelled to Gulbarga in December 2010 to attend Govindacharya's Bharat Vikas Sangam). He used to come to the Vivekananda Foundation. He had a few places in Delhi, but the foundation was the easiest place for him and for others too for meetings," he said.

Govindacharya also admitted that the seminar hoped to have "some sort of closer coordination" by bringing together the Ramdev and Anna camps. The RSS ideologue didn't deny the Sangh link either. Asked if it would be wrong to assume that the Vivekananda Kendra and foundation were all connected with the RSS, he said: "One can deduce that... Organisationally, the RSS doesn't get involved. Swayamsevaks take initiatives." Doval, however, said the foundation was independent and had nothing to do with the RSS. "We had no role in his (Ramdev's) agitation. None of us went there. We are an independent and registered body. We don't receive government funding," he said. Mukul Kanitkar, who was with the foundation earlier, pointed out that bureaucrats, including those from the PMO, regularly attend seminars organised by the foundation on issues of national security. In fact, Union Culture Minister Kumari Selja is scheduled to release a book called ‘The Historicity of Vedic and Ramayana Era: Scientific evidences from the depths of ocean to the heights of skies', at the foundation this week. Despite his association with Ramdev's campaign, Govindacharya now feels the movement is over. "Both the movements (Anna and Ramdev's) are lost in the black hole of power and party politics... Ramdev would now become an ally or promoter of the BJP cause," he said. The country experienced an anarchic situation due to the repeated attempts made to topple the already weak Dr. Singh government - the efforts undertaken by the opposition parties and also by the agitation against corruption. An effective law and order can control problems like riots and looting. However, to control an anarchic situation, an experienced administrative will is required. Dissatisfaction in the society takes a

very long time to heal. An active environment needs to be created to achieve the same. The stint at Jantar Mantar installed confidence in Anna that he could rock the government. He threatened to renew his agitation if the government did not pass the Lokpal Bill in the Winter Session of Parliament in 2011. The agitation was gaining support from the urban areas, and Hazare's supporters were visiting places in the country. So it was all right to believe that this situation would linger ahead for many days. Team Anna now had a new city before them. It was Mumbai, the financial capital of the country. The team was pretty sure that it would get a historic response in Mumbai on account of two factors. First, the city has a large population of the middle class and the have-nots. Secondly, the corporate sector had declared support to the movement. The social media comprising of Facebook and Twitter had helped the campaign reach the middle classes, NRIs, youth, economically well-settled employees of the Corporate Sector and wealthy professions like Software engineers. A sense of national pride emerged in these middle and neo middle classes. The BandraKurla reclamation ground in Mumbai (MMRDA) is huge in size. The Electronic and Social Media estimated that this agitation would draw crowds just the way it brought in Delhi. Team Kejriwal claimed that the agitation would be successful and the government would take all steps to crush it and hence the participating agitators should prepare themselves to be arrested and put in prison. However, Kejriwal was shocked to see the response that the agitation got in Mumbai. Very few people turned up at the sight of the agitation. However, this was ‘breaking news' for the media. The media began asking questions about Hazare and his team and started doubting the intentions of the agitation. They even questioned if the agitation was against corruption or it was against the UPA, Dr. Singh or the Gandhi family. Anna could not answer these issues. When the flow of questions increased, Hazare suddenly cited health reasons and went to his resting room. Kejriwal had to come and take command of the situation. He made a point of not deciding the outcome of the

agitation by the population of the participating agitators. He claimed that many more people would start visiting the place soon. However, he also blamed the rickshaw drivers, taxi drivers and the policemen for this lack of response. In reality, the policemen were seen cooperating by giving directions to people for reaching the venue. There was a trade fair near the MMRDA ground. Many people 'peeped' at Hazare's venue after filling their shopping bags. As the media personnel started to ask questions to Hazare, his supporters started hurling abuses at the media persons. The entire scenario resembled that of a fair or a busy market. The stage attracted rowdy crowds who were forced to be present at the event, as they were working for NGOs. To keep the crowd at a place, songs like 'Kolaveri D' were combined with patriotic songs. All in all, it was an entertainment packed event. The agitation was experiencing a flop show at the financial capital of the country. Many participating agitators were seen hurling abuses at Kejriwal, Prashant Bhushan and Kiran Bedi. Many of them held Kejriwal responsible for ending the seriousness of the agitation and filing it with entertainment. No one could give a practical reason for the failure of the agitation. Many 'online agitators' had booked prison cells from their Internet connection! However, this 'Jail Bharo' agitation did not last as no one could leave their computer screens and come at the actual agitating ground! Kejriwal now claimed that he would fight against his opponents in the upcoming elections of five states and leave the agitation against corruption behind. However, no one from Team Anna or Arvind Kejriwal uttered a single word of praise towards the constructive Parliamentary discussions in regards to the passage of the Lokpal Bill. They did not accept the technical reason given by the Congress that it did not have an absolute majority in Parliament to pass the bill. It was a historic moment that these Fascist forces experienced defeat in Mumbai.

A divide in the plank After the flop show in Mumbai, it was now clear that there was a split in Team Anna. And it was all expected. Many components participated in this agitation. Some were idealists whereas some were directionless. Some were from the RSS whereas some were socialists. Some were mere simpletons whereas some were selfproclaimed intellectuals. Some were opportunists and were full of aspiration whereas some were fools. 'Team Anna', comprising of various thought flow was brought up rather suddenly. When Anna decided to start his nationwide agitation, he was not aware that it would get a response, not only from the national electronic media but also from International print media like 'New York Times' or 'Time'. The mood in the country was against corruption, and the notion that all politicians are corrupt was prevalent in the society. There was a growing rage among the people regarding the thought that how quickly these politicians multiply their wealth and use them to continue being in power. In a government office, people usually saw corrupt individuals right from a peon to an IAS officer. In the beginning, all this rage found a place in Anna's agitation. Anna's so called 'apolitical' agitation had in itself workers from both the RSS and the socialists. But both did not bear their ideologies here. Hence the agitation that appeared 'apolitical' from outside was penetrated by political ideologies from within. But due to some smart handling by Arvind Kejriwal and of course the media assistance, a legend called Anna Hazare was created. The legend had now died out. The ordinary people of the country realized how hollow this agitation was. There were certain demands made in the agitation like politicians should be hanged or should be declared as traitors. They left a bad impression on the people and lakhs of party workers of all political parties in the country were disappointed. It was also falsely propagated that Congress President Sonia Gandhi and Vice President Rahul Gandhi were opposed to the passage of Lokpal Bill. In fact, Rahul, while speaking in the Parliament had advocated giving a constitutional provision to

the Lokpal and had expressed support to the Bill. Still, these false propagations continued. After Anna's show ended, Arvind Kejriwal, on 2nd October 2012, declared that he would start his political party and began his stint in politics. By wearing a cap titled 'Main Aam Aadmi Hoon' (I am the common man), Kejriwal's first target was Delhi's then Chief Minister Shiela Dixit. He declared that he would solve the long pending issue of increase in the prices of water and electricity as according to him both the ruling party and the opposition were united in this problem and the cause of this were the capitalists. He threatened to cut both the connections (water and power) to Shiela's home if her government would not reduce their tariffs. He further declared that he would change the system within 15 days of assuming power. It's hard to change the system but the time has come to do that, he said. He also stated that it was futile of only changing the people in the system and hence an overall change in the system was essential. However, he did not make it clear that which components in the system he would change. Post- Independence, many statements were made by different political parties that talked about a change in the system. Today the regional parties that we see in the country are a representation of different castes, languages and religious aspirations and the reason they are in Parliament today is the electoral process that allows them to express themselves. However, this point was missed by Kejriwal. He claimed that all people in the nation are VVIP's and they would decide the budget or the laws of the country. This demand was very illogical. Kejriwal did not believe in the concept of Parliament, and hence it was not clarified by him where he would pass those laws after hearing the consent of the people. He rebelled against the Capitalist class of the country. However, his political aspirations were apparent. These aspirations of his came with the support of intellectuals and political thinkers, aware journalists and wealthy middle classes of this country. The RSS also provided its workers to this agitation to reap some personal benefits.

There were allegations that Hazare's agitation had with it the blessings of the RSS and the support of the United States. But the support of the RSS did not remain hidden for long. In the All India session of the RSS held at Puttur in Karnataka between 11th and 13th March 2011 it criticized the corruption that had destroyed national life and brought shame to the country. The session appealed to the people to participate in the fight against corruption and sent good wishes to the anti-corruption agitation of the country. A letter to that effect was written by Suresh (Bhaiyya) Joshi of the RSS. The then Chief Minister of Gujarat Mr. Narendra Modi sent a letter to Hazare which said that, ‘I have immense respect for Mr. Hazare, and when I was a whole time pracharak of the RSS, I was influenced by your views on rural development. The entire state of Gujarat owes a lot to you for showing courage and openly praising the state for its achievements. This courage reflects the truth that you hold within you.' Anna Hazare's anti-corruption agitation was a plan of generating an anti-Congress wave in the country. It was also a plan to bring Narendra Modi on the political horizon of the country. From this agitation, the governance of Dr. Manmohan Singh was criticized heavily, and it was compared to the 'Gujarat model' of Narendra Modi that was projected as ideal and successful. This also ensured that 'Governance' was the electoral card for winning votes in the upcoming general elections as the 'Hindutva' card was no longer responsive. Dr. Singh's government became a target of Kiran Bedi, Arvind Kejriwal, Ramdev Baba, Anna Hazare and Subramanian Swami. These five managed to create a scenario in the country that suggested or indicated that if power is not transferred to these individuals the country would be doomed and go bankrupt. During the Second World War, secret groups were formed to help the Fascists in Spain and the Nazis in Germany. These groups claimed that they were against dictatorship and participated in the democratic process. But in reality, they were trying to blast the Democratic

movement. These groups were called 'Fifth Columnists.' The same was happening in these two years of the Manmohan Singh government. These five were directly or indirectly attacking the national constitution. While doing so, they projected the 'ethical' value system so much that they made people dream of a new regime that would be formed by these moral values. To be frank, these five were not elected by the nation in any of the electoral processes. Nor did the Constitution give them any special rights of representation. But they came together with a sole aim of creating an anarchic environment in the country. Finally, on 18th December 2013, the Lokpal Bill was passed in the Parliament. Anna, who had fasted for the same thanked Rahul Gandhi. It was unknown to many as to how Anna suddenly spoke a sensible language. But had he shown this sensibility two years back, this anarchic environment would have been avoided, and the nation would have walked a constitutional path.

The Arrogance of the Army Chief Speculations were on the rise that the government could call it a day anytime due to the coupled influence of the Anna Hazare movement and the unified agitations of all the anarchic forces in the country. Everyone and anyone from the media had begun to shower allegations against the Manmohan Singh government and the ministers that were a part of it. Self-proclaimed social workers and patriots and retired personnel from the Armed Forces were aggressive and topped the list in this activity. All of them considered themselves ethical, clean, honest and of the purest of characters. And when it became apparent that this movement could destroy the very basis and fabric of the Indian constitution, in jumped (the then) Army Chief General V.K Singh! General Singh, while generating an argument about his birth date, ducked many administrative indications and for no reason, opened up a front against the government. When it got obvious that this case could stretch for some more time, in jumped the ‘intellectuals' and self-proclaimed ‘patriots', former officers of the armed forces, the leaders of the Left parties and the BJP. All had the same intention. To make matters difficult for Dr. Singh. At the backdrop of Anna Hazare's agitation for the Lokpal Bill, the clash between the government and the General was smartly politicized by all of them. During some instances, he made some statements in Anna Hazare's anticorruption agitation and by doing that crossed some essential limitations meant for the Armed Forces in a democracy. He created a controversy by claiming that the government was lying about his birth date and had devalued the position of the Army Chief who is otherwise the pride of the nation. Further to the same, he knocked the doors of the Supreme Court and portrayed that he did not have any faith in the government. As a consequence, there was a wave of patriotism within the Indian media, all that was illogical and unnecessary. Some 'patriotic' former Army personnel went on to

make statements that the Prime Minister was promoting his relatives in the Armed Forces and hence he has raised this drama. The media had already concluded that the government at the Center was a traitor. The General forgot that he was representing a republic governed under a democratic framework. According to the Constitution, the Armed Forces report to the democratically elected government and the Chiefs of the Armed Forces are not expected to state anything against the government openly. Still, the General continued making statements in the media about the alleged corruption in the Army. He began to shower allegations on the Prime Minister by claiming that he had written to the latter about how the nation's army was lacking modern equipment and the Air Force had lost its morale and confidence, but the Prime Minister had not bothered to reply him back. While giving an interview to one of the newspapers, he created a stir by saying that while buying defence equipment, there was a bribe given worth Rs. 14 crores. The Parliament erupted in response as the opposition created a ruckus on this issue. The then Defense Minister, Mr. A.K Antony, in response to these allegations defended his government by saying that nothing of this sort had happened. He also offered to resign as a responsible minister had something like this would be proved right. He clarified that General V.K Singh did not provide him anything in writing about this alleged bribe and this flattened the General's claims. The relations between the General and the government took a sharp turn. However, any disciplinary action against the General could have boomeranged upon the government! Hence the only alternative before the government was to wait for the Honourable Supreme Court's judgement. Justice R.M Lodha and Justice H.L Gokhale delivered a ruling stating that the government had not devalued or insulted the General in any of the ways. Neither had the government questioned the General's honesty or his sense of duty or his service to the country. The honourable court made it clear that the government had insisted on this issue only on the grounds of principles.

The Court further stated that the position held by V.K Singh is a reflection of the exceptional service that he has rendered towards the country and hence is a glorification of the same. There is nothing beyond this position, and every soldier in the Army strives to reach there. The government also wants him to complete his tenure. Both, Justice Lodha and Justice Gokhale, specified that the government had never stated that the General was lying. Instead, General Singh stretched this issue going beyond administrative indications and protocols. While enrolling himself in the National Defence Academy, General Singh had mentioned his birth year as 1950. Later in 2008 and 2009, General Singh had himself affirmed that his birth year was 1950. The honourable Court expressed regret that despite these instances, he had stretched this issue. It further clarified that it did not matter whether General Singh was born in 1950 or 1951. Instead what mattered was the year he had mentioned while entering the Armed Services. When the government began to take firm steps, in this case, the media began to doubt the former's intentions. There is a class of people in this country that thinks that the Armed Forces are always honest in their approach, but it is the government that always acts like a traitor. Many even in the educated middle class feel that for the nation to get rid of corruption and to create a law and order situation, the power should be taken over by the Army. In the Lokpal agitation and also in the Jayprakash Narayan agitation of the 70s, it openly stated that the Armed Forces should not obey government orders. In the 60s, the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had taken the case of some of the Army officers who were on the way to rebel against the government. Nehru was criticized for his actions then. But Nehru made it clear that the country has a democratic government and the Armed Forces should obey the orders of the elected government. The Armed Forces have a secondary position in the country. Dr. Singh's government did not take a firm stand like the Nehru government. But the government, hit by criticism, prolonged this battle based on principles and also made sure that there would be no devaluation on the General's position. But in this entire

episode, the attempts made to defame the honest and clean Prime Minister reached a new low. But General V.K Singh's intentions were beyond dragging the government to the Supreme Court. He wanted to topple the Manmohan Singh government on military might. A news piece that exposed this plan was reported by 'The Indian Express' dated 4th April 2012. This story created a shock wave in the country. The news read as follows – ‘Essentially, late on the night of January 16 (the day Army Chief General V K Singh approached the Supreme Court on his date of birth issue), central intelligence agencies reported an unexpected (and non-notified) movement by a key military unit, from the mechanized infantry based in Hisar (Haryana) as a part of the 33rd Armored Division (which is a part of 1 Corps, a strike formation based in Mathura and commanded by Lt Gen. A K Singh) in the direction of the capital, 150 km away. Any suspicion was still considered much too implausible, but lookouts were alerted as a routine step. This was part of a protocol put in place in June 1984 when some mutineers from Sikh units had moved towards the capital in the wake of Operation Bluestar. The lookouts confirmed the movement of what looked like a sizeable unit. It was soon identified as an entire unit of Mechanised Infantry, with its Russian-made Armoured Fighting Vehicles (AFVs), carried on 48 tank transporters. The movement was towards the capital, which was odd. No such thing had been notified. The Army Day celebrations had ended just the previous day (January 15). It was still a cause for curiosity and some confusion — more than much concern — because, over the decades, New Delhi has come to be totally relaxed and trustful of the apolitical and professionally correct nature of its military leadership. The situation changed rapidly, though. Reports came in of yet another military movement "towards" Delhi. This unit was identified as a large

element of the airborne 50 Para Brigade based at Agra. The lookouts were activated south of Delhi as well and the column was identified. By this time, both columns were being tracked and "watched". A bemused establishment raised an alert of sorts. The Defence Minister was informed. Immediately, the Centre put in motion an old contingency plan to delay just such a move. It issued a terror alert with instructions to police to carefully check all vehicles on the highways leading to Delhi. The objective was to slow down traffic. The Prime Minister was informed at the crack of dawn on January 17. Quiet checks carried out on the location and status of key formations and their commanders, particularly in the northwestern region, revealed nothing abnormal at all. Defence Secretary Shashi Kant Sharma was asked to cut short his visit to Malaysia. He returned. After the briefing, he opened his office late at night and asked Lt Gen. A K Choudhary, Director General Military Operations, to see him and explain what was going on. Gen. Choudhary, it seems, knew about the move of the Paras (the Para Brigade is controlled directly by the DGMO) and said it was a routine exercise. He was asked to return with full facts about the mechanised unit. This he did soon enough. The explanation was still the same: the Army was carrying out exercises to check its ability to make quick deployments of key units during fog. He was told to send the units back immediately. Both formations were halted, and sent back within hours. The mechanised unit, sources said, had parked itself at an industrial park near Bahadurgarh abutting West Delhi's Najafgarh. The Paras were staying put in the barracks of an artillery regiment — 79 Medium —not far from Palam. The Army's explanation that it was all a simple fog-time exercise was then viewed with scepticism at the highest level. The question: Why was the well-set protocol that any military movement, at any time, in

the NCR (National Capital Region) has to be pre-notified to MoD (Ministry of Defense) not followed?' This incident clearly exemplified the growing contradictions between the Government and the Armed Forces. But the entire issue was grim for the reason that while he was still in office, General Singh had become supportive of the Fascism that was about to formulate in the country. And after his retirement, he joined the Anna Hazare movement. Later he was seen sitting beside Narendra Modi at an event in Haryana that comprised of retired personnel of the Armed Forces. That he displayed proximity to a political party while in power was a serious issue and a problem that portrayed a challenge to the national administration. Later, on 19th February 2014, the then retired DGMO Lt. General A.K Chaudhary, during a rally at the Gandhi Maidan at Patna, told the media that troop movement had taken place in January. He also said that while the action was happening, he received a call from the Defence Secretary who ordered him to stop the same immediately. Post this; there again started a row around General Singh. Then on the next day, 20th February 2014, the then Air Force Chief, A.K Brown also reiterated that the troop movement had taken place. The statements made by these now retired Army chiefs increased the suspicion around General V.K Singh. However, the General hit back stating that the news in the Indian Express had come from a corrupt and cheap mindset. When Anna Hazare carried out his last fast for the Lokpal Bill at Ralegansiddhi, General V.K Singh was present at the venue. When the Parliament passed the Bill, Anna stopped his fast and in February 2014 declared that he would campaign countrywide for Mamta Banerjee. Hazare's sudden U-turn landed General Singh in an awkward situation. Finally, on 2nd March 2014 in Delhi, General V.K Singh officially entered the BJP in the presence of the then BJP President Rajnath Singh. He was even offered a party ticket from Ghaziabad. While

entering the BJP, he said that this is the only party that has a nationalist approach. It was a corroboration of the allegations leveled against him.

ISRO, Kudankulam, Coal Blocks and the Poverty Line

ISRO Some incidents displayed a clash between the government and the different institutions. The government committed a mistake of barring ISRO's former Director and Professor of Vikram Sarabhai Space Center Dr. G. Madhavan Nayar and three others from assuming any government office. They did so citing the controversial 'antrix-devas' deal. Additionally, Dr. Nayar was sacked from the Professor's position. Speculation was rife that ISRO's Director Dr. K Radhakrishnan was the man who orchestrated this sacking. Also at the background of this sacking was the cold war between the Tamil and Malayalam scientists of ISRO. Dr. Nayar was a Keralite whereas Dr. Radhakrishnan was a Tamil. The cold war had intensified over the years as the Keralites had occupied most of the important positions in the organization. When Dr. K. Radhakrishnan became the director in 2009; he preferred and placed people from the Tamil community at these posts. Now it is quite natural to experience political outcomes in such organizations. But the government, while acting against Dr. Nayar, should have taken care of his image. It did not acknowledge his immense contribution in space research. His name is and will always be written in golden words in the history of ISRO. During his tenure at ISRO from 2003 to 2009, Dr. Nayar successfully implemented 25 space research programs. The 'Chandrayan' mission was also initiated during his tenure. The government honoured him by conferring him the prestigious 'Padmavibhushan' award. The government ignored these very significant aspects while sacking Dr. Nayar. The minister of state, V.Narayan Swami, intensified the matter by making a statement that it was time to teach all scientists a lesson. He also made an irresponsible statement that Dr. Nayar and his colleagues had indulged in corruption and hence their sacking was justified. It, as expected, created a wave of anger among the scientific community in the country. After this incident, eminent scientific personalities like former Director of the Atomic Energy Commission Dr. Anil Kakodkar, former Director of CISR Dr. Raghunath Mashelkar, President of the Scientific Advisory Committee to the Prime Minister Prof C.N Rao, former Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University

and senior scientist Professor Yashpal severely criticized the government. They cautioned that such hasty decisions of the government would affect the formation of new ideas and creativity from the scientists'. Prof. C.N Rao instead asked a counter question to the government. He wondered whether the government has ever acted in such a manner against the corruption in political and social circles. He further cautioned that if people with such integrity are made a target, then there would be no one to work for the country. The anger vented out by the scientific community was, in fact, a comment on the digressions within the government. But no one counter-questioned the Minister of State Mr. V. Narayan Swami. Mr. Swami was neither associated with Science nor was he a Cabinet Minister. There was no need for him to interfere in these matters. Neither was he having any administrative right to make such statements. Still, he made comments that sounded like judgments. This situation was an ideal for the Opposition that anyways claimed that everyone had a free hand within the government.

The Kudankulam Headache Due to lack of firm decisions and an increase in the tendency of being defensive, a perception was created that Dr. Singh had a spineless personality. The media and the opposition leaders screamed that the Prime Minister did not speak, his colleagues do not listen to him, and there is no control over the government. At this background, the issue of Kudankulam nuclear power plant surfaced up. There was a massive agitation opposing the commissioning of this plant. Because Arvind Kejriwal supported this agitation, the media switched its attention more intensely towards this issue.The agitators displayed their protest by standing in the sea for long hours and the situation intensified as the days progressed. Also, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu sided with the supporters and in a way challenged the Central Government. Dr. Singh, while signing the nuclear deal with the United States, encouraged citizens to think in the future tense about the upcoming energy needs of the country. He grabbed their attention towards the fact that India could be a superpower only if it had adequate energy options available. He was keen to complete the Jaitapur and Kudankulam projects by three global aspects. One was the future energy needs of India. The second was the annual growth rate of the country. And third and the most important thing were the frictions between the United States and Iran in the larger context of West Asian politics. It was apparent that certain foreign elements were working against the government. As the issue intensified, it became an embarrassing situation for the government at the global level. In an interview with the prestigious journal 'Science', Dr. Singh was frank enough to allege that the Kudankulam project was opposed by some NGOs from the United States and some from the Scandinavian countries. Post this outburst; things became difficult for the BJP, the Left, the anti-corruption crusaders and people like Medha Patkar who continuously agitated against development projects. For two to three years, Dr. Singh had patiently listened to what the agitators (agitating against the nuclear power plants) had to say. He accepted their allegations. All this was to respect the existing democratic institutions.

He had also faced media interrogations. As far as the Jaitapur power plant was concerned, he sent the Chief Minister of Maharashtra to have a word with the agitators. He specified many times that these nuclear power stations would make the lives of the people far better as against the popularly imposed notion that they would make life difficult. Regarding the Kudankulum plant, he had opted for a standpoint that was patient and generated a consensus. But he had to speak up when it was apparent that instead of opting for a clear path, the issue was hijacked by political parties who wanted to gain political mileage. He said that there were 9 NGOs in the United States who were opposed to this plant. These NGOs had received a funding of around 54 crores per month to carry out these agitations. He also pointed out that these NGOs work for Christian missionaries and secretly ignite the locals living in the village to agitate against the government. These NGOs were miffed by the fact that India was importing modern technology from foreign countries to expand its potential in the field of energy and agriculture. This Opposition installed a constant fear in the minds of the people by citing Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster and propagated that the country could face similar circumstances. The Fukushima nuclear project is 40 years old. But no one from the opposition parties thought about the technological improvements in the past 40 years. Many of the scientists and experts made it clear that the Fukushima accident was not due any technical failure, but it was because of the Tsunami that caused a lot of damage which ultimately led to nuclear radiation. Still, things were blown out of proportion. Both the proposed nuclear plants in the country have a geographical location that is out of reach of the Tsunami impact. Also, they do not come in any earthquake-affected region. Additionally, both these plants are equipped with technology that will make them shut down their activity in case of an earthquake. Noted nuclear scientists Dr. Anil Kakodkar went at the proposed site and explained this to the people, their representatives and the NGOs. In spite of all these scientific citations and explanations, there was a propagation of

a sense of disbelief, and work got delayed. Finally, the then Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalitha cleared the way for this project.

Coal Blocks and CAG's mislead In 2011 the political temperature of the country rose due to the 2G spectrum scam. Around the same time, the fact that CAG was to submit its report on the coal mines allocation was doing rounds of discussions in political circles. Before this release, the trio of ‘Team Anna Hazare - NDA – media' had made a strategy to make things difficult for the government. In 2011, the BJP did not allow Parliament to run while demanding a Joint Parliamentary Committee to probe the Spectrum allocation scam. The Budget session of 2012 went largely under disrupted circumstances. However, as it was clear that CAG would table the coal mines allocation report in Parliament in the coming monsoon session, the government made sure that it was better prepared. However, as CAG summed the so-called corruption amount in the coal mines allocation to the amount of Rs. 10 lakh crores, there was uproar in the country. Allegations on Dr. Singh again surfaced with statements made to the tune that this was the most corrupt government in India's history. It was apparent that CAG wanted to target Dr. Singh. However, Dr. Singh was better prepared to face this at the administrative and political levels, which was a setback to the BJP. The principle opposition party insisted on Dr. Singh's resignation. But Dr.Singh insisted that he would firmly explain his position to both the Parliament and the media. The aggressive response from the government made the BJP get back to its old trick of disrupting Parliament proceedings. The BJP on one side expressed concern on the downfall of the nation's economy but on the other hand obstructed important bills in the Parliament like FDI, Banking, Land Acquisition, GAAR, higher education and pension. If the BJP felt that corruption was the principal problem the nation was facing, it should have discussed the same in Parliament rather than flocking the streets. But the same did not happen. CAG showed a large figure about the 2G spectrum allocation. The same pattern was seen regarding the coal mines allocation. When CAG claimed that auctions in coal mine allocations had resulted in a loss worth Rupees 10 lakh crores, many economists pointed out that this amount was beyond the nation's total produce

and the total corporate taxes. Hence, CAG tried to clarify by changing its position and stated that this was a loss counting the past 25 years. But CAG had tampered on many fundamentals. They had used the 2010-11 coal prices to indicate the loss amount. However, coal mine auctions had taken place after 2006, and hence it was necessary to take into account the prices of that particular year. However, it is hard to believe that CAG did not know that a fall in coal prices should eventually result in a fall in the loss amount. Before this, CAG had also stated that there was a scam to the amount of Rs. 1 lakh 30 thousand crores in transactions about Delhi International Airport. While stating this number, CAG said the market value of this company as Rs.88, 377 crores. However, the market value of the company then was Rs. 4,187 crores. Additionally, CAG also claimed that due to unauthorised distribution of coal mines to Reliance Power, there was a loss faced to the amount of Rs. 29,000 crores. However, then the capital market value of Reliance Power was Rs. 25,000 crores. CAG, in the previous year, had claimed that the provisional amount for education in the Budget session of 200910 felt short by Rs. 1 lakh 16 thousand crores. In reality, this amount equaled seven educational budgets. But CAG chief, Mr. Vinod Rai wanted every government number to end in thousands of crores. Hence CAG deliberately ignored the ground realities about these allocations. There are many reasons for private and public sector companies encountering irregularities in coal excavations. The primary reason is the lack of skilled labour. The excavations are dependent on the use of modern technology and machinery. There is a need for skilled workers to handle this technology. As there was a lack of skilled labour, there was no excavation carried out from approved coal mines. Additionally, this process requires a railway network for coal transportation. The coal ministry had repeatedly indicated that due to a lack of an efficient rail system, coal production had been affected. Hence, the coal production in the Mahanadi coal excavation site had stopped. Many coal mines in Central India were also affected due to the law and order issues, Mafia and many political struggles. The Indian states of Madhya Pradesh,

Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Karnataka and Orissa (who were then ruled by the BJP) that were prosperous regarding natural wealth, had experienced rampant corruption about their coal excavations. The then Finance Minister, P. Chidambaram at a press conference had said ‘Koyla nikala hi nahi, toh ghata kahanse?' and this angered the opposition even further. Dr. Manmohan Singh, while making his position clear in Parliament stressed that the CAG report was wrong on technical grounds. He also emphasized that in 2005 the BJP Chief Ministers, Vasundhara Raje and Raman Singh had opposed the process of competitive bidding. He answered all the objections of CAG in 32 specific points and also added that in a democracy everyone has to be taken together which can lead to a delay in decisions. He said in Parliament that the year in which CAG alleges of a scam, the coal ministry was handled by him and all the responsibility towards it is his own. He said, ‘ Let me humbly submit that, even if we accept CAG's contention that benefits accrued to private companies, their computations can be questioned on a number of technical points. The CAG has computed financial gains to private parties as being the difference between the average sale price and the production cost of CIL of the estimated extractable reserves of the allocated coal blocks. Firstly, computation of extractable reserves based on averages would not be correct. Secondly, the cost of production of coal varies significantly from mine to mine even for CIL due to varying geo-mining conditions, method of extraction, surface features, number of settlements, availability of infrastructure etc. Thirdly, CIL has been generally mining coal in areas with better infrastructure and more favorable mining conditions, whereas the coal blocks offered for captive mining are generally located in areas with more difficult geological conditions. Fourthly, a part of the gains would in any case get appropriated by the government through taxation and under the MMDR Bill, presently being considered by the parliament, 26% of the profits earned on coal mining operations would have to be made available for local area

development. Therefore, aggregating the purported financial gains to private parties merely on the basis of the average production costs and sale price of CIL could be highly misleading. Moreover, as the coal blocks were allocated to private companies only for captive purposes for specified end-uses, it would not be appropriate to link the allocated blocks to the price of coal set by CIL.' In the end, he also said that as the CAG report is now tabled in Parliament and there are recommendations made in the same, the Parliament should take further action. He also made it clear that he was ready to face any punishment or consequence if found guilty in these entire proceedings. Dr. Singh while facing the media and stressing his faultlessness gave a very balanced answer. Instead of answering every question of the opposition and the media all he said was, ‘Hajaron javabon se acchi meri khamoshi, na jaane kitne sawalon ki aabro rakhi' But these alleged corruptions worth 'lakh-crore' rupees ultimately and unfortunately were a blot on the Prime Ministerial stint of Dr. Singh. Later the Supreme Court cancelled all the permits of the coal mines. But cancellation did not imply a scam from the government.

Media's intellectual bankruptcy The media's approach was very cheap when it attempted to tarnish Dr. Singh's image of being an able economist. The background of this was a report published by the Planning Commission that defined the poverty line. While it exposed the intellectual limitation of the media, it also generated a severe dissatisfaction among the people against the government. The media pundits who knew nothing of economics were responsible for spreading this feeling among the people. The otherwise educated middle class also fell prey to this, and its anger rose against the government. Instead of addressing the root of the issue, the media was rampant in its criticism of the economists. They, rather taking the matter on economic terms, approached it in party terms. The government was in a tight spot and hence retreated a few steps back. Confusion increased among the people as a result. The report said that people who earn Rs. 26 per day in the rural areas and Rs. 32 per day in the cities would be under the poverty line and hence under the government aid. When the Planning Commission submitted an affidavit to this effect to the Supreme Court, pandemonium rose all around. To face this, the Vice President of the Planning Commission, Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Union Minister Jairam Ramesh held a joint press conference and aptly answered all questions of the media. They both dismissed the allegation that the Planning Commission was decreasing the population of the people below the poverty line. Late Economist Mr. Suresh Tendulkar, while redefining the poverty line in 2009 had suspended the use of 'calories per person' as an indication. He recommended that apart from food, the poverty line should also include health, education, cleanliness, diet and the produce. He noted that when the poverty line was defined previously, the spending of low-income families on education and health was not considered. That was because it was assumed that the government provides these services for free. But the reality is that poor families spend more on these than on anything else. Low calories in a person can result in low metabolism. Whereas in someone else, 3000 calories a

day also results in undernourishment, owing to the kind of work done. Due to these contradictions, it is hard to set up a poverty line by calories intake. It is also not practical to differentiate between people by categorizing a person earning Rs. 4800 per month as below poverty line and a person earning Rs. 5000 per month as above poverty line. Many families choose to live near their place of work, and hence their expenses get reduced. In such a situation, it becomes difficult to include the exact number of people under the poverty line. For a subcontinent like India, every state can have different indications of measuring poverty. It is because each state has a different set of a population that is entitled to government schemes. Each state has a different growth rate. As far as the country is concerned, the families living in the rural areas on an average spend 57% of their income on food. The same percentage is 44.4% in the urban areas. If we see the numbers from the States point of view, then the people in the states of Assam, Bihar and Jharkhand spend more than 50% of their income on food. The same for the people in states of Punjab and Kerela is less than 50%. On seeing the shape of the economy then, Tendulkar pointed out to the government that the population of people living below the poverty line had increased and they should be entitled to government benefits. The media was not even remotely aware of this. During Prime Minister Vajpayee's tenure, people in the urban areas generating an income of less than Rs. 454 were classified below the poverty line. For residents in the countryside, the amount was Rs. 328. But hell did not break loose then. The media now had the TRP factor in sight and it made them start a maligning campaign against the government. The BJP also joined the movement sensing political gains. Under this background, Mr. Ahluwalia pointed towards the calculative behaviour of the media. He also stressed that the Planning Commission aims to ensure that the government benefits reach everyone. He also said that no government takes support from figures and statistics when it seeks to help those in need. Mr. Ahluwalia also made it clear that the government is not of the opinion of providing cheap food grains only to people below the

poverty line. Rather the Food Security Act proposed by the government aims to extend support to around 11% of the population just above the poverty line, in addition to the 32% of the population below it. On 20th September 2011, a second affidavit was filed in the Supreme Court where it was declared that by the recommendations of the Tendulkar committee, the people whose monthly income was less than Rs. 3,905 in the rural areas and less than Rs. 4,824 in the urban areas ( as per the prices of 2011) were classified below the poverty line. Now on calculating this on a daily basis, it comes to Rs. 26 in the rural areas and Rs. 32 in the urban areas. These figures are extremely low, and it is highly unfortunate if someone has to live under these conditions. Hence the government intends to cover 72% of the rural population and around 50% of the urban people in the country under the Food Security Act. It would supersede the fears raised by the Tendulkar committee which was a large section of individuals not availing government benefits. Rather, the recommendations of the Tendulkar committee would be useful in the future development and related economics of the country. Mr. Ahluwalia made these points clear in front of the media. In this pandemonium, one more instance exposed the media's lack of general knowledge and common sense. It was the relation between the poverty line and the government's development initiative. Many of the self-proclaimed pundits on media platforms directly related the 'Sarv Shiksha Abhiyaan', Indira Awas Yojana', 'Midday meal scheme', the 'MNREGA' with that of the poverty line. Mr. Jairam Ramesh had to step in to explain that these acts by the government are related to the foodgrains distribution and not with the poverty line. The government later in 2012 decided to redefine the poverty line. It stated that the poverty assessment through this would be directly in association with the Food Security Act. The confusion created in the media concerning the poverty line was a political move made by the BJP for opposing the ambitious Food Security Act of the UPA and Sonia Gandhi. In 2013 when the Bill was tabled in Parliament, BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi made a statement that the government remembers the Food Security at the

time of elections. In reality what he said was a lie. The Food Security Bill was pending in the Parliament for the past four years owing to the repeated Parliamentary disruptions by the BJP under the pretext of the 2G scam, coal mine scam and other issues. The BJP now began to question the government as from where it would bring the billions of rupees required for the food distribution. They also challenged the government in implementing the existing poverty reduction programs. In reality, the BJP should have opposed the bill in the Parliament if they had found anything wrong in it. But it ultimately supported the Bill fearing that the image of the BJP will become anti-poor. That means they also had the elections factor in mind. Under this background, the government, while facing all the opposition, tabled and passed the bill in the Parliament and took steps in a poverty reduction and creation of a hunger-free India. Politics is not only restricted to votes. It also has a human face to it. Dr. Singh's outlook had an attempt to give this human face to politics. The poor in the country cannot afford to have access to food for they have no money and this fact is rather very embarrassing to a country like India that aims to become a superpower and experiences record food production. Hence Dr. Singh's economic thought was that to fight hunger we first have to combat poverty. And to fight poverty, we need to increase the rate of development. Poverty develops due to a lack of land, capital and skills and it is closely related to hunger. Poverty cannot be eliminated without eliminating hunger. The labour that works in the agricultural field has its income reliant on the ups and downs of the farm produce. It is also dependent on the ups and downs of the prices of the agricultural produce and the natural calamities if any. If there is an increase in prices of food, then this labour has to buy it at higher prices. Consequently, they buy less amount of food. It is directly related to their abilities and productions skills and so also their health. Due to the Food Security Act, many low-income families would save money which they would otherwise spend on food. They could use this money in education, and this education could result in an increased number of women getting access to education.

Studies on women-related issues in many Asian countries have found out that higher education among women has led to a decrease in infant mortality. It also results in control over the problems of malnutrition in children. On the Food Security Bill becoming an Act, Dr. Singh's aim was to endorse the concept of a welfare state as mentioned in the Indian Constitution. But the media kept on repeatedly saying that in developing and underdeveloped countries there is an extravagant expenditure on welfare schemes and activities. But how far from reality they were! Sweden, a developed nation, spends 38.2% of its GDP on welfare activities. Britain spends around 25.9% of its GDP on welfare schemes, whereas the same for France is 34.9% India has spent only 27% of its GDP in this section. However, the developed nations have higher taxes to recover the money spent by the government in such schemes. The taxes in India are comparatively small. There was another thought flow in the media which stated that the welfare schemes were only for the poor and the government ignores the interests of the middle classes. But the government already provides subsidies on fertilisers, petroleum products and electricity. The prime beneficiaries of these subsidies are the middle class. But the fact was that owing to the intellectual bankruptcy within the media; the latter could not effectively explain the concept of a welfare state to the people.

Impasse from the CBI India has embraced the Parliamentary system of democracy. In this system, the struggle between the administration and the external pressure groups on the issues of government policies is not a new phenomenon. After attempts to land the government in a tight spot through the 2G spectrum issue, it was now clear that a series of such incidents would shoot up. Though the government had a majority in numbers, there was a plot to pull it down on the issue of governance. Some officials of the CBI were also a part of this conspiracy. During the 2G scam, the opposition members demanded that the CBI should be made autonomous as it was unfairly siding the government. During the coal mine allocation issue, the Supreme Court of India questioned if it is fair to trust the CBI for being fair and this again landed the government in a tight spot. Around the same time, the then Law Minister Ashwini Kumar demanded a status report from the CBI that it was going to submit to the Supreme Court. This report was about the Coalmines allocation issue and his intention of demanding the report was to introduce certain corrections in it. When the Supreme Court was informed by the then Managing Director of CBI, Mr. Ranjit Singh, the political environment in the country intensified! The opposition was quick to demand the resignation of Ashwini Kumar. As Ashwini Kumar was in the closer circles of Dr. Singh, these demands became more intense. The opposition members did not leave any opportunity to criticize Dr. Singh on moral and administrative grounds. To add to this, Ranjit Singh in his statement to the media said that the CBI is a part of the government and thus gave an opportunity to the opposition to further intensify their voices. This entire incident eventually resulted in Ashwini Kumar's resignation. However, this displayed that the Manmohan Singh government was facing internal erosion. It seemed apparent that many administrative decisions were made without keeping the Prime Minister in a loop and these wrong decisions again made the Prime Minister answerable. The media now had a chance of revising the history of the CBI and the government.

But Dr. Singh had a different view on the relations between the administration and the CBI. On 11th November 2013 and on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the CBI, Dr. Singh expressed concern over the overall functioning of the CBI and said, "In a democratic administration, every functional body should enjoy its own freedom without interfering in the freedom of other institutions. A decision taken by the government could eventually not be correct. But decisions taken by the government should not only be viewed as they being criminal decisions. Whenever the government takes any decision, it has to undergo a complex process. It has to think of every component in the society. There are many honest and duty-oriented officers in the administration who engineer many government policies and work towards their implementation. Whenever they take a decision, they have their conscience behind it. It is a requirement of that time. Raising objection towards all of these and questioning all the decisions taken by them and despite of not having sufficient evidence, blaming the entire system is not fair. This result in a loss of faith among the people towards the government they have elected." Dr. Singh's statement was a comment on what was happening within the CBI. He had expressed concern over the fact that giving autonomy to the CBI had now become a national issue. He also wanted to state that giving autonomy to the CBI required political will and in the politically unstable situation then, it was not possible. He also clarified that the CBI was an independent investigation agency and the government does not intend to interfere in its matters. In reality, many political parties had made this a national issue. There were statements made which said that as the CBI was investigating the corruption cases of UPA-2, the government would eventually come out of it with no harm. The Supreme Court called it the parrot of the government while the BJP called it 'Congress Bureau of Investigation.' But the reality was different. The CBI was falling prey to its internal politics. In the past three years the CBI, instead of probing the financial scams, was more focused on the administrative control of

the UPA-2. Hence the struggle between the CBI, the PMO and other government agencies began to intensify. The arrogance of the CBI increased so much that many of its former and present officials began to give statements to the media demanding autonomy. Two years back, during the anti-corruption crusade, a theory was made popular that the Lokpal would eliminate corruption.Similar was the approach of granting autonomy to the CBI. It was not a coincidence! Because in 2013, when Dr. Singh was on a visit to Russia and China, news began to make rounds which said that CBI could call Dr. Singh for investigation in the coal blocks allocation case. The plot was to bring in the Prime Minister for questioning and then by plucking the ethical chord, ask for his resignation. But while coming back to India, Dr. Singh calmly said that he was ready to face any interrogation by the CBI and thus deflated the set scenario. But the government had become so weak that the Supreme Court could also make statements to land it in trouble. In 2012, the Supreme Court had made a statement that the foodgrains in government stock houses should be distributed free instead of it getting rotten. These declarations of the Apex Court were exterior of its constitutional reach. Many of the government's plans about infrastructure, minerals, forests and telecom were stalled due to the Apex Court's interference. It was the primary reason many development projects were not moving ahead, a fact otherwise screamed by the BJP and the media. Such incidents were rare in the 20-year-old history of economic liberalization. But while the UPA-2 came to power, there was a tendency to stall many developmental processes in the country. While much of it was also due to the internal conflicts within the government, bureaucratic delays of different ministries, an arrogant and uncontrollable behaviour of CBI officers and stay orders of the judiciary. In this background, the Guwahati High Court declared the CBI as an unconstitutional body and said that it had no right to carry out any investigation. It further created a state of confusion. The Central Government had to rush to the Supreme Court, which then put a stay on the Guwahati High Court's judgement. Often there are demands made which say that the

Judiciary should be granted an autonomous status. Such statement makers have an intention to undermine the system of Parliamentary Democracy. Dr. Singh was very well aware of these plans, and on certain occasions, he was firm enough to dismiss them outright.

Political and Parliamentary deadlock In the Parliamentary form of Democracy, the role of the Opposition Party is to 'Oppose, Expose and depose'. If the government is moving away from democratic values and rendering in unconstitutional practices, then it is the duty of the leader of the opposition to point out the same. The role of the opposition party is to analyze the government policies and laws critically. The opposition should be responsible towards the democracy in the same intensity as the government should be responsible towards the constitution. There are many ways the opposition can target the government, and some of them include the Question Hour, adjournment notices and noconfidence motion. These are the rights of the Opposition parties, and it is expected that they indulge in a constructive agitation inside Parliament. The conduct of the BJP during UPA-2 was exactly its reverse! Since 2010, the BJP bid farewell to almost all democratic traditions of the country. They were irresponsible and disruptive during Parliamentary proceedings. No other party in the history of Indian Parliament had done such damage to our Parliamentary values. From 2009, when the UPA-2 came to power, till the last day of Parliamentary proceedings on 21st February 2014, the Parliament functioned for only 357 days. It was the least run Lok Sabha in the history of Indian Parliament. In the five years from 2009 to 2014, there were only 1388 meetings. The number for the same was 1,737 for UPA-1 and 1,946 during the NDA regime. In the five years of UPA2, there was a passage of 177 bills whereas 128 were pending. Out of the entire proceedings, 79% of the time in the Lok Sabha and 72% in the Rajya Sabha went in disruptions. The Question Hour took place for only 11% of the time. In the budget session of February 2014, L. Rajagopal of the Congress sprayed pepper on some of the Parliamentarians when the issue of an independent Telangana state under discussion. Seeing this irresponsible behaviour, the Lok Sabha Speaker Ms. Meira Kumar decided to block the live telecast of the

Lok Sabha the next day when the Parliament went to vote on the same. The BJP and the Left decided to cash on this incident, but the entire issue died out as the days went by. But attempts made by the BJP to block the Parliamentary proceedings were finally successful. It was one of the many strategies of the BJP and the RSS. On the one hand Anna Hazare, through his anti-corruption agitation would target the system of Parliamentary Democracy and on the other, the BJP would disrupt the Parliamentary proceedings. In the five years of UPA-2, the BJP had planned to obstruct all proposed bills of the Parliament by not entering into discussions, disrupting them and eventually blame the government for not taking any action. In 2010, the BJP did not allow the summer session of the Parliament on the issue of 2G spectrum. Later in the winter session of the same year, they did not enable the Parliament to function by raising the condition that the government should form a Joint Parliamentary Committee to investigate the 2G spectrum case. Next year in 2011 they raised the coal blocks allocation issue and demanded that the Prime Minister should first resign and only then they would allow the Parliament to run. They kept on intensifying the coal blocks issue for four months and also demanded a CBI investigation for the same. When the Prime Minister stood up to speak and explain his and the governments' position on the CAG report, the BJP did not allow him to speak. Never in the history of the Indian Parliament was the Prime Minister not allowed to talk! But the BJP did make the 15th Lok Sabha a rather 'notorious' one by doing so. During the UPA-2, the BJP did not enter into a serious discussion on any of the issues of corruption, and at the same time they also could not bring in the no-confidence motion on the government. Hence it was seen that they could not unite the 'non-Congress' parties on the sole issue of corruption. (The RSS, however, had other plans. As the government was trapped on the issue of corruption, it was decided to settle scores with the Congress for the past 60 years it had ruled. Instead of defeating the Congress on the floor of the House, they

decided to defame it to the maximum. The objective was to develop a severe anti-Congress sentiment within the country). In the Parliamentary form of Democracy, the Prime Minister is the Chief of the government. Even in Britain the Parliament has a right to ask for the Prime Minister's resignation. But there is a set procedure designed for the same. The Parliament can issue a no-confidence motion against the government. But during the UPA-2, friends of the BJP were not ready to accompany them. Political parties like the Akali Dal, Janata Dal-United, Biju Janata Dal or the AIADMK were all against the UPA. But neither of them was ready to side the BJP. They were of the opinion that there should be a detailed discussion on all these issues and the Prime Minister had a right to defend all the allegations levelled upon him. Around the same time in 2010, inflation became a huge concern. The government was under a lot of pressure to not increase the petrol prices despite a global increase in crude oil prices. The government was also under tremendous pressure as they could not pass important bills in the Parliament despite the economic recession showing signs of recovery. At this time, the government decided to increase the diesel prices to aid the depleting state treasury and also decided to open up few more sectors for foreign investment. Referring to this decision, Dr. Manmohan Singh in his speech at the Planning Commission said "There would be no looking back at this decision. We would prefer leaving the government rather than going back on this decision." In 1969, Indira Gandhi took the decision of nationalization of banks in a similar hurried manner. She voraciously supported her decision through her speeches. She dismissed the then Finance Minister Morarji Desai and then went on to take a decision that later turned out to be revolutionary. Indira also gave a speech while declaring the emergency in 1975. She said that she had to impose a state of emergency as crude oil prices had peaked and it was hard to deal with them due to constant rail strikes and severe droughts. But all this was disguised, and there was a propagation that Indira Gandhi had

murdered the freedom of expression and democracy. The attempts made to dismiss the Indira Gandhi government came with a feeling hatred towards Indira. There was no intellectual or an ideological background behind this. The nation saw this as the Janata Party government could do nothing concrete when it assumed power. The economic situation during Dr. Singh's time was no different. Europe and the United States were under a severe recession. It had its effect on India, and hence large-scale investment was necessary for the country. The country was not capable enough to raise this investment all by itself, and hence foreign investment was required. Dr. Singh, as the finance minister in 1991, had successfully carried out the process of liberalization. These policies took the nation to a 8% growth rate. Now as the economic activity had slowed down, it was necessary to start the next phase of liberalization and bring in investments. Since assuming power, Dr. Singh's priority was to bring foreign direct investment in the retail and the aviation sectors. He was attempting to gain support from the AIADMK and the Trinamool Congress in this decision. He also tried to win over the BJP members who were supporters of the process of liberalization. (The BJP incidentally had opposed the 1991 economic liberalization and championed it when they came to power. They again opposed the decision when it was proposed by Dr. Singh and kept their policies of ‘disruptive opposition!') The Prime Minister was keen on getting the support of his party and also that of the opposition members. But this elegant, democratic way of his was countered by calling his government an 'underachiever' or ‘policy paralytic'. His proposal of foreign direct investment in the aviation, retail sectors was going to be a platform for the future growth of the country. But the inverse happened. The Trinamool Congress, BSP, Samajwadi Party, DMK all declared that they were opposed to the FDI and called for a nationwide Bandh on 20th September 2012. They began to voice that FDI in retail would mean death for small business holders. However, in reality, this FDI in retail would have brought 13 billion dollars in three years. The government tried to give a human touch to this investment by making it mandatory

for the participating companies to invest in cities having a population of 10 lakh and all those were mid-scale cities. Additionally, this investment assured an employment to a person every 250 sq.ft. It had two significant benefits. Midscale cities were in dire need of job creation. These jobs meant that it was not necessary for people in these cities to migrate to bigger cities for work. On the other hand, this was also to benefit the farmers. 'Supply Chain Management' was made mandatory for these companies so as to avoid loss and wastage of food. At the same time, the government had targeted four public sector companies to sell their capital worth 10% each and raise 14 thousand crores rupees. After achieving this, it was possible to narrow the deficit in the government treasury. When Dr. Singh made this announcement, the Share Market surprisingly welcomed this decision the next day. The hypocrite behaviour of the opposition parties was evident in many instances. In their third year after coming to power, the UPA announced an increase in petrol prices. The government declared that the International Crude oil prices had compelled them to take this decision. The irony was that some years back when prices were under control, these political parties were preaching that the government was not willing to push for reforms in the economy. The BJP-led NDA government decided to decontrol the petrol prices in phases. The UPA did not change the decision in 2004. In India, the government ends up spending billions of rupees in subsidies on petroleum products. Hence there is a strain on the state treasury and the same results in an adverse effect on other developmental and welfare schemes of the government. Hence the petroleum prices in the country fluctuate along with the prices of crude oil in the International Market. However as Dr. Singh took these decisions, the Left parties and the BJP became angry. The BJP had started making statements about the unworthiness of the government. They also stated that the government is in ICU and is suffering from policy paralysis. The government had not increased the railway prices for the past seven years. However, a small increase in rail prices made

Mamta Banerjee angry, and she sensed politics of the Congress party as a reason behind it. The middle class (whose votes the BJP eyed), the left parties and Mamta Banerjee had lost their ability to think. Statements that the government fills its own pockets by increasing petrol prices were made all over the country. The media ensured that this fire remains ignited. They began to falsely preach that the UPA government was responsible for inflation and increase in petrol prices and this was said without understanding and analyzing the International economic situation. Importantly, the middle class that was a part of this agitation had experienced a massive increase in their earnings after the process of liberalization. The best example is of gold. Even after reaching the level of 30 thousand rupees, there was no decrease in the list of its buyers. So intense became the preaching that any decision taken by the government was termed as an anti-people decision. But the government had to face these tough economic situations. In one of the speeches, Dr. Singh stated that people should not fall prey to the false preaching of the opposition parties and instead be prepared to face the larger economic problems the nation was facing. Mamta Banerjee withdrew the government support on the issue of FDI and around the same time there was a split in ‘Team Anna.' Hence the political clouds hovering over the nation were blown away. But the country still faced grim economic problems. Dr. Singh specified the specific challenges the country faced by mentioning the gas price rise, fiscal deficit and foreign investment. He stated that the situation in the country was similar to what it was in 1991. That was because the growth rate of the country had dropped from 8.5% to 6.5%. When this happens, it affects the fiscal deficit, employment, foreign investment, fundamental issues, education and health. All these sectors are related to the common man. He expressed these fears because the growth rate of the United States and the European Union was decreasing and it was necessary to take appropriate steps

to avoid a similar scenario. He also expressed fears that if the subsidies continue, the same will result in the widening of the fiscal deficit. And this would further intensify the inflation. However, the BJP and the Left were silent on Kerosene subsidy. Dr. Singh was frank enough to mention the problems faced by the government. He was candid to say that the first diesel price hike was of Rs.17. But it was done only by Rs.5. He also stated that the states that were not for FDI were free not to introduce them. However, he asked if these states were having their solutions on problems like inflation, employment generation, food grain stocking, and foreign investment and farmer issues. It was his way of indirectly stating that all those who opposed FDI were on the way of self-destruction. Many organizations that worked for the farmers and also the share market had given a green signal to FDI. That was because this decision had the potential of benefitting the farmers and consumers. But the opposition parties were not ready to accept this reality. The Prime Minister in his speech on Independence Day took potshots at the opposition parties by making a statement that mentioned the ever famous lines, ‘money does not grow on trees.' This angered the opposition even further. Even though there was criticism at the policy level and also at a personal level, Dr. Singh never reciprocated it. The position of the opposition leader in a democracy needs to be respected. He stressed that building a consensus will solve the problems faced by the country. But on the last day of the Lok Sabha, none of the Parliamentarians spoke about this aspect of his personality. The same happened in the Rajya Sabha. The leader of opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Mr. Arun Jaitley said that Dr. Singh was different from the others. "Whenever I used to visit him to have a word on certain issues, he used to speak a few yet proper words. He had knowledge of all subjects. He was a scholar. However when he used to speak in public or in the Parliament, he used to appear monotonous. His speeches were more on GDP than they were political. We never used to get inspired from him. And as he was not a natural leader, the Congress

party was never felt powerful in the Parliament. But his political will was seen at the time of the nuclear deal." Before giving his last speech in the Lok Sabha, Dr. Singh met young IAS officers at his residence and had a small chat with them. He stressed that the time ahead for the nation was full of adventure. Later, he left for the Parliament. He headed the Congress Core Group meeting and discussed on the 'Whistle Blower Bill' with his party colleagues. When he made his last speech in the Lok Sabha, his wife Mrs. Gurusharan Kaur was present with some of his old acquaintances. In his speech that ended the 15th Lok Sabha and his tenure as the Prime Minister, Dr. Singh did not express any hatred or malice against the opposition and spoke in his usual moderate style. He said, ‘Madam Speaker, As we come to the end of the journey of the fifteenth Lok Sabha, I join all the members of this August House in paying tribute to the way you have conducted our proceedings. Madam, In Parliamentary life, there are bound to be differences among parties, but there must also be ways and means of finding pathways to bring minimum amount of consistency and reconciliation, so that the ship of the Indian state can move forward. And we have seen that on certain crucial matters, this House has the capacity, the will to rise above partisan strife, and to find pathways of national reconciliation. The manner in which the way the state of Telangana is being born, is yet another indication that this country is capable of taking some of the most difficult decisions, without any rancor, without worrying too much about the pros and cons of things that do not matter, and we can take pride in the fact that Telangana state, whose quest for being born was pending for the last 60 years, has ultimately seen the light of day.

Food Security Bill is landmark legislation. It will create a ray of hope among deprived sections of our community. It will provide a ray of hope to encourage our farmers to produce more. Sharad ji has described the manner in which the agricultural situation in our country has improved. And I compliment him on the manner in which he has guided the destiny of the Agriculture Ministry. Obviously, all members of the House have played a very important role in bringing that outcome about. Madam, We are now entering a phase where the people of India will once again have an opportunity to assess, to pass their judgement on the performance of Government, weaknesses of our Government, achievements of the Government, and it is in that process that once again, a new sense of consensus will emerge which will carry our country to new pathways. I thank all Honourable Members of the House. I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I thank Shinde ji, who as Leader of the House has performed his duties with superb aplomb, and I wish all members of this August House the best. Let us hope that out of this strife, out of this tension-filled atmosphere which prevailed some times, there will be birth of a new atmosphere of hope. With these words, I conclude my remarks by once again complimenting you for the manner, the grace in which you have conducting our proceedings."

The number game The UPA-2 under Dr. Manmohan Singh survived all five years in Parliament despite the issues of Corruption, Inflation, atrocities on women, strictures by the judiciary, trouble generated by the CBI, stalled economic progress, etc. Should we complement the UPA or call the NDA helpless? One is tempted to ask if there was any leader in the country who could have taken Dr. Singh's position and faced the economic situation that existed then. History will assess the tenure of Dr. Singh with diverse views. But if Dr. Singh was a frequent target of the opposition parties and the media, then why wasn't anyone willing to come forward and offer their leadership to the nation? Why was the BJP unable to raise a no-confidence motion even once in the Parliament? The Left parties at least attempted the same during UPA-1 when they developed ideological differences with the Congress. During the UPA-2, the government had the support of Trinamul Congress (18), DMK (19), the NCP (9), the Rashtriya Lokdal (5) and every one of them received ministerial berths. The government also had the support of the Samajwadi Party (22), Bahujan Samaj Party (21), Rashtriya Janta Dal (3), Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (2) and others. All these allies made matters difficult for the government on issues of FDI, Food Security Bill, Cash on Transfer, Lokpal, Independent Telangana and other such matters. But the government did not lose trust and collapse. The Trinamool Congress withdrew support on the small issue of rail price hike. The DMK broke its ties with the Congress at the backdrop of the 2G spectrum issue. Still, amidst the uncertain environment, Dr. Singh's policies were approved by Parliament. No one in the media questioned the political existence of the opposition parties or the parties that were providing external support to the government. These parties were otherwise seen giving irresponsible statements claiming that the government did not have any right to stay in power. How many political parties had the

confidence to face mid-term elections had Dr. Singh resigned? Were these leaders (who were otherwise calling Dr. Singh a spineless and helpless personality) ready to take responsibility for the situation in the country and face it themselves? The media kept on pointing fingers towards Dr. Singh for any wrong that happened in the country. No leader stood by Dr. Singh and spoke for him. These leaders expected Dr. Singh to answer all questions about the anti-corruption agitation. They never spoke a word regarding this and preferred being aloof. But Dr. Singh always underlined the politics of consensus. He made sure that he followed the ethics of democracy where the opinion of the opposition leader is also to be heard and respected. The Congress on its own had 206 Members in the Lok Sabha. Despite this, Dr. Singh did not display any arrogance or an ego. (His government could not, however, escape the charges of being egoist!). Rather, when it came to discussing important issues faced by the nation, he made sure he spoke the language of compromise, cooperation and understanding. Who other leader showed this kind of a serenity and learned behaviour in those five (and in total 10) years? During the allegations, he never felt it below his dignity to face the Joint Parliamentary Committee or even the CBI. He kept stating that even if the Prime Minister occupies the highest position, the law is equal for all. People like Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal destroyed the scintillation of the Prime Ministerial position by at times using a very rough language. The BJP too had a bad conduct in the Parliament. The BJP always crossed the fine line while criticizing Dr. Singh. During the Anna Hazare agitation, the then opposition leader Sushma Swaraj said that the Prime Minister never speaks and when he speaks no one listens to them. Ms. Swaraj's sentence not only lacked modesty but also tarnished the image of the Prime Minister. The then leader of the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitey said that the Prime Minister was spineless and without an ideology and he never makes us feel that he is a leader. He even went on to say that the Prime Minister works as if he is a cabinet secretary. Narendra Modi even went on to

say that the Prime Minister has destroyed the nation, despite being an economist. These were not mere political allegations. They had with them a feeling of jealousy! These leaders knew that Dr. Singh's fight was not with the opposition leaders but was with the administration. The political parties did not challenge him. The establishment did. This establishment trapped him in a political 'chakravyuh'. It had become more aggressive when Dr. Singh became the Prime Minister for the second term. The establishment included the judiciary, media, corporate lobbies, the PMO and the other ministries and the army. They not only opposed Dr. Singh but went ahead and tarnished the secular and democratic fabric of the country. This establishment wanted Dr. Singh to resign from office rather than getting defeated by a majority vote. They wanted to spin Dr. Singh in a judicial yarn and wanted him to resign on ethical grounds. This establishment did not want Dr. Singh to be remembered as the Prime Minister (first one, not from the NehruGandhi family) after Jawaharlal Nehru to assume consecutive ten years in office. They wanted to prove that even if the people voted for the Congress in 2009, the government was powerless enough to not function and perform. Hence they wanted to create a situation wherein they could say that the government collapsed because it lacked confidence, ethics and leadership. Addressing his last press conference on 3rd January 2014, Dr. Singh stated that he never felt like resigning, despite a great discontent for the government, particularly in the past five years. It meant that he had the full support of the Congress party. He felt that the people of India have voted for him and it is his duty to work for them until the end of his term. His statement that history and not the media would assess him correctly says a lot!

Economic Discontent On 25th July 2012, senior Congress leader Pranab Mukherjee was sworn in as the thirteenth President of India. Before occupying this position, he was the Finance Minister in the Manmohan Singh government. As he assumed office, the then 77-year-old senior Congress leader became emotional for two reasons. First, the party bestowed faith in him. And second due to the seniority of the position. It was unthinkable and unimaginable for Mukherjee, a boy born in a small village in Bengal to an ordinary Bhadraloki-Brahmin family, that one day he would be the President of the country. Pranab Mukherjee's father participated in the freedom struggle and took part in various Satyagraha movements and spent ten years in prison. Hence young Pranab inherited values of liberty and the traditions of the Congress party. However, no one becomes a part of the cabinet for 40 years and eventually the nation's President only by this inheritance. In fact, no one becomes a President or a Prime Minister just because he or she bears an ambition towards the same. In that sense, Dr. Manmohan Singh was not even a politician. Even in 1991, it was rather sudden that he became the Union Finance Minister. They say it was Pranab Mukherjee who had recommended Dr. Manmohan Singh for the position of Reserve Bank's Governor. But later the same Pranabda had to work under Dr. Singh as a Finance Minister. Before this, he had handled the defence, home, foreign affairs and trade portfolios. Mr. Mukherjee was undoubtedly the most experienced in the Congress when it came to administration and politics. Pranabda was a trouble shooter whenever the Congress party found itself in trouble. During the Anna Hazare movement, Mr. Mukherjee gave an excellent speech in Parliament. In addition to this, he had friendly relations with leaders of the coalition parties of the UPA and also the members of the opposition parties. During the UPA-1 and in the first three years of UPA-2 there were 27 different 'group of

ministers' formed that would take significant decisions and rescue the government from troubled situations. Mr. Mukherjee was the head of 12 such groups. Additionally, he was also a chief of the 'empower group of ministers'. Many people would hold Mr. Mukherjee directly or indirectly responsible for the Manmohan Singh government getting in trouble. For this, they would reason that despite being the most experienced person in the party, Mrs. Gandhi had conferred the Prime Ministerial position on Dr. Singh. And this had happened on both the occasions. In 2008, the then Home Minister Mr. Shivraj Patil was sacked owing to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The Home Ministerial position went to Mr. Chidambaram and Mr. Mukherjee was appointed as the Finance Minister. Mr. Chidambaram had been a Finance Minister himself and was a scholar in economics. He had done a noble work of giving a human touch to the Finance Ministry during the UPA-1 tenure. (The growth rate had reached around 9% during that time). But after the Mumbai attacks, he was handed the Home ministry, and he continued the same in the UPA-2 till 2011. Mr. Mukherjee was the Finance Minister all these years till 2011. When he presented the Budget in 2010 and 2011, attacks on Dr. Singh's image had begun. The corporate lobby severely criticized these budgets and commented that India was moving back to the 80s instead of moving in the second decade of the 21st century. According to some, India could sustain the global recession in 2008 due to its savings and foreign investments. But the same country could go into economic crisis because of Pranab Mukherjee's budgetary provisions. Some industrialists expressed fears that India under Mukherjee could go on a path of Corporate Socialism. And for some, India's 'Great Growth Story' had come to an end. (Interestingly, these disillusioned statements from the business sector were not highlighted much by the media. But two years later when the

Economic situation of the nation took a downturn, the media held Dr. Manmohan Singh and not Pranab Mukherjee responsible.) Though Economics is a scientific branch, it is more like an Art. Art can portray the beauty of natural values. But it also portrays its contradictions. This Art aims to solve the economic problems that exist, but at the same time, it also generates certain new challenges. Economics finds itself analogous to a scenario on the battlefield. You may have a vast number of soldiers with you. You may also have advanced technology on your side. However, it is the planned strategy that wins you any battle. This approach examines the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy. Pranab Mukherjee was a seasoned politician with a vast experience in administration. It made him a person who knew the economic problems rather very thoroughly. Additionally, the finance ministry was under his leadership along with the 12 group of ministers. Hence he was perfectly aware of the situations that could land the government in trouble. Also, he had the backing of the leaders of the Congress who were discontented. (This discontent was against P. Chidambaram) Due to the economic policies of Mr. Mukherjee, the nation faced the problems of growing fiscal deficit, revenue deficit, current account deficit and inflation at the same time. The UPA's ship that was sailing through difficult waters was made directionless by its cruise. The agriculture, farming and business sectors experienced a sudden slowdown. In the crisis of 1991, the nation experienced a shortfall of foreign exchange reserves. In 2011, that was no more the case. But maintenance of investor confidence was needed. UPA-2 had started the framework of the revolutionary 'goods and services tax'. This policy meant that the entire country would have one uniform tax. But this required a nod from various state governments. Finance Minister Mr. Mukherjee was in talks with these state governments. However, there was a complaint that he never listened to the Finance Ministers of the state governments. Hence the opposition began to voice that

the UPA government was non-cooperative, stubborn and it does not listen to the members of the opposite parties. These allegations were towards Mr. Mukherjee and his colleagues. In this background, Mukherjee suddenly stalled the proposal of the Goods and Service Tax. It felt that Mukherjee's diplomacy with the States failed. But Mukherjee was an experienced diplomat, and he had a successful stint doing the same. But stalling of GST had its effects on the nation's economy. The GST was a way to make the wheels of the economy gather some speed! When Mukherjee was the Finance Minister, the crude oil prices fell as low as $58 per barrel.But he took no initiative in bringing the prices up. But when he read the Budget in March 2012, the oil prices had reached $100 per barrel. So why did he miss this chance? Had he increased the petroleum prices then, the UPA would not have suddenly increased the prices later by five rupees. It would not have given the BJP a chance to agitate and demonstrate in the country. The middle class would not have experienced discontent. It would not have given Mamta Banerjee an opportunity to disturb the government. Another failure of Mukherjee as the Finance Minister was his lack of efforts to tackle inflation. The issue of inflation became controversial on the Planning Commission's definition of Poverty Line. In his last budget, Mukherjee proposed some significant changes in the law to recover taxes from the companies that had invested in India under a retrospective effect. The Supreme Court of India had stalled the recovery of taxes worth Rs. 11,000 crores from the telecom giant Vodafone. But Mukherjee decided to reverse this decision by amending laws and gave a green signal to this recovery. There was a fear that this backward-trending policy of the government towards foreign companies would not project India as a safe destination for investment. And these fears turned real. In the later months ( when Mukherjee was the President of the country), prestigious credit rating agencies like 'Moodys', 'Fitch' and 'Standard and Poor' downgraded the nation's rating, and there were panic and instability in the economy.

In 2008, there was an economic recession in the United States and Europe, and it had its effects on the Indian economy. But the government then provided concessions to the businesses and tried to keep the wheels of the economy moving. These attempts were successful, and the country could escape the recession. The projection was that the US economy would be back on track soon. However, this stage was temporary. In 2010, the United States economy again jumped into recession. In the same year economies of European nations like Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal arrived at bankruptcy. This severely affected India's exports and the importexport deficit began to widen. The world was betting on emerging economies of India, China, Brazil and Russia. The growth pace of these countries slowed down. China also was severely affected because its economy was export-oriented. Comparatively, India fared better and was not as severely affected as these countries. In February, the then President of the World Bank, Mr. Robert Zoellic cautioned the Finance Ministers of the G-20 nations that the issue of inflation could trigger discontent, and this could result in political instability. He said that though countries like Tunisia and Egypt experienced agitation against dictatorial governments, a major reason was the discontent among the masses due to rise in prices. The World Bank released figures which said that between October 2010 and January 2011, the prices of foodgrains had increased by 15% It further said that as a result of this, around four crore people had drifted below the poverty line. The London Olympics took place against the background of this situation. However, the plan of England and the other European nations of getting their economies back on track did not materialize. Europe once again entered a recession. The bankruptcy of Cyprus added to this. Similarly, hopes of countries like Greece and Portugal getting back on the economic track crashed. The rising unemployment and Budget deficit in the United States were enough

to affect the Indian economy and its performance. The performance of the economies of the developed countries impacted the flow of foreign investment into the developing economies. In India, the investment of the business houses in the country decreased. There was a temporary halt on many projects in the country. Delays occurred in the sanctions and clearances of new projects. The projects opposed by the environmentalists and those which had experienced delays in acquiring the necessary land were the once that were majorly affected or stalled. It resulted in an increase in unemployment, and the process of wealth creation was affected. The Indian economy that was growing at a rate of 9% was now growing at a rate of 5%. Around this time, the media began to question Dr. Singh and his image of being a visionary. It stated that in addition to the Commonwealth scam, 2G Spectrum Scam, Anti-Corruption agitation by Anna Hazare and the Coalgate scam, the government was seen failing on the economic front as well! The RSS brought the issue of 'governance' by projecting the example of Narendra Modi's Gujarat. There were attempts made to implant a comparison between Gujarat and the Congress-ruled states in the minds of the people. There was an emphasis that the development in the 15 odd years of Gujarat had exceeded the 60-year development of the country under the NehruGandhi family. In 1930, Fascism spread in Europe against the backdrop of the economic troubles that had erupted in the continent. Inflation, Unemployment, scarcity of necessary resources shattered the dreams of people, and the unstable economic, political and social environment surrounding them made way for the rise of Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy. However, the instability of India in the second decade of the 21st century was no match to this volatility. But what existed in India was the discontent among the people against the politicians, mainly due to the agitation of Anna Hazare. This discontent was seen getting expressed through terrible ways. Attempts were made to project these developments as a revolution. And in the background were some decisions of Mr. Mukherjee (as

pointed out in this chapter), some decisions delivered by the Supreme Court that stalled the projects opposed by the environmentalists, the politics of the coalition parties, the sluggish pace of the economy and the complaints of the corporate houses. This environment was hence very conducive for the rise of Narendra Modi. The BJP also experienced an inability in their leadership when it came to challenging Narendra Modi. Mr. Mukherjee's challenge to Dr. Singh was a significant one within the Congress party. It was because Mukherjee was the number two within the government. Neither Dr. Singh nor Mr. Chidambaram was number two when they were Finance Ministers. But because of Mukherjee's experience and stature, he had an influence over the party. He tried to uphold the government's stand in the Spectrum case. When the media was showering allegations on the government, ministers within the Cabinet like Salman Khurshid, Kapil Sibal, P.Chidambaram, Manish Tiwari, Beni Prasad Verma, Jairam Ramesh were facing the wrath of the media for some or the other reason. But Pranab Mukherjee was surprisingly spared from the allegations of corruption and incompetent administration. Mukherjee tried to find a compromise in the Hazare agitation, but ultimately the compromise was achieved by Union Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh. The country wasted its precious two years in this agitation. But at the same time, internal struggle within the Congress intensified. However, at that stage, time was ripe for undertaking economic reforms. For this, it was important to end the cold war between the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister. Congress President Sonia Gandhi was astute enough to find a solution in this situation. The then President Mrs. Pratibha Patil's term was about to end. She nominated Pranab Mukherjee for the position. This honoured Mukherjee as being constitutionally the highest civilian of the nation. The political cold war ended. After Mr. Mukherjee had become the President, Dr. Singh kept the Finance Portfolio with him for some time. This decision was a 'mood lifter' for the Business sector. The Share Market went up by some

points and expressed enthusiasm. In his first speech after assuming the Finance Ministry after 21 years, Dr. Singh urged the businessmen, factory owners and the consumers to uplift their animal spirits. He said that when the situation around us becomes bleak and offers disillusionment, our confidence slides down and there results in an environment of instability. In such a case, we should awaken our inner spirit to face the situation. The government faced the problems of a widening fiscal deficit, slowed down growth rate and stalled projects, reduced growth in mining and a slump in agricultural growth. He assured of necessary steps to tackle this. When Dr. Singh took over the Finance Portfolio, the country's economy had worsened. The growth rate was around 5 to 6 % per year. But grimmer was the situation in mining where the growth rate in 2009-10 was 7.9% but was 5.2% in 2010-11 and slipped to two percent in 2011-12 and further slipped by 2.3% in 2012-13. The growth rate of the mining department further affects the growth rate of the industries that are dependent on them and that eventually affects the businesses that run on them. In 2009-10, the iron production in the country was 219 million tonnes which came down by more than half in the next year. In 2009-10, the export of iron from the country was 117.37 million tonnes. But that decreased by 87% the next year due to inadequate mining. Coal production was also severely affected. Even though there are sufficient coal mines in the country, the production was affected due to various judicial prohibitions and environmental laws. The government had taken an over cautious approach after the coal mines issue, and that had further resulted in the import of coal worth 16 billion dollars. The Petroleum Ministry had put a stay on two natural gas projects of Reliance Industries. Similarly, there was a stay on investments by the foreign company 'Cairns' worth Rs. 13 thousand crores due to legal issues. Iron, Coal and Petroleum are the three components essential for smooth running of the economic system. As these engines experienced disruption, Dr. Singh had a tough task of bringing them back on track. Many bills were kept pending by the BJP in their attempts to not run the Parliament, and these measures proposed to give a free hand to

the industrial sector. The Anna Hazare movement had also disrupted the government proceedings. President of the ‘Confederation of Indian Industry' (CII), Mr. Krish Gopalkrishnan said that 18 months back it was unimaginable that such a situation would arise in the country. Mr. Ishwar Prasad, an Economist from the Brookings Institute and also the adviser to the Finance Minister stated the need for reforms in the Indian economy and further emphasized on their implementation despite the upcoming elections. In the hard times that the economy was facing, the files from the Prime Minister's Office and the Finance Ministry were passed on to the media and an anti-government sentiment was created in the country. The entire Bureaucracy was seen cautiously working as per the law and hence this caution had resulted in the pace of work getting slower. The Judiciary was seen crossing its constitutional limitations by advising the government which decisions it should take. The agitators on Jantar-Mantar and Ramleela grounds were talking about the second independence movement in the country. Inflation was not getting under control. The government had to increase the prices of petroleum products almost every week. Other than this, the price of the dollar went close to 6667 rupees, and this further angered the middle class. The media behaved as if it ran the country. The opposition attacked the government in Parliament and blamed it for poor handling of the economy and claimed that the country could face a state of economic emergency. Some newspapers went on to the extent of saying that the country faced a similar situation as it faced in 1991. Electronic media claimed that Dr. Singh's government was the weakest since independence. The middle and higher middle class registered an increased anger due to the rise in the price of the dollar. Fascism and politics of anarchy create an environment of economic discontent in the country and to keep it prevailing for long, they emphasize on attacking an individual rather than the administration, and character assassination achieves this. The technique involves citing historical references, comparing them with the present situation and ultimately engaging in character assassination. The social media

was used extensively to stress that the country was at a similar position as it was in 1991 when Dr. Singh as Finance Minister had rescued it from bankruptcy. There was a constant emphasis that India's growth story had now come to an end, and the economy has paralyzed. It said that it was difficult for the government to function with the coalition partners and face a difficult situation nationally and globally. There were attempts to develop a feeling of hatred against the Prime Minister. Till now, the establishment was working against Dr. Singh. The Social Media also stepped in to do the same. Additionally, there were certain economic problems globally, and all this led to a widespread campaign that the government has sunk deep into financial difficulties. But the effect was reversed. This situation made way for attempts to stabilize the nation's economy. On 18th August 2013, Dr. Singh firmly stressed that there could be no comparison between the economic crisis of 1991 and the one in 2013. He answered the rather fake propaganda of the opposition and said, "Since the past two months the rupee is experiencing devaluation as compared to the dollar. But this process is not long lasting. The government will ensure that the Rupee does not cross the Rs. 70 per dollar mark. This is the biggest challenge faced by the government. The value of the rupee is determined by our imports and exports and also our budgetary deficits. The more the deficit, more will be devaluation of the rupee. The devaluation of the rupee is largely due to the economic slowdown at the global level. Our exports have been hit because of the slowdown in the markets of the United States and Europe. Hence the imports have far exceeded the exports. At the same time, crude oil has crossed the 100 (dollars per barrel) mark and that has increased our import bill. At the same time our countrymen cannot resist buying gold and the same has burdened our imports. Hence the rupee is getting devaluated as compared to the dollar." With an aim to tackle this, the government imposed restrictions on wealthy Indians buying real estate properties abroad. It also imposed similar restrictions on the companies acquiring properties on foreign

soil. Due to these decisions, the outflow of the dollar to these nations came under control. The opposition members who compared this scenario with what happened in the year 1991 were not aware of the vast contrast these situations presented. Before 1991, in the era of a mixed economy, the growth rate of the country was between 3% and 5%. The poor in the country comprised around 85% and the middle class was around 15%. Due to the Permit Raj, there was a government control on the industries. India enjoyed friendly relations with the Soviet Union, but the latter was on the verge of a breakup. The foreign exchange reserves were only to last for 15 days. Hence the country had to mortgage its gold in foreign banks. The situation in 2013 was very different. When the era of economic liberalization started, the growth rate of the country touched 9%, and the financial crisis of the world had brought it to 5%. The foreign exchange reserves in the country were enough to last for seven to eight months. In the past ten years, the nation's middle class reached a population of 30 crores. The neo-rich as a class were born out of these developments. This class started to buy properties abroad. Different companies in the country had entered the international market. Hence the credit owned by these private companies had reached the figure of 70 billion dollars. Most importantly, the population of the poor had seen a drop and the Indian lifestyle was seen taking an advancing step. As the Indian economy was in sync with the world, it was all natural that India had to face the consequences of a global economic downturn. Our economy was now open. The fall of the rupee was a part of this process. The Indian economy was to be back on track once the global situation was to improve. At one end, the world saw the economic collapse of countries like Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland and Iceland. But on the other end, India was standing firmly on its feet. Who deserved credit for this achievement? The media, however, was not interested in raising these fundamental questions. Some economists refuted the 'economic crisis theory' (the fall of the rupee). Mr. Kaushik Basu, the adviser to the Prime Minister and the

chief adviser to the World Bank, said that the picture painted by the media which pertains to the rupee is far away from actual reality. "There are many benefits associated with the devaluation of the rupee. It would be better if we see those benefits and focus on them in order to roll the economy. The process of devaluation has not only hit our country. Rather it has hit all those nations who are rapidly expanding their economies. The process of devaluation has been associated with the country since the economic liberalization and hence is not a new phenomenon for us. In 2011 the rupee experienced devaluation by 20% and reached 54 from 44. As against this, the devaluation since June 2013 has been only 15%. As the United States economy is on the verge of improvement, the businesses over there are experiencing a revoke of concessions. This has reduced their investments in the developing economies. By this process ‘Uncle Sam' has pulled investment from our country and has started to invest that in his own country. This has resulted in rupee devaluation since the month of June. At the same time our Current Account Deficit has widened. We have enough foreign exchange reserves with us. But they are enough to last only for seven months." Around September- October in 2013, the fall of the rupee resulted in benefiting some businesses. Notable among them were the Information Technology, Medicine, Minerals, Medical Tourism and export-oriented companies. The export of ready-made clothes had decreased over the years. But the fall of the rupee resulted in its revival. One of the primary reasons for this was the decline of the recession in the United States. Another such field was medical tourism. India possesses medical facilities of the highest technological brilliance. Many patients from Europe and the United States travel to India as they cannot afford the expensive medical services in their countries. This field generated a revival, and through this, the country began to earn some valuable foreign exchange. The inflow of foreign tourists - for medical tourism as well as leisure travel - increased. Another field was that of Information Technology. Liberalization resulted in India becoming a

huge medicine manufacturing hub. The cheap labour and educated workforce available in the country is the reason many multinational pharmaceutical companies choose India for their manufacturing activity, and a significant number of exports to the different countries in the world take place from Indian soil. The fall of the rupee resulted in a beneficial situation for the export of these medicines. IT exports also increased. The IT companies could aggressively enter the European market. Dr. Manmohan Singh handed over the Finance Ministry to P. Chidambaram on 1st August 2012 and announced a series of reforms. Mr. Chidambaram started discussions with eminent industrialists like Anil Ambani, Kumar Birla, Godrej, Tata, Essar and Mahindra. He instilled confidence in them by pointing out that more than 100 bills are pending in the Parliament and with an active cooperation from the Opposition, their passage can be a success. He prepared a list of more than 215 types of businesses that lay without approval and assured that the government was committed to providing assistance to those. The government formed a committee that stressed on investments and cleared investments worth 27 billion dollars principally in the sectors of oil extractions and electricity generation. Mr. Chidambaram confessed during the Parliamentary discussions that the government faced difficulties on the economic front due to the policies from 2009-2012. It was a straight indication towards Mr. Mukherjee. There were attempts to trap Mr. Chidambaram in the 2G spectrum case by citing that he did not object to the spectrum distribution carried out by Mr. A Raja. The Finance Ministry made These attempts. And there were discussions doing rounds which said that these attempts were at the behest of Mr. Mukherjee. The cold war carried out by Mr. Mukherjee against Dr. Singh and Mr. Chidambaram was affecting the Indian economy and the decisions associated with it. But as the nation experienced a dull economic phase, the media refused to leave the issue of corruption. It was clear that the process of liberalization had resulted in corruption getting shifted from public life to the corporate businesses. The 'Right to Information Act' passed

by UPA-1 assisted in exposing many corrupt activities. These activities were through chit funds, credit cards, share market, irregularities of private sector banks, land scams, non-classified property deals and the loot of nation's natural resources. As the media was becoming active, economic irregularities in the public sector became more prominent. But the statement that since Dr. Singh became the Prime Minister (2004), the nation experienced scams worth crores of rupees was misleading. ‘Center for Media Studies' had created a report titled 'Indian corruption studies' that displayed a different opinion about corruption by people in India. According to this report, in the 2005 survey, around 70% of the people said that corruption is on the rise. However, in 2010, the same figure went down to 45%. This report also said that in 2005, 6% of the people stated that corruption in the public domain was reducing. For the year 2010, the people thinking on these lines increased to 29%. In the rural areas too, the corruption had dropped, and the corresponding statistic showed it getting down from 56% to 28% However, this survey did not have any intention to claim that corruption had completely stopped. It argued that corruption was on a decline due to modern technology and laws like RTI and administrative reforms. As the government control over the economy began to ease due to liberalization, most of the corruption issues shifted to the private sector, and this fact was beyond denial. Similarly, people's visits to government offices had decreased. Though the characteristic 'delay' for ration cards, passport or driving licenses continued, advances like computerization sealed many routes leading to corruption. Awareness among the people also increased. Media began to voice the issue of corruption. The scarcity of food grains, fuel, electricity, water and related necessities has significantly reduced since the past 20 odd years. But we have to accept that they have come to the problem of inflation. However, the process of liberalization has sealed many opportunities to carry out corruption in these fields. In the decades of 70s and 80s, electronic goods like expensive watches, gold, silver, ornaments, etc. were the commodities where a lot of smuggling was involved. The same has

reduced to a great extent now. These goods are easily available in the market. But the opposition members were not ready to accept a simple fact that in the past 20 years, owing to the economic policies of Dr. Singh, the lifestyle of the ordinary people had undergone a change to the extent of reduction in many daily worries.

At the root of unrest and discontent It was Bal Gangadhar Tilak who first installed 'discontent' in the freedom struggle. He brought the discontent prevalent in the Indian masses (against the British government) into mainstream politics and hence he is called the ‘Father of Indian Unrest.' The establishment of the Indian National Congress in 1885 was a 'safety valve theory' from the British point of view. However, before Tilak, the demands of the Indian masses were presented to the British in a constitutional manner. Tilak, instead of these methods, took the path of reaching to the masses and instilling in their minds, the discontent against the British Empire. He reached the mill workers, farmers and brought in methods like 'hartals', 'bandh', 'agitations', 'burning of foreign goods' and 'swadeshi'. He also put forward his views aggressively through the newspaper 'Kesari'. He was aware that though it was not possible to face the British with arms, it was also not possible to meet them only with constitutional methods. Hence through the medium of mass awareness, their involvement and by actually introducing people to politics, he raised them against the British Empire. Some historians say that the discontent among the masses against the British started in 1857. But many other historians differ on this conclusion. However, the rebellion of 1857 and the way put forward by Tilak had different intended meanings. Both were having different ideologies. But the issue is that 'discontent' in Indian politics has not decreased. Discontent and Unrest remain two complex issues in Indian politics, and they arise from complex social-political-economic-cultural context. Unrest and Discontent are closely related to each other. The seeds of discontent are sown in unrest. Unrest is passive whereas discontent is active. Unrest continues to get generated in the minds of the people. But it is hardly expressed out. Discontent makes a way out. And there are many ways it is let out. It could be through violence. It could be let out with the aim of toppling an existing government. Or it could also be let out through fascist methods. Or at times it is also let

out for democratic values. Comrade Dange used to say that when a person cries, it is a representation that he is sad. But when thousands cry at the same time, it represents a state of bewailing. The difference between unrest and discontent is to the same degree. Organized unrest gives rise to discontent. In the 21st century, wherever in the world there is unrest, it is pointed towards the middle class. Or this unrest gets media coverage because the media in these countries is under a strong influence of the middle class. And why does it happen with this class? From 2009, the world saw a series of events. They were the agitations in the Arab countries (Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria had agitations against their respective administrations), the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement in the United States and the anti-corruption agitation in India by Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal. They were the struggles of 'poor v/s rich', 'middle class v/s administration', 'democracy v/s dictatorship (fascism)',conservatives v/s progressives' and 'socialists v/s the capitalists.' What were the reasons behind the start of these agitations? If globalization had brought the world closer; if it has made people interact through the economic, social and cultural platforms, then has it not been responsible for generating a feeling of unrest through the desires and ambitions of these people? Many experts claim that the globalization of today is still incomplete. The world today still has issues like extreme poverty, inequality, unemployment, human migrations, diseases, etc. Though we are in the second decade of the 21st century, we have not been able to control these problems. Rather, the process of globalization has led to an increase in them. There is no one single process of development. The issues like corruption, bullying of the capitalists, political instability and economic recession have made this unrest reach the ground levels of society. Some people say that globalization has made an individual realize how he or she can/should live on a global platform. When the world had not entered this phase, it was under the influence of the Cold War, and the problems of the people were related to their daily routine. The struggles in life were on the issues of food, clothing,

shelter, electricity and water. The needs of the people were limited. The society was under an ethical and cultural pressure. This pressure sustained the community against extreme values and lifestyles and advocated the then 'middle class' way of living. ‘Cultural Invasion' was a favourite topic of discussions in the middle-class living rooms and dining tables. But in the year 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed. Many countries in Eastern Europe got themselves rid of communist governments and embraced capitalism. The culture that rapidly spread in the world was of McDonalds and MTV. Around the same time, the process of globalization started in India and thus began the expansion of the middle class. Before the 90s, the service sector had not expanded, and there was always an unrest among the farmers and the working classes. This unrest would result in discontent and would express itself in violent forms. In the 70s, the Naxalite movement started in India and the causes of it were the exploitation and class-based discrimination. All these agitations or even the farmers and workers agitations were directly related to the daily life problems like hunger. However, in the two decades postliberalization, there was a decline in farmers and workers agitation. It does not mean that liberalization has solved all the problems of the people. However, the epicentre of this unrest shifted from the farmers and workers to the middle classes of the country. The ultimate aim of this disorder and the ways to achieve it has also changed. The unrest was no longer towards food, clothing and shelter. But it now was towards the fulfillment of expectations, claim and monopoly over wealth and towards greed and more greed. The reason for this was the lower middle class - that was the result of liberalization - had come up from the class of farmers, workers and hard working labourers. Liberalization gave them new economic opportunities. Study of technology gave them an opportunity to change their lifestyle. The next generation of these farmers and workers found themselves in the lower or even upper middle class. They began to consider themselves white-collared. And their direct relation with politics ended. Also, political leaders never politicized the issues of the middle class. As this class began to get economic

benefits, the politicians began to ignore them. The new generation of this class began to ride the wave of technology and not only grabbed opportunities in the United States but also in Europe and Australia. They created an identity for themselves either by applying for citizenship in these countries or by staying there for long durations. This class, now thoroughly globalized, began to thrive for more needs and wants. As this class obtained an education, it became a part of the liberalization process and started to feel the shortcomings in its physical, psychological and cultural lifestyles. The middle class before liberalization had common problems. But the process of liberalization generated many levels within the middle class. The unrest within them increased because they were no longer connected to the politics around and their importance in the policy had decreased. Unrest became a part of its life. This unrest stemmed from the problems faced in the daily commute, government offices, lack of economic opportunities due to an increasing population, environmental concerns, inflation, corruption, disorders in health services, rising real estate costs and related concerns. Money was not a permanent solution to these problems. The unrest that stemmed out was against the administration. This class also started to use the language of 'cleaning or changing the existing system'. They began to relate the corruption in politics, the scams around them, lack of control of political parties over the society as the cause of their daily problems. Some also felt that liberalization had not solved their problems. Some sections of the middle class also claim that the benefits of liberalization went only to the upper segments of the middle class. This picture was not only seen in India but also in the United States post-2007. The recession in the United States was a consequence of this greed among the middle classes combined with the greed of the share market players and the irresponsible behaviour of the corporate companies and banks. Some economists claimed that the desire for wealth was an essential process of capitalism and this phase would find its solution. India did not encounter such a situation, but liberalization in India gave rise to 'crony capitalism.' As the

government relaxed its interference in economic decisions, the corporate companies, political parties, political leaders, capitalists and foreign companies started their loot of natural wealth and resources. The middle class began to voice its opinion against this loot. This class was on the streets to express their views against the scams that took place in the country. This feeling erupted prominently after the realization that the honest tax payment to the government was not utilized properly. This unrest was first brought on the political horizon by the Anna Hazare - Arvind Kejriwal movement. Social media began to underline these feelings prominently. This movement also harboured many selfish intentions and self-made ideologies. The campaign claimed all politicians as rogues and went to the extent of questioning the need for Parliament! The middle class also had an attraction of fascism and the military leadership. Hence this movement also harboured these intentions and agenda. The middle class cleverly saved its skin by claiming that it is the big industrialists, politicians and people in power who indulge themselves in corruption. The government was pressurized to implement the fascist concepts of Lokpal. Though it seemed that this unrest was against the politicians and an increase in corruption, the real reason behind this unrest was a narrow mindset. This unrest did not respect democratic values and Parliamentary procedures. Some media pundits and experts compared the agitations in the Arab countries with this movement. But this comparison was far from reality. The unrest in the Arab nations was not against corruption. Neither was it against the lack of fulfilment of needs under the globalized process. Rather it was against the dictatorial government and for the formation of democracy. There was a demanded of democratic and secular values through these agitations. The agitators wanted the authoritarian system to collapse and give rise to a democratic regime. The agitation against Hosni Mubarak of Egypt or the Asad government of Syria or even the murder of Colonel Muhammad Gaddafi of Libya was the manifestations of these demands. The people in these countries demanded individual freedom. Social media was primarily responsible for expressing this

personal liberty. It was an eruption of unrest, suppressed for years. The people poured into the streets and faced this suppression. But the agitation in India was properly planned and ignited. The society had anger towards corruption. But this corruption was not exploiting any particular class. Rather it exploited every class of people. Some people were innocent enough to opine that only people in power indulge in corruption. But in reality, all categories of individuals are indulged in this activity. The famous social scientist Kancha Illaiyya claims that the deeply rooted caste system of India is responsible for the corruption. This system, he says, is based on exploitation and hence all forms of exploitation are a part of it and corruption would not end unless this caste system ends. Now this agitation of Hazare and Kejriwal did not strike a prominent chord with the other classes. But the middle class became its anchor. It also had corporate companies and the NRIs. It had NGOs that received foreign aid. It had the conservatives and also had selfish left and right wingers flashing their ideologies. It also had the anglicized youth of the country that preferred to sit at home and comment on social media instead of participating in the agitation. The agitation also had the support of those white-collared individuals who preached on a 'system change' as they sat glued to their television screens. But the agitation did not possess about 70% of the crowd that consisted of the lower middle classes, the farmers, workers and labourers. Many thinkers call this a 'safety valve' of Indian politics and compare this with the second (the agitation of Jayprakash Narayan) or third struggle for independence. But this comparison is very naive and innocent. The agitation did not gather enough support from cities except Delhi. Around 5 lakh Indian villages were far from this agitation. The comments or responses received on this agitation were from the cities. But that enthusiasm too faded after some days. The unrest saw responses coming through social media and television, but none of them preferred to go on the streets and participate in the agitation. The participation that started from a few thousands later dropped down to hundreds and finally ended in a fiasco.

Did the agitation fulfill the expectations of the middle classes? Nobel Laureate and noted Economist Mr. Amartya Sen talks about this anxiety in a different way. He says, "India embraced liberalization but the major population of the country is not able to access their basic needs. Though there is liberalization, there is no clarity in the economic policy of the country, and hence these policies are not helping in solving the problems of the common people. The nation's development growth rate is increasing. It is away from the recession. But its performance in the 'Human Development Index' is dismal and generates concern. Dr. Sen gives an example of neighbouring Bangladesh while citing 'Human Development Index'. He stresses that the growing development index should encompass the social status and only then there would be a reduction of social and economic disparity. In many nations that have embraced liberalization, the growing development index is not transforming into the growth in the social status. It has resulted in an unequal distribution of wealth and increase in social disparity. The nation is experiencing increased foreign investment. People are giving priority to saving money. New businesses develop that lead to new jobs. The lower middle class, with greater economic opportunities, enters into the middle class. Neo-middle class rises rapidly. The wealthy class experiences an increase in wealth, but the upper classes mostly consume the fruits of this development. Hence the poor class develops different levels within them and the population of the poor increases. It is the picture in most of the developing countries. The social indicators of real economic development are education, health, housing, population, unemployment, water supply, environment, family planning and migration. In the developed countries, these indicators decide the human development index. India has ignored these signs in its overall economic policy. According to Sen, "Many employment opportunities were generated in the country after liberalization was embraced in the country. Economic rigidity in the society made way to a new middle class. This class progressed in the field of education, technology, health, and housing and flourished itself. But the same degree of change did not

take place in the life of landless farmers, laborers and workers. The reason for this was the policies of government that brought liberalization in phases. However these policies ignored the social indicators as mentioned above. This is the reason why we see a huge disparity in health, malnutrition, unemployment, migration and housing." In capitalist economies, the government interference is small. But the road towards prosperity and development goes with the blessings of the private sector and here profit is the sole motive. But in a mixed economy like India, the Left, Rights and democratically inclined parties exert pressure on the economic policies of the country. These political parties represent the different classes of society, and they politicize the issues belonging to those communities. It results in obstructions in the economic development process. There was a furore in the country on the issue of FDI and Food Security Bill. The middle class feels that subsidizing the poor implies the government is spending their money. But the same class ignores the subsidy that it gets on petrol and gas. Dr. Manmohan Singh, in an interview with the Hindustan Times, said, "In the nation's history since independence, it was for the first time and under my government that firm steps were taken against corruption. Many issues of corruption came into light. The Right to Information Act made provisions that could shatter the administration. This lone Act made people interact with the administration. Society empowerment could take place. Without this act, the corruption cases that we discuss would never have surfaced. They would have remained compressed within government files." There was a profound sense of what Dr. Singh said. It was for the first time after Nehru that most numbers of ministers in the government had to resign because of allegations made by the opposition or because of administrative decisions. But the primary reason that made these ministers leave office was the RTI Act! During the UPA-1, it was Natwar Singh in connection with the Scam involving Oil Import from Iraq and Mani Shankar Aiyyar for the Iran-India natural gas

pipeline. In the UPA-2, it was Suresh Kalmadi in connection with the Commonwealth Games scam, A.Raja, Kanimoli concerning the 2G spectrum case, Ashwini Kumar in connection with the Coal Gate Scam files and Pavan Kumar Bansal in connection with the railway recruitment. All of them were Cabinet Ministers. In his ten years as the Prime Minister, Dr. Singh seriously attempted to face every allegation levelled against him by the opposition. He was supporting the democratic principles, and he did not try to save anyone or be partial to anyone. He was aware of the power of the RTI and its positive implications in generating a transparent system. Hence, he was for further strengthening the RTI rather than a Lokpal. He had expressed his firm opinion that Lokpal might result in frictions between democratic institutions and this could invite dictatorship. But the agitation that began in the country on the issue of Lokpal made RTI take a backseat. The duo of Hazare and Kejriwal bombarded the problem of corruption on the minds of people. The middle classes convinced that this was the only issue left in the country that required a priority. They felt that once corruption is eliminated, the country will be prosperous, the rich will not exploit the poor, the police will be honest in their approach, workers will not strike work, ration and gas connection will be easier to obtain.....the dreams of this class refused to die! But this picture was not only dreamy but also was fraudulent! Enticement is a common form of human behaviour since the beginning of the human race! It is at times for power, at times for money or at times even made to build the racial and caste system more firm on the society. In a country like India, corruption based on caste is a common phenomenon for centuries. This phenomenon continues disguised under the values of tradition and faith. Also, in many developed countries, this problem has not been uprooted despite having a fair judicial system and a transparent political system. 'Transparency International' declared Belgium as the country that is free from corruption. Still, there is a small degree of corruption that exists in that country.

In a country like India that has agriculture in prominence; many transactions take place without any government record. In those are included agricultural labour, bullock cart sales, tractor rents, transport, small businesses, scrap dealers and much more. These transactions do not intend to generate any black money. They also are not meant to dupe anyone. These operate with an expectation that daily transactions must be as simple as possible. As far as black money is concerned, there are a few people who intend to make it double and triple after bringing it back to transactions. The builders, politicians or businesspeople who earn such type of money want to flourish their businesses. Many times this money enters the economy through elections, social events, festivals, and grant to hospitals, ambulances, medical colleges or in educational institutions. Political leaders make use of it to complete pending work, provide economic assistance to party workers, lend money to people in need, help in school admission and at times in rebuilding slums. This Philanthropic side of black money generates a new question. How would the Lokpal control the corruption? And from the charitable context, which forms of corruption? On whom will they take action? Who will they charge? Will it be the person who gives money or the one who receives it? Many times government work, land related work or college admissions takes place because the concerned people are in good terms with each other. In this case, how will they be booked under corruption? We encounter many incidents where we help the needy by at times twisting the rules. Should that be considered corruption? Human behaviour is such a complex phenomenon that many transactions take place because of friendly relations between individuals. In such a situation, how will we define ethics and how will the framework of law decide who is corrupt? The Lokpal as proposed by Hazare and Kejriwal will in future pose a serious challenge to everyone right from democratic institutions to the judiciary. The anarchy that it will cause remains a concern. And at the end, a question rightly remains. Who will give a guarantee that the Lokpal won't be corrupt?

Four years of Crusades Commonwealth scam, 2G spectrum case, the anti-corruption agitation of Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal, the resignation of ministers and the political difficulties created by the DMK and Mamta Banerjee had created an awkward situation for the government. These incidents vortexed the flow of the government and no one at their side could penetrate them. Congress President Mrs. Gandhi did not address any press conference about these issues. Dr. Singh had addressed a meeting of prominent Editors of the country, but that was it. Who else was in the Congress to face this situation and defend the government's stand on the issue? No leader in the Congress could uphold the government's views in the entire fiasco. In the Anna Hazare issue, the government installed a battery of lawyers like Pranab Mukherjee, Kapil Sibal, Manish Tiwari, Digvijay Singh and P. Chidambaram. But the media had already declared this as imperious. Still, the government attempted to make its position clear. It was difficult for the government to answer the corruption allegations. But it also had lost contact with people at the ground level. Then there was an imperious media and an entirely unbalanced, ungoverned and a hatred-filled attack on it on social media. This attack was responsible for the character assassination of Dr. Manmohan Singh and the government in general. The constant bombardment of attacks of this nature through both forms of media created an anti-Congress sentiment in the country. It also sowed the seeds of Fascism in the country, and as a result, the influence of Arvind Kejriwal and Narendra Modi grew in the country. The private news television industry in the country was in infancy in 1991, and by 2007, it had gained a youthful ground. Hence it had equipped itself with values of aggression and rebellion. Many corporate companies, builders, politicians were investing money in

these news channels. There was a rise of English, Hindi and regional news channels in the country. Though this rapid growth was a positive indication of the economy, it equally created challenges in consistently displaying content which had to be fresh, different and something that would be updated every minute. The material came with the aim of keeping the audiences glued to the television and more importantly that particular channel. Hence the content now featured sex, scandals, crime, cricket, cinema, women-oriented programs, etc. Politics is a trending topic in the country. Hence it was necessary for these channels to update a fresh content every minute with regards to politics. The viewership was not interested in the boring speeches or the long touring of the political leaders. Till 2009, many of the news channels were featuring topics which were in the orbit of blind faiths, crime, sex, scandals, Bollywood gossips and cricket. Under those circumstances, had someone suggested that politics could also sell on the news channel platform, he or she would have become a laughing stock for all. These news channels relied on bomb blasts, aeroplane hijack, natural calamity, fights or even the rescue operations of kids stuck in pits! (Remember the rescue operation of the boy named Prince? The TRP of the news channel covering this event - 'Aaj Tak' - had reached the highest peak) In 2007, an incident as insignificant as a car catching fire in one of the metropolitan cities used to be breaking news for many of these channels. The infamous incident involving the cricketers Harbhajan Singh and Andrew Symonds and its repercussions, during India's tour of Australia, went flashing on news channels for 15 days. The infamous slap that Harbhajan Singh imposed on S. Sreesanth was consistently played many times and inflicted on the viewers. These news channels make sure that they possess an exaggerated content coupled with gimmicks so that they ultimately grab the maximum viewership and prevent those viewers to opt for their competing channels. As far as political analysis is concerned, the only way these news channels can come close to the analysis presented in the newspapers is broadcasting talk shows. But the viewership of these

talk shows is limited. The global television industry is the most unstable when it comes to functioning. The success or failure of these news channels (or any channel for that matter) is dependent on the weekly report of the TRPs. If the TRP goes down, there is a scurry in the studios. The Chief Editor starts to lose his cool. But the question of content for the media was soon answered. In 2010, when Anna Hazare and his team occupied the Ramleela and Jantar Mantar grounds in Delhi, they provided a sensational script to the Indian media, and thus a sentiment going against Dr. Manmohan Singh began to develop in the country. This script did not last for some days or weeks. It rather went on to occupy the television screens for three long years! This script was composed of many elements. It had in it the struggling ordinary people of the country. It had a hidden anti-Congress agenda and many dialogues that aided the religious extremists and fascists elements in the country. This script rocked the Congress party. It got further wounded in the elections of Delhi ( where Arvind Kejriwal came up with an unexpected victory) and the states of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhatisgarh ( where the BJP emerged a winner) and also later due to the attacking campaigning of Narendra Modi. The Congress party now resembled a wheelchair-bound patient. And due to the hatred-filled campaign by the media against the Congress, Dr. Manmohan Singh and the Gandhi family, many news channels began to predict that the Congress party - for the first time since Independence - could slide down to less than 100 Parliamentary seats in the Lok Sabha Elections of 2014. Noted American media expert Edward Epstein says that most of the political overturn in the United States occur due to the Image Building and Image Breaking processes of the media. These images, whether built or brought down, are mythical and misleading. The television, he says, suggests you what to eat, which clothes you should wear, which fashion you should take up and what should you see. The television makes your opinion and inhibits your thinking process. It challenges your discretion. The reason is television as a medium magnifies the reality and creates an extravaganza in it and hence it creates a

picture that is far from reality. It is wrong to say that such things happen accidentally in the media. They take place with a purpose in mind. It is because there is a lot of selfish motive embedded in this activity. There is a valuable difference between the 24-hour running news channels and a film that runs for two and half hours. When dozens of news channels bombard particular story about either an individual or an incident in the same reference, then there is a huge probability of obtaining a general impact of hypnotism on the viewers that might reach to the extent of making the mind numb. In fact, the advertising on the television relies on the same concept. Even if we get bored while seeing the same advertisement, it leaves a deep impact on our subconscious mind. The media used the same idea during the Anna Hazare movement, and later the television was extensively employed by Narendra Modi and Arvind Kejriwal for their benefit. It eventually created a 'larger than life' image of Narendra Modi and Arvind Kejriwal and deeply downgraded the image of Dr. Singh. And the downgrading happened to such an extent that it concealed the truth beneath it. The Oscar-winning Hollywood movie 'Network' (released in 1976) shows the harsh reality of the news channel industry. The film shows the extent to which a particular news channel goes to obtain a piece of news and overtake its competitors and generate TRPs. In this movie, there is a scene where Diana Christensen - director of a television show - presents a strategy of making the show reach the maximum number of people. While stressing on it, she says, "The American people are turning sullen. They've been clobbered on all sides by Vietnam, Watergate, the inflation, the depression; they've turned off, shot up, and they've fucked themselves limp, and nothing helps." So, this concept analysis report concludes, "The American people want somebody to articulate their rage for them." I've been telling you people since I took this job six months ago that I want angry shows. I don't want conventional programming on this network. I want counterculture, I want anti-establishment. I don't want to play butch boss with you people, but when I took over this department, it

had the worst programming record in television history. This network hasn't one show in the top twenty. This network is an industry joke, and we'd better start putting together one winner for next September. I want a show developed based on the activities of a terrorist group, "Joseph Stalin and His Merry Band of Bolsheviks," I want ideas from you people. This is what you're paid for. And by the way, the next time I send an audience research report around, you'd all better read it, or I'll sack the fucking lot of you. Is that clear? The way Diana Christensen insisted on news pieces that would elicit anger among the people against the administration, make them restless and make their sensitivities numb, the Indian media aimed for the same during the Anna Hazare agitation. Parliament disruptions and judicial orders were obstructing Dr. Singh's economic policies. The media also joined them. In this situation there comes a time where the entire administrative system joins hands and forms complex ghettos. The complexity of this makes the target suffocate hard enough to become inactive. The Manmohan Singh government experienced a similar situation till the end of its tenure. The government was already facing an allegation of policy paralysis, and this constant attack by the media made it even more helpless. The work that was done by the government never reached the people. What people heard was the hoarse voice of the television anchors and a senseless clatter of the experts. This bullying by the media had resulted from Capitalism, and the latter was responsible for rooting Fascism in the country. The government took a defensive position and its scrutiny increased day by day. The media wrote various scripts about the activities of Dr. Singh. The characters in this script reacted on every move of the UPA government and were keen on every newspiece that went against the government. The Hindi news channels glorified every dramatic move from Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal. The 'Jimmy Jib' cameras that roamed Jantar-Mantar and Ramleela grounds created a phantom out of the crowds present there. They began to falsely create a picture of a nationwide agitation against the UPA government and especially Dr. Manmohan Singh. The media became

aggressive in ensuring that there is no flow shop of the Hazare agitation. But later when the show became a flop in the city of Mumbai, there were attempts to recreate the same in Delhi. Baba Ramdev began to send troops to Delhi for the same. Why? To make sure that there is a significant crowd ready to be clicked by the cameras! The country had not seen an ochlocracy of this kind before. But as the government did not respond to this ochlocracy, the trio of Hazare-kejriwal-Ramdev began to get desperate. Uncultured language occupied the stage. Character assassination, emotional blackmail, threatening and self-delivered justice began to increase. All this was like a media trial for the Congress party. And this trail went to such an extent that this trio declared that those who supported them were patriots and those who opposed them were traitors. Those who claimed to be ethical and joined this movement with the tricolour in their hands and the symbolic caps on their heads belonged to that class which did not bother about transacting in black money. Later, the egos of Hazare and Kejriwal clashed and both parted ways. The over-ambitious Arvind Kejriwal was the ultimate winner in this battle. Hazare went back to the Yadavbaba Temple at Ralegansiddhi. Kiran Bedi, who could not sustain Kejriwal's opposition to the BJP, also chose to disappear from the scene. Kejriwal announced the formation of his political party called the 'Aam Aadmi Party' and by taking help of the TRP-driven media, began showering allegations on the Congress-led UPA government. He managed to create suspense about himself before going public on television. He also managed to create an option of 'Civil Disobedience' for the exploited and weaker sections of the society. He brought in witnesses to make sure that the allegations he made turned out to be true. The audience for the television media began to grow. Seeing this, Kejriwal started to create 'trials' on television. He went on to publicly proclaim that God has sent him to end corruption in the country. Dr. Manmohan Singh was the first one in this list. Later it went on to include Congress President Sonia Gandhi, her son-in-law Mr. Robert Vadra, the then Cabinet Minister Salman Khurshid, BJP leader Nitin

Gadkari, Nationalist Congress Party President Sharad Pawar, Rahul Gandhi, Narendra Modi and Ambani. Kejriwal had understood the potential of the television in reaching to the audiences all over the country. He became a TRP candidate for the media due to the constant disinformation and negative statements he delivered. News Channels gained a different direction to work due to these developments. The news channel 'Times Now' was responsible for redefining parameters of the industry and creating new definitions of business. It proved that issues of politics and maligning images of politicians could generate tremendous volumes of business for the channel. The movie mentioned above 'Network' has a scenario where the owner of a media house - Mr. Arthur Jensen - stresses his management the importance of generating news content which is highly coloured and sensational. He says that television journalism is a show! Neither is its social service, nor a clash of ideologies. And neither is it related to generating patriotism among the people or a service to the country. To one of the most prominent news anchors of his channel, Mr. Howard, he says, "You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it! Is that clear? You think you've merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case! The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance! You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electrodollars, multi-dollars, reichsmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU... WILL... ATONE! Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up

on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state, Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that... perfect world... in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangel." This strife in the media houses that took place in the United States in the 70s entered India almost fifty years later in a similar manner. The television journalism in India became fierce and merciless and took a similar path that American journalism took way back in that decade. The media houses viewed television journalism as a business, and hence they were ready to go down to any level to generate profits. ‘TRP War' became a major point for discussion in their boardroom meetings. It so happened that the TRP data obtained every Thursday would decide the future course of politics in the country. This TRP war reached an acute apex in August 2011 when NDTV filed a million dollar lawsuit against ‘Television Audience Management' (TAM) for generating a false data of television audience. This Scam was similar to the Telecom Scam in India, but it took place in the private sector. ‘TAM' is a global company which is responsible for displaying the audience numbers in the world of television in India. AC Neilson and Kantar Media Research are the two agencies that work on behalf of TAM in India. Since the rise in cable and satellite

television in the country, the television channels are directed by these bodies in the way of doing business, in searching for the relevant market and finding out which television serial or show the audience prefers to watch. So these agencies submit data that points out whether the public wants the ‘K' serials of Ekta Kapoor or a ‘Balika Vadhu'. They say whether they prefer Anna Hazare's agitation or the IPL or the Olympics. In 2011, out of the 23 crores 10 lakh families in the country, 14 crore and 80 lakh families possessed a television. Out of these 12 crores and sixty lakh families maintained cable and satellite connection while two crores and ten lakh families boasted of a ‘Doordarshan' at their homes. The television industry had an advertisement turnover of around 2 Billion and ten crores rupees. The role of TAM was hence significant as it provided business guidelines to more than 400 channels in this huge industry. The sample surveys undertaken by TAM were restricted to 155 cities in the country, and the agency had installed ‘people meter' in almost 8160 households that consisted of higher income groups as well as medium and low-income groups. ‘People Meter' would indicate which television program is in demand in a particular household. It also pointed on which channels the family ‘remote' remained static and the channels that this device often skipped. The gathered data used to reach the concerned television channels every Wednesday and would ignite the TRP war. NDTV claimed that the audience number for one of their competitive English News Channel (Times Now) that normally was 50 thousand, suddenly increased to around 2.5 lakhs in a matter of minutes for one of its programs. This number meant that the ‘television remote' of the viewers remained static on this channel for around two hours. In reality, no viewer has the endurance of being static at a television channel for more than two minutes. NDTV alleged that the audience number shown by TAM was a massive economic scam and the latter was indulging in bribery and influencing the television market of many news channels. For the past eight years, NDTV was not happy with some reports of TAM and hence had indulged into a correspondence with them in this regard.

NDTV had insisted on increasing its sample survey from 8 thousand to 30 thousand, but TAM had done nothing apart from giving assurances. In reality, all television channels, news or entertainment, depended on TAM for their sample surveys. It was because TAM had a firm hold on the advertisement industry in the country. Major advertising companies depended on TAM's statistics while agreeing on providing sponsorship to television programs and shows. The advertising companies also decide on prime time advertisements. Many times, these channels spend an enormous amount of money in bringing up a serial and still have to depend on big ads. The advertisers aim to sell their products by keeping these serials as a medium, and all this forms a part of the larger business. There have been instances when TAM has marked a particular serial or television show as negative, and the concerned channel has had to change the content of these shows at the last moment. TAM's sample surveys are also responsible for many television channels displaying serials with similar content and concept at around the same time. Hence it was clear that TAM enjoyed a monopoly in the Indian television industry. Two significant attempts were made to thwart this monopoly, and they were from South India. One was by Ramoji Rao of E-TV and the second was by the Marans of Sun Television Network. However both these attempts failed. Many times it was alleged that TAM's sample surveys did not encompass rural India. The reason given by them was that the rural Indian audience is not a direct consumer of the television advertisements. At the same time, these entertainment channels do not display the socioeconomic lifestyle of the rural population. Hence the viewer from places where there is no satellite or cable television (and hence only has access to ‘Doordarshan') is no consumer of the advertisements displayed on them. These observations created new dimensions while thinking about television viewers in the country. However, NDTV's suing of TAM was enough to create a furore in the Indian television industry. The unearthing of TAM scam did not mean that the society did not possess any discontent towards corruption and irresponsible

government behaviour. Rather, the existence of this discontent made the news channels give it a pervasive appearance by continuously broadcasting the Anna Hazare agitation. However what the media forgets here is that only generating a discontent should never be their motive. Instead, they should mould this discontent into something constructive. Many journalists and media schools tell that the media is the mirror of our social life. However, in reality, this sentence becomes very deceptive. If indeed they are the mirrors, then they are those concave and convex mirrors that give an unreasonable reflection that is analogous to the distorted picture of the society. At times these mirrors are broken, and hence it is difficult to get an accurate picture of the society. Hence the very concept of ‘objective journalism'or 'neutral' or a ‘fair' approach towards journalism is a myth. Unfortunately, almost all forms of media have an attraction towards this myth. While it is essential to give a piece of news through all angles and covering all aspects, it can't be denied that the way the news article is published or the content that forms its part is most of the times without being impartial. In these years, the television channels had projected Dr. Manmohan Singh as analogous to a ventriloquist's puppet! Sonia Gandhi was projected as a ventriloquist who would make the puppet dance on the threads of the UPA. Dr. Singh had a great strength within himself which was evident through his personality. This personality was composed of a character of the highest degree coupled with his vast knowledge of economics and simple living. Hence his political opponents and the opponents within the media were always searching for ways to vanquish this image. The BJP and the RSS cadres were delighted when the Telecom Scam came into light. The Television channels are always in search of something that would provide them 24-hour content. Hence they always looked at scams, scandals and quarrels. Right from the Adarsh Housing Scam of Maharashtra to the Commonwealth Scam and the 2G spectrum cases, the media and the Opposition parties behaved as if they were the epitomes of sanctity! Leaders like Gadkari, Advani and Sushma

Swaraj conveniently forgot the corruption from the then BJP-ruled state of Karnataka. During these incidents, barring a discussion with television editors, the Prime Minister had not spoken anything. However, this did not mean he had maintained a permanent state of silence. The fact is that he did not stoop down to the levels of the media. Instead of contributing his shouts and screams in an already noisy state of affairs in the media, he chose to respond through his work. However, the BJP sensed an opportunity to lay a trap for Sonia Gandhi, Dr. Singh and the entire government. The government had gone into a defensive mode, and at the same time the issue of inflation stood up. In such a situation, it was possible to propagate that the entire government was corrupt. To make matters easy for the Opposition, many members from the UPA displayed a casual approach instead of speaking responsibly. Hence a picture was created in India and outside that Dr. Singh's government was in a state of paralysis. This melodrama took a chaotic turn when Anna Hazare occupied the stage. Baba Ramdev took it to another level of chaos. The RSS chose to sail on the wave of discontent and restlessness created by Anna Hazare and the civil society. During Ramadev's agitation at the Ramleela grounds, the police had to lathicharge and use tear gas shells. The media was eager to capture all these visuals for the TRP, and the opposition parties were quick to relate these incidents to the National Emergency of 1977. Some of them went a step further and correlated the entire events to the Jallianwala Baug incident under the British government. In this situation, Dr. Singh's silence was a subject to interpretation in two ways. First, the entire set of events has made him hide his face in embarrassment. Second, he has no answers to media interrogations. Then some people had a third interpretation - Dr. Singh does things what Sonia Gandhi asks him to do. But there was no trace of sympathy from the Opposition members when they referred to this silence of the Prime Minister. Rather, they now felt that the Prime Minister should not speak at all. Because his speaking up might have thwarted their set propaganda. The media,

on the other hand, felt that Dr. Singh should speak up. For it would have added some sound bytes in an already tense environment. There is little scope for TRPs through news channels. Hence the news channels always wait for an explosion so that they can cash on it. The media for the same reason desired the entry of the Prime Minister in the complete pandemonium. They felt that if the Prime Minister has been targeted, he should respond back fiercely and this would be in the best of interests for him and the nation. On this background, the Prime Minister opted for an open discussion with selected Prime Editors of the country. He had two to three options to voice his side. He could have called a massive press conference or would have chosen to be a part of the discussions in the electronic media. He also had an option of addressing the nation through speech. However, he bypassed all the three ways and opted for a frank talk with the leading Editors of the country. The first session was restricted to newspapers. In the list of Editors invited, there were Chief Editors of two English newspapers, one Chief Editor from Hindi and Marathi newspapers and there were also Editors of the Press Trust of India. It was Dr. Singh's way of directly reaching the largest reading community of the country. The talk which lasted for almost 100 minutes, included issues like corruption, inflation, the civil society, the middle class and also issues like UPA's coalition dharma, Jayalalitha's politics, allegations of Sonia Gandhi possessing the ‘remote control', the Lokpal Bill and the prospects of Rahul Gandhi as the next Prime Minister. He did not stumble anywhere. Neither did he avoid any question. His answer to every question was without a misleading double dimension. He also did not shy away from taking responsibility during any incident. He was indicative enough to tell that no issue has a 100% solving guarantee and hence the best thing was to keep the issues at bay and opt for the judicial process in dealing with corruption. He made it clear that under the background of a coalition government and rapidly changing global events, it was necessary for the Opposition, Media and the Civil Society to cooperate. Mere concentration on Elections and Politics won't help as it was essential

to understand a problem from its roots. He reminded the Editors that in 2008, everyone had predicted that India would get deeply affected because of the global recession. But in reality, India's growth rate remained between 8 -10%. Many projects were sanctioned, and the country experienced a political stability. However, the media kept on focusing only on the issue of corruption and ignored these completed tasks. They created an environment of cynicism. Dr. Singh said that while it was essential to uproot corruption and hold discussions with Civil Society, the feeling of ‘me being the supreme' should go! Problems do find a solution through discussions, consensus and general democratic ways. Dr. Singh had introduced an open and transparent atmosphere. However the same was not acceptable to the Television Editors. Moreover, the government had not imposed any restrictions on the media during their coverage of the Anna Hazare agitation. However, it has been proved that media all over the world has behaved irresponsibly under the pretext of freedom of expression and while doing so has indirectly twisted the same values. After the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, the United States declared war against the ‘nuclear' Iraq. The ‘war stories' that the media reported was almost a huge event. The media conveniently ignored the voice of the Iraqi people in these stories. Nor did they focus on the weak Iraqi common man stranded due to the War. A similar example surfaced from England where Rupert Murdoch's ‘News of the World' was alleged to have hacked the phones of celebrities and people who were accused of a crime. It was an example of a rough, uncultured and coarse face of the media. The English society – the one that had shown the ideals of democracy to the world – had to curtail the rise of this demon! The Anna Hazare agitation showed us that the media that otherwise is protective about its own freedom of expression went on to indirectly aid the destabilization of Parliamentary democracy by forming its opinion on certain important issues. Had the media behaved with responsibility, it would have transparently shown the atrocities made by American soldiers on average Iraqis; it would not have spied on people and

derived gossip; it would have pointed out to the razzle that was carried by the white collared upper class at the Ramleela grounds during Hazare's agitation. Noted journalist Rajdeep Sardesai, in his column for the Hindustan Times on 21st February 2014, admitted that there is a huge difference between the on-field reality and the reality captured by the OB vans of the news channels. All the OB vans in Delhi were stationed at Jantar Mantar and Ramleela grounds. Mr. Sardesai had a soft corner reserved for Arvind Kejriwal's agitation against corruption. However, he admits that Kejriwal's theatrics were useful for the media from as early as 2010. However, the media chose to ignore the February 2014 rally of Mamta Banerjee comprising of 5 lakh people. It also ignored the December 2013 rally of Haryana's Hooda government that reported to have had a presence of 10 lakh people. Additionally, it also ignored the rally of the Lefts at Kolkata that marked the attendance of 4 lakh people. However, all the meetings addressed by Narendra Modi were broadcasted without an interruption. The Delhi Legislative Assembly's discussion on Janlokpal and Kejriwal's sleeping on the road had become national issues. Newspapers competed among themselves in praising the autocratic style of Arvind Kejriwal. Many newspaper columnists felt the need to compare the secular policies of the Congress, the Hindutva politics of the BJP and the directionless, chaotic politics of Arvind Kejriwal. Many of the news channels went to the extent of projecting Arvind Kejriwal as the next Prime Minister. CNN-IBN honoured Anna Hazare as ‘person of the year.' Hazare had become a darling of the corporate houses. News about his health became national headlines. Live newsfeed was broadcasted from his native village Ralegansiddhi. Editor of Times Now, Mr. Arnab Goswami, went on to demand that India should have Presidential elections as the United States and both the Prime Ministerial candidates of the Congress and the BJP should enter a live television debate. Times Now was also at the forefront of asking the Prime Minister's resignation about the Coal scam. ‘Headlines Today' had alleged that the Prime Minister was

trying to shield Ashwini Kumar in the coal scam, whereas Rajdeep Sardesai went on to approve this as the public opinion. NDTV's Barkha Dutt had asked whether public opinion matters in such situations, However, in reality, these journalists were behaving in the same chaotic way as Arvind Kejriwal was doing his politics. Whether it was Sarabjit Singh's death issue or the beheading of Indian soldiers by Pakistan or the ‘Nirbhaya' rape incident, these news channels began to point their fingers towards Dr. Manmohan Singh and started to hold him responsible for the same. While portraying a villain in a Bollywood movie, the environment around him is specially designed as full of hatred. His clothes, his language, his body language – all are taken care! And with all these efforts, a villain is finally held up. The media did the same with the Congress government at the Center. Many influential journalists in Delhi, who cozied with the Corporate and enjoyed power circles, thought that they could pose a challenge to the government. Every journalist had his/her TRP. They indulged in techniques that favoured loud shouts over a studied argument and always showed evidence not supporting the government and thereby generating a negative opinion. Efforts of understanding the ground reality of particular news had already disappeared from the media. The media now worked on its perception and skipped the social issues and economic and cultural realities of a changing India. This one-sided, fascist propagation from the media was aimed to thwart the honest and passive image of Dr. Manmohan Singh. From 2010 till 2014, only one issue surfaced on the television news channels. It was of corruption! It was closely followed by emphasizing on the ‘larger than life' image of Narendra Modi. In addition to this, the years 2011-12 saw a decline in the rate of Economic Development. The rupee had slid in comparison to the dollar. The price rise in daily commodities and petroleum products had made people restless. But this restlessness was not restricted to India. It was a global phenomenon. Europe was not recovering from the economic recession. The United States showed some signs of recovery. But in this process, it decided to pull out its investment from

other countries. The media, however, portrayed a picture that it existed only in India. The country's development rate slid from 8% to 5.5%. But positive achievements like record food production were ignored by the media. The Planning Commission had announced that there was a sharp decline in the country's poverty. The lifestyle in rural India was changing rapidly. There was a rise in rural per capita income. And more importantly, poor states like Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh were fast catching up in development. But the media chose to portray the development in Gujarat on one end and the anti-corruption agitation on the other end. Post – 2010 the nation saw a surge in the use of Facebook, Twitter and related social media. ‘Whatsapp' joined these later. The combined users of these forms of media began to attack the images of the Congress and Dr. Manmohan Singh. These attacks were tasteless, uncultured and far from the truth. But what was the need for Social media to become so much aggressive against Dr. Singh? Was it of the opinion that corruption in India began during Dr. Singh's tenure? Did it not notice that ministers had resigned before on issues of corruption? Was UPA-2 a starting point for atrocities against Women? Were Indo-Pak and Indo-China conflicts new to the country? Didn't the country see Hindu-Muslim riots before? The answers to these questions were plain and straightforward. Internal and external powers had united to spread a disciplined propaganda of fascism and restlessness in the country. The seeds of this were sown during the Anna Hazare agitation. The media played the role of stretching this feeling of anger against the government. The next step involved maligning the image of every minister in the government. Fascism requires a disciplined propaganda and networking. It includes a skilled use of word play. This skilled wordplay is an effective way towards truth. However, it is an equally effective way towards falsehood. History has seen examples of societies falling for an efficient use of wordplay by its leaders. Hitler had won over the Germans by this very 'effective' oratory. Mussolini used an effective body language to achieve the same. These words thwart the literate-

illiterate divide and penetrate the society as a whole. They create a virtual world that is a beautiful sight. During the Anna Hazare agitation, the slogan ‘Main Anna Hoon' (I am Anna) was enough to rattle the common sense of the Indian middle class. This class began talking about a possible revolution and the ‘need' for the Armed Forces to take over the country's administration. In this, the electronic media saw a tremendous opportunity for an extensive coverage and TRP. The television cameras reached the common man when it was clear that he would also voice his opinion against corruption. Former army men, former officials and retired police officers began to echo a sentiment of a revolution and change. The then Army General, V.K Singh went on to call the entire country as a bog and by crossing all limits of his position, indicated that he was with the masses. When any country's top army personnel openly talks about corruption and goes on to say that democratic values are shattered, and politicians are enjoying life at the expense of public money, we can assume Fascism is knocking our doors. In the Hollywood cinema ‘Before Sunset', a young girl tells a writer that she does not watch television anymore. She says, "In the fast paced life consisting of Information Technology, nothing spreads Fascism faster than television. Watching television has crossed the tolerance limits of people." Our neighbours, Pakistan and Bangladesh, have experienced the armed forces taking advantage of political instability and finally establishing their power. Zia-ul-Haq and General Musharaf are examples from Pakistan. In Bangladesh, Sheikh Mujibur Rehman was murdered by the armed forces, and the latter took over the administration. On similar lines, a change of power took place in Chile in 1973 when the Chief of the Armed Forces Augusto Pinochet thwarted the democratic regime of Salvador Allende. In 1965, Indonesia experienced a change when General Suharto dethroned Sukarno from the power chair. However, this incident indicated a complete collapse of the democratic system in that country. Hence over the course of time, there developed a sentiment

that it was better to have a corrupt democratic reign rather than a dictatorial regime playing havoc with fundamental rights of the citizens. The Anna Hazare movement experienced a social fascism of a similar kind. Hazare and his colleagues put forward the most unanswerable question to the people and made way for them getting convinced! The question was regarding the issue of corruption. This agitation got coupled with patriotism, the sacrifice of freedom fighters, the slogans of ‘Vande Mataram' and religious songs of all kinds! Soon saints and ‘babas' joined this movement. This agitation soon got equipped itself with colours of religiosity and orthodoxy. When nationalism joins hands with religiosity and with no action from the political system, the armed forces are tempted to see a large political vacuum, and they begin to take steps to fill the same. Whether Hazare's agitation had aimed to disturb the political spectrum of the country is a topic of research. However, there was no need to challenge the Parliament and Constitution in the fight against corruption. That is because the issue of corruption is not related to the system. Rather it involves emotional, friendly feelings at a person to person level. No system is faultless, and it is hard to create such. Individuals who are corrupt indulge in corruption by bending the system. The rapidly penetrating Social Media was not mature in its approach. A majority of the youth that formed a part of this new phenomenon was the one that was born at the start of the 90s. This was just at the commencement of the economic liberalization process. Since the beginning of the 90s, the country had witnessed various transitions within itself. It had witnessed the Mandal Commission's agitation, the Ram Janmbhumi agitation, the destruction of the Babri Masjid ( and the riots that followed as a consequence), the capture of power at the Center by the BJP, the flop show of the ‘India Shining' campaign and then the ten year stretch of the Congress government. This youth was a witness to these developments. But it was not assimilated into the political processes of the country. Every generation brings with itself a sense of rebellion. As a consequence, their life concepts also differ from their predecessors. They dream of a change in the system.

They feel new ways of building a nation by fighting against corruption, inequality and poverty. But the use of Social media as a tool made the youth aggressive and responsive. This responsiveness was towards politics, the debate of Secularism v/s Hindutva, globalization and the overall economic opportunities that came their way. This youth further inflated the bubble of Arvind Kejriwal and Narendra Modi. But at the same time, they were not aware of the basic history, geography or politics around them. Around the same time, supporters of Narendra Modi tried their best to woo the youth through online applications like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and WhatsApp. From 2011 to 2014, these applications were abuzz with activities that involved cracking jokes on Dr. Manmohan Singh, Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, indulging in their character assassination and showering abuses on them and the Congress party. Spreading of morphed images also formed a part of this strategy. In this entire process of aimed character assassination, there was no thought spared towards the concepts of truth, ethics and legitimacy. Unfrotunately, this mechanism is taking decisions on what needs to be seen, read or heard by the users. By the end of 2013, Cobra Post's investigative journalist Aniruddh Behl released a documentary named ‘Operation Blue Virus.' In this documentary, there featured more than two dozen IT companies that were otherwise unknown in the country. It was found that these companies used the medium of ‘Social media'to either highlight or stain the existing image of political leaders in an exchange of a few crores of rupees. These companies used to capture foreign IP addresses, create fake accounts on the Internet and create a feeling of an increase in fan base of a particular political party or a leader. The medium used extensively was Facebook and Twitter. They used to generate objectionable content with the aim of maligning the image of the leaders in the opposite camp. They also used proxy codes to change their location in every one or two hours thereby making it difficult to track their locations. ‘Cobra Post' alleged that most of these IT companies worked for the Bhartiya Janata Party and principally their then Prime Ministerial candidate Narendra Modi.

Though ‘Cobra Post' used Investigative Journalism for their revelations, the social media-equipped youth of the nation found itself disconnected from History and historical facts. The youth is equipped with Android, iPhone, Facebook or WhatsApp. But that did not mean it was mature on the social or cultural front. It was not even aware of the political ideologies or the politics of the country in general. They knew how to express using 140 characters on Twitter. Even today, there are attempts to fit in the philosophy of life in a maximum of 140 characters (spaces included) of Twitter. The ten-year tenure of Dr. Singh hence found itself confined to the 140 characters of Twitter, the posts on Facebook, the jokes on WhatsApp and the discussions on the Television. In the movie ‘Network', Harvard Bill (the actor who plays the television anchor) enters into a tensed frame of mind when he is informed about the fall in TRP ratings for his show. He is pressurized by the Channel Owner and the Program Director to create a new affray in the program. They go to the extent of asking Bill to shoot himself on television to increase the TRPs. Bill then goes on to face the studio audience and in a piercing language give them an insight into the media. "So, you listen to me. Listen to me: Television is not the truth! Television is a God-damned amusement park! Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God! Go to your gurus! Go to yourselves! Because that's the only place you're ever going to find any real truth."

Dr. Singh's Foreign Policy When Dr. Manmohan Singh became the Prime Minister in 2004, he had to face challenges that consisted of economic problems, social disparity and religious extremism. Additionally, he also had a responsibility of building stable relationships with Pakistan and China. The latter had increased its defence expenditure in 2001, and hence its Armed Forces had assumed a renewed confidence. Pakistan and Sri Lanka had entered into significant agreements for the development of their ports. Around the same time, the United States had attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, and this had resulted in an organized rise of the Taliban and Islamic Extremism in these countries. That was going to be dangerous for India in general and the state of Jammu and Kashmir in particular. Every country's foreign policy should encompass an overall security and economic development. Jawaharlal Nehru was of the opinion that foreign policy should include our political relations, National Security, protection of India's sovereignty and also the security of India's people. He insisted that the Foreign policy should reflect the aspirations of the common people. Hence Nehru's Charisma was evident at the International platform and also back home among the people of India. Dr. Singh's Foreign Policy was an extension of the Nehruvian Foreign Policy, and in the ten years of him being the Prime Minister, human security and economic development were at the center-stage. Hence, in the ten years as Prime Minister, he could establish friendly, peaceful and cooperative relations with George Bush and Barack Obama from the United States; President of Russia Vladimir Putin; Britain's Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameroon; Sarkozy and Hollande from France; Germany's Angela Merkel; the two Communist Regimes from China; Pervez Musharraf, Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif from Pakistan, Japan and the ASEAN countries. All these relations involved with them a deeper economic cooperation.

No other Prime Minister in the country would have established friendly relations with such an array of nations. The primary reasons for these relationships getting built were Dr. Singh's courteousness, his awareness of International politics and economy and the respectful position he had earned globally on account of his knowledge and intelligence. There was a significant difference in the way his economic policy was perceived nationally and internationally. While it came under immense criticism in his country, at the global level, it had earned respect. When the whole world was under economic recession, India had managed a growth rate of around 89% from 2004 to 2010, and a significant credit for this went to his foreign policy. He had connected the changing India of the 21st century to the world and brought them in sync with each other. India had become an economic superpower after China, and Dr. Manmohan Singh had successfully executed this challenge. India experienced various governments between 1991 and 2004. Though the nation's foreign policy was not unstable, it was not in synchronisation. When India decided to walk the path of economic liberalization, it was necessary to define a direction of its foreign policy. Soviet Russia had collapsed, and the composition of the world had changed. As a result, it was necessary to redefine the strategic and economic cooperation with these countries. At this juncture, P.V Narsimha Rao had kept the Foreign Affairs Ministry with him. (Later it was handed over to Mr. Dinesh Singh) The Finance Ministry went to Dr. Manmohan Singh. Both these leaders started to implement the foreign policy of liberalization and globalization. They emphasized on the growth of India's economic relations and also on directing the foreign policy from an individual-centered approach to an institutioncentered approach. The Foreign Policy in the United States changes every ten years, and it is built around a particular issue. In 2001, post the World Trade Center attack, the United States had focused on fighting global terrorism. On similar lines, Dr. Singh structured the foreign policy along the borderlines of liberalization, business cooperation and economic development. Between 1995 and 2000, India had adopted a Nuclear Development Program as a part of its

Foreign Policy. It made its position clear on CTBT-NPT and specified its position about its Atomic Energy Development Programs before the world. In the 90s, Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral had emphasized on an economic conversation, cooperation and partnership with the neighbouring countries. He temporarily held back those issues that would build tensions between the neighbours. He also emphasised on business, cultural and economic relations, sports, commerce, science and technology transfers, infrastructure development and foreign investment for critical projects. His successor Mr. Vajpayee conceived the idea of 'P-5' which emphasised on building relations with countries that was important from economic and strategic development. Likewise, there were attempts made to foster ties with the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China on economic and defensive grounds and that formed part of the foreign policy. Dr. Manmohan Singh encompassed these principles in his five point foreign policy. None of the foreign policy experts in the country has written anything significant about the foreign policy of Dr. Singh. The reasons for the same are unknown. Many wrote with a perverse approach to his leadership. But no one showed the courtesy to analyse his foreign policy. However, though this government faced criticism regarding its economic policies at the national level, its image at the International Level was not tarnished. During the UPA-2 when 'Standard and Poor' downgraded India's rating as an investment destination, the opposition parties got an opportunity criticize the government. Almost all newspapers and magazines, especially related to the subject of Economics, tried to challenge Dr. Singh's economic policies. But soon this sentiment died out. However, the media was not inquisitive enough to find the reasons for the sudden disappearance of this issue. That was because the media and the opposition parties were working on an agenda of maligning Dr. Singh's image. The media did not present the core of Dr. Singh's Foreign Policy to the people. In October 2013, 'The Economist' while reviewing Dr. Manmohan Singh's foreign policy for the past nine years praised his Spartan

nature and visionary approach towards the policy. It expressed regret that though Dr. Singh was confident in facing the world at the backdrop of India's economic development over the years, the media in India was concealing this truth. It also praised Dr. Singh for the fact that countries like Russia, China, Japan, G-20 countries, the United States, ASEAN, Middle East Asian Nations and South Asian countries not only established economic relations with India but these relations were based on Concord and friendliness. And it was true. Because when he assumed office in 2004, he had stressed that the country's foreign policy would be a representation of the economic aspirations of the people. It became evident in his speech in the year 2005 at the 'India Today Conclave' where he shared his roadmap on foreign policy. According to him, liberalization and globalization would be the base of the economic development ahead, and hence their inclusion would be essential. He specified three objectives of his foreign policy. First was to develop India into a strategic and economic power. Second was to improve India's military strength and assure that her friendly relations are well protected. And third was to develop and maintain relations of economic cooperation with the more powerful nations. Apart from this, he specified four pillars of India's Foreign Policy: 1) It was only because of economic development that India has got an opportunity to play a significant role in World Politics 2) Economic Development has opened the doors of economic opportunities in the world. 3) Liberalization and Globalization have made it possible for India to foster economic integration with BRICS-ASEAN, G-20, European Union, G-8, and SAARC 4) The foreign policy will have democratic values, pluralism and secularism as important constituents. The Foreign Policy of Nehru had an ethical component, and Dr. Singh did not leave it behind. Rather while presenting India to the world, he chose to display India's economic strengths, human resources and her immense marketplace. He repeatedly mentioned five 'Ts' on whom India's

progress in the 21st century was dependent. They were Trade, Talent, Technology, Tourism and Tradition. But Dr. Singh's foreign policy did not get the expected support from regional parties like DMK, AIADMK, Trinamool Congress and also the right-leaning principle opposition party of the country, the BJP. Because of these political constraints, Dr. Singh could not create the picture of hope in the Indian subcontinent that he had intended to do. He could not establish economic and cultural ties with Pakistan and Sri Lanka to the desired extent. Though there was no incident like Kargil in his tenure, the relations with Pakistan were surrounded by mutual distrust, suspicion and hatred. In some interviews, he had spoken of his intention of visiting Pakistan. But he also insisted that he would not visit till the relations between the two would be cordial. Dr. Manmohan Singh was born in the year 1932 in the small village of Gah, which is 60 km from the city of Islamabad. He obtained primary education in an Urdu medium school in the same village till the age of ten followed by higher education at Peshawar. In 1947, he appeared for his last year final examination at school. But Partition made his family leave Peshawar for Amritsar, and they lived in one of the streets near the Golden Temple. His association with Pakistan was thus, for the first fifteen years of his life. But it is hard to leave back childhood memories! At this stage and age of life, it was but natural that he would again encounter those childhood memories. While it has to be accepted that relations with Pakistan did not materialize the way he wanted; it also needs to be said that the steps he took for the same were noteworthy. But the Mumbai terrorist attacks in 2008 resulted in further bickering of relations. Dr. Singh made it a point to tell the world that these attacks were planned from Pakistani soil. In his meet with General Musharaf, he raised the same issue.

In 2009, the 'Non-Aligned Movement' summit took place at Sharm-AlSheikh in Egypt. Dr. Manmohan Singh met his Pakistani counterpart Mr. Gilani, and they both issued a joint statement. In the declaration, Dr. Singh stated that India shares Pakistan's concern over the incidents in Pakistan's Baluchistan province. There was a severe disruption in India after this joint statement. The interpretation of the declaration was that Indian intelligence agencies are politically interfering in Baluchistan and the Indian Prime Minister accepted this on an International platform. The Congress high command entered into a discussion with Dr. Singh, and he had to issue a clarification in the Parliament on the same. Dr. Singh experienced this pressure till the end of his tenure. But Dr. Manmohan Singh entered into discussions with Pakistan many times on International platforms. On every occasion, he used to notify his Pakistani counterpart about the terrorist activities planned from its soil. The same was presented to the International community through these platforms. He was firm enough to state that IndiaPakistan relations won't be back on track till Pakistan stops all the terrorist activities directed against India from its soil. Under these circumstances, whenever Pakistan raised its hand for friendship, Dr. Singh was warm enough to welcome it. In 2011, Pakistan Prime Minister Gilani came to Mohali to watch the India-Pakistan cricket match, and Dr. Singh accompanied him. Dr. Singh was never opposed to the cricket diplomacy between the two countries. In fact, he was of the opinion that political relations get sorted not only through rounds of discussions but also through business, cultural exchange, cricket and Bollywood. When Pakistan granted the status of 'Most Favoured Nation' to India, Dr. Singh issued a positive response and immediately sent a delegation of Indian businessmen to Pakistan for discussions. At the SAARC summit in Maldives, Dr. Singh described the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Gilani as a man of peace. The BJP was quick to criticize him. But at the diplomatic level, it becomes necessary to play with words and create a mental pressure on your opponent to fulfil

your objectives. But the BJP neither displayed this awareness nor the seriousness towards this issue. But initiating relations with Pakistan was a fresh start. However, many problems on the political front were yet unresolved. One of the issues was the handing over of 26/11 terror attack accused (Notorious terrorist Hafeez Sayeed) by Pakistan to India. The United States had declared a reward for anyone who would arrest Hafeez Sayeed, and this was one of the aspects of Dr. Singh's Foreign policy. If he is handed over to India in the coming days, Dr. Singh's government should get the credit. When the then President of Pakistan Mr. Asif Ali Zardari assumed power in 2008, he did not initiate an anti-India policy, and it got the support of the then Army Chief of Pakistan, General Kayani. Had General Kayani not supported Zardari, Pakistan would not have granted India the status of 'Most Favoured Nation', and the business meetings with Pakistan would not have taken place. It was also possible because the Pakistan Army was moderate enough to allow relation building with India. Steps were also taken to ease the VISA processes. It made businesspeople in India get easy access to the Pakistani cities of Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi, Faisalabad, Rawalpindi and Hyderabad. Similar ease was given to Pakistani businesspeople to visit New Delhi, Mumbai, Lucknow, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Chennai. When India was granted the status of 'Most Favoured Nation', there was a feeling in the subcontinent that tensions among the two countries along business lines would get reduced. India had granted this status to Pakistan way back in 1996. But politicians from Pakistan - implying the military - raised the Kashmir issue and did not respond positively. A team of 100 Indian businessmen crossed over to Pakistan via the Wagah Border and hosted an Exhibition of Indian Products at Lahore under the title of 'Made in India'. The people of Lahore gave a phenomenal response to this event. This response indicated that both countries did not have much difference in the culture, tradition and the lifestyle in general. The preferences of people on both sides of the border were similar. Both the countries have developing marketplaces. There were reports that

some Pakistani businesspeople suggested their government to implement a business model like what existed in India. The Pakistani common man was curious to know about the rapidly expanding Indian market. It became necessary for both countries to have relations based on mutual faith, understanding in an honest and clean atmosphere. If talks take place with the burden of history, then they would not lead to peace and progress. Dr. Singh through the easing of the VISA process had displayed some practical diplomatic wisdom. Asif Ali Zardari wanted to visit the Khwaja Moinuddin Dargah at Ajmer for some religious formalities. Thus his India visit was personal. Still, he met Dr. Singh keeping himself in line with the political etiquette and on his part emphasized on smooth relations between the two countries. This event went on only for about 30 minutes. However, both the leaders made it a point to discuss on issues ranging from terrorism, bilateral trade and cricket. But, the significant thing was that Mr. Zardari did not raise the Kashmir issue in the entire proceedings. The change in approach from the Pakistani side was a positive step. Experts on International Affairs say that Dr. Singh should have visited Pakistani at least once in his tenure. Had he done that, it would have made a positive impact on the political instability of the subcontinent. His predecessor Atal Bihari Vajpayee had visited Pakistan twice. One of those visits was after the Kargil War. After the 2008 terrorist attacks on Mumbai, diplomacy between the two countries came to a standstill. But according to these experts, he should have visited Pakistan after the situation turned normal. However what is not understood here is the sudden turn of events in Pakistan in 2012. The situation in Pakistan became highly unstable when The Supreme Court ordered Mr. Gilani to relinquish the Prime Minister's position. There were unofficial reports which indicated that Asif Ali Zardari was planning to flee the nation. Under those circumstances, any treaties or agreements with Pakistan would have clashed with the fall of their civilian government and the military takeover that would have followed later.

After the terrorist attacks of 2008 and the diplomatic deadlock that followed, the United States proposed India to hold talks with both the civilian government as well as the military chief of Pakistan. This proposal was rejected by India as it was not practical to hold discussions with two different constitutional bodies of the same country. But the BJP continued to step up its attack on Dr. Singh after Pakistani soldiers beheaded some Indian soldiers on the border and the issue of Indian prisoner in Pakistan Sarabjit Singh. The BJP and the media created a scenario where it seemed obvious that a war between India and Pakistan was just about a week away. The leader of the opposition Ms. Sushma Swaraj made an inflammatory and impractical statement stating that if Pakistan beheads one Indian soldier, India should respond back by beheading ten of their soldiers. The situation turned normal in some days. However, owing to the naive approach of the BJP towards Pakistan and the internal political pressures, Dr. Singh could not visit Pakistan until the end of his tenure. Though Dr. Singh could not visit Pakistan in his entire tenure, he could establish relations with countries like China, Japan, United States, Russia, European Union and also summits like ASEAN, G-20, G-8 and BRICS. These relations were on the lines of business, economy, defence and culture. The foundation of these relations is so strong that in the years to come India's economic growth will get a huge boost and India will play a significant role in International Politics. On 4th November 2013, Dr. Singh addressed the senior officials of the Foreign Ministry and guided them with the future roadmap of India's Foreign Policy on five major principles. In one of the summits at Bandung, Jawaharlal Nehru had put forward the principles of 'Panchsheel'. On similar lines, Dr. Singh underlined the following five principles: 1. Make the International situation conducive to India's growth and development so that there are security and aid for Indians living abroad.

2. Increase India's participation in the economic progress of the world. 3. Build stable, long lasting relations with neighbouring countries and superpowers and with their help generate economic development and security at the global level. 4. Emphasize on the powers of regional organizations and to firmly build democratic institutions. 5. To envelope India's foreign policy with India's diversity, secularism and liberal democratic values These five values displayed a clear picture of India's economic abilities before the International community as the world entered the second decade of the 21st century. Through them, they emphasized that foreign policy cannot stand on the principles of aggression. It also stressed that differences with neighbouring China and Pakistan could be resolved through the process of dialogue and modern day foreign policy has no place for war. Moreover, India could not afford a war of any kind as it was a part of the globalization process. Hence Dr. Singh gave an indication to all his successors that whether it was China or Pakistan, opening doors for newer and deeper economic ties was a necessity and disputes, if any, would be resolved strictly through talks. Countries like China and Pakistan also have economic issues of their own. People in those countries also do not desire war and want peace and progress. He tried to emphasize that India, China and Pakistan were equally equipped with military might, nuclear capability and modern technology and they were capable of facing each other in times of crisis. Hence after assuming power, Dr. Singh made it a point to visit the pending Border agreement with China. This agreement, which was pending since the past two decades, finally came into a form in 2005. It made China mellow its expansionist policy while dealing with India. The issue of Arunachal Pradesh went to the sidelines temporarily. China also took steps in ensuring the strengthening of economic ties with India. In 2013, Dr. Singh again visited China to strengthen this agreement further. Both countries agreed that border disputes and

economic cooperation were two separate issues. Later in May 2013, the then Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiyang visited India. Before he could meet Dr. Singh, the Chinese army intruded into the 'Daulat beg oldi' area of Ladakh, and it soared the political temperatures in the country. On the background, the meet with the Chinese Prime Minister assumed huge significance. This was Li's first foreign visit after assuming the Prime Minister's office in March, the same year. That he chose India for his visit was significant because it indicated that China wanted economic cooperation and peace with India under the changing International circumstances. China saw in India a rising economic superpower, and it wanted to solve all problems with India by dialogue and discussions, and not through the military option. Li's visit was decided way before the Ladakh incident. Still, the media did not show restraint in handling this issue. It was stretched to such an extent that many political pundits claimed that as China had backstabbed India in 1962, it was essential for India to retaliate using military might. The Indian media, especially the electronic media is ignorant about Indo-China and Indo-Pak relations. They are not aware that relations between any two countries are not based only on the position taken by their respective political leaders. It is also based on direct and indirect effects of historical and geographical factors, the expectations of the ordinary people in both the countries, the business and trade scenario, governmental relations, economic and cultural relations and also the International 'pressure building' of larger economic powers. But the media is not interested in such an analysis. Rather, the media ensures that its viewers remain ignorant, reactive and entertain themselves through the news content. Hence even on serious International issues, the content displayed in the media is over-reactive and entertaining. The media increased the sentiment of hate across the country on the issue of Sarabjit Singh. Later, however, it was found out that Sarabjit was deliberately attacked by the Pakistani Army and some anti-India factions within the ISI so that a strong sentiment of hatred develops and spreads in India.

The media also showed its intellectual bankruptcy in political issues. Mulayam Singh Yadav, who was once the Defense Minister of the country, made a statement that China was India's traditional enemy and played his part in raising the 'patriotic' sentiment in the country. Late Ms. Jayalalitha has also made statements on the issue of Tamils in Sri Lanka. West Bengal leader Ms. Mamta Banerjee has many times spoken on the subject of Tista river water sharing with Bangladesh. None of these leaders frame the country's foreign policy. The Constitution has made independent provisions regarding the foreign policy issues and has granted special duties to the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the Armed Forces Hence it is not appropriate for these leaders to make statements affecting the country's foreign policy. In the context of a superpower like China, it becomes all essential to have a cautious and careful approach while framing the foreign policy. The China of today is not only an Asian superpower but a powerhouse that is seen challenging the United States on economic and military might. It has achieved substantial progress in Space Research and has equipped itself with a nuclear arsenal. To strain relations with such a country is not advisable for India. In this era of Globalization, the emphasis is on occupying a country's marketplace by business rather than using the military to acquire land. As China followed its economic expansion policy, it never attacked any of its neighbours. China shares its border with many countries because of the larger area it possesses. However, it solved its border disputes with its neighbours by way of talks. Dr. Singh was aware that it was not practical to refer to the war of 1962. It was also not feasible to apply the McMahon line drawn by the British. He was also aware that India did not accept China's stand on Aksai Chin and China did not take India's stand on Arunachal Pradesh and under these circumstances war should never be an option. Moreover, China wanted to be supreme in the digital world owing to its possession of the power of information technology. Hence, it wanted to build strong relationships with India and the United States. In 2002, the trade between India and China was 5 billion dollars, and that reached 75

billion dollars in 2011. Dr. Singh tried to take this figure to 100 billion dollars. In the end, he stressed on keeping business relations intact and detached them from the border issues. If business ties between the two countries are strong, then it becomes binding on them to keep their overall relations intact. Hence, there was a considerable positive change in the mutual relations between India and China in the ten years of Dr. Singh's tenure.

India-United States Relations Dr. Singh's relationship with the United States while signing the nuclear deal came under heavy criticism. He had frequently appealed to the Left parties to move on from the ‘Cold War era' and their rigid ideological approach. He stressed that India is an upcoming superpower and to fulfil the needs and ambitions of its people; it was necessary to get access to the United States marketplace. Dr. Singh's pro-United States policy was in fact a process of the changing thoughts within the Congress. During the Cold War, India and the United States did not have any cordial relations. But after the end of the Cold War, American Presidents from Bill Clinton to George Bush and Barak Obama were instrumental in generating friendly ties with India. The two countries entered into agreements on the issue of economy and defence. After the attacks on the World Trade Center, Terrorism became the most important priority in the United States Foreign Policy, and the continent of Asia found a particular space. At the start of the 21st century, the Asia was engulfed by Border conflicts, ethnic struggles, wars, nationalism, nuclear armament and human rights violations. Hence the United States started to develop relations with India to have control over these issues. Atal Bihari Vajpayee called the United States a natural ally, and there were many agreements signed between the two countries. Dr. Singh approached the United States on three major issues. To check the expansionist policies of China, to encounter International terrorism and to fulfil the growing energy needs. Former United States President Barak Obama gave a historic speech in the Indian Parliament on November 8, 2010. He had said, India as a power has "already emerged" on the world scene. The close relationship between the U.S. and India "will be one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century". The U.S., "not only welcomes India as a rising global power, we fervently support it and we have helped to make it a reality".

In the two tenures of Barack Obama as the President of the United States (and when Dr. Singh was the Prime Minister), four major issues occupied center-stage in Indo-United States round of talks. Those were the nuclear deal, retail marketing, and developments in the insurance sector and the purchase of armaments. When Dr. Singh visited the United States in 2013, the latter designated India a status of its 'closest defence ally', a status which is enjoyed only by Britain and Japan. It confirmed the fact that India became an important partner of the United States and a regional power in South Asian politics. The United States felt the need to think of India's security concerns while pulling out its troops from Afghanistan. India had many times expressed concern over the possible threat to her security post the withdrawal of American forces, scheduled in 2014. There was a feeling that factional terror groups would regroup in Afghanistan and start their terrorist activities. The United States could not deny India's role in rebuilding Afghanistan. Hence the achievement of Dr. Singh's foreign policy was that the United States not only cooperated economically with India but also assisted in International developments and politics.

Relations with the ASEAN nations Dr. Singh continued with the 'Look East' policy of former Prime Minister Indra Kumar Gujral, which involved the South Asian countries. The trade through the South China Sea was critical for countries like China, Japan, Indonesia, Philippines and even Australia. Hence concerns were raised over attempts in establishing strategic supremacy over this route. To check the expansionist policies of China, the United States had started to exert its influence in South Asian politics, and this was in one way good news for India's trade in that region. The ASEAN was constituted in 1967, and the countries involved then were Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Later they incorporated India, China, United States and Japan as 'Dialogue Partners.' It was because the ASEAN countries could sense the business and strategic supremacy of China in the region and they expected cooperation from India and the United States to counter this. Supremacy over the sea routes has always been a conflict issue in International politics. The continent of Asia has a vast region of seas and oceans. Hence politics in this region has always revolved around trade and strategic supremacy. In the two decades after 1990, the Chinese economy developed its innate potentials and entered the United States marketplace and eventually started threatening the US economy. As a result, it also started looking for newer markets and hence began to establish its regional supremacy. But challenges continued to come from the United States and India. The 'look east' policy had yielded trade for India in the South China Sea region, and India had begun to develop trade relations with many of the South Asian nations. India was soon getting recognized as an influential nation in the South Asian region. Prime Minister Gujral's trade diplomacy never caused any concern or threat to any of the South Asian countries, and hence in spite of India not being a part of ASEAN, it was awarded the status of a 'dialogue partner.' Around the

same time, China claimed its rights on a few islands in the South China Sea and tried destabilizing peace in the region. There were attempts were made to counter these expansionist policies of China. The United States recognized this instability. When Barak Obama became the United States President for a second term, he made it a point to visit Myanmar, Thailand and Philippines. In these visits, Mr. Obama promised to increase trade relations and defence cooperation with these countries. These steps were sure to generate a feeling of concern in China. To counter these economic intrusions by the United States, the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao met Dr. Singh and expressed China's desire to invest in the Information Technology, Pharmaceuticals and Service sectors of the Indian Economy. As against these investments, he had promised to offer more incentives to Indian goods in the Chinese market. The South China Sea provided an advantage for China to increase its trade with India. These relations made China counter the influence of the United States and the ASEAN countries. Similarly, it was possible for them to enter the Japanese and South Korean marketplaces. The export of mineral oil and other commodities to South Korea takes place via the South China Sea and hence the rising power of China was a concern to the ASEAN countries as well. Hence to make sure that China does not acquire supremacy, the ASEAN countries continued to rely on the United States and India. They were confident that China's economic program could go against the United States, but not India's. Hence the United States and India were included in the ASEAN forum. A 'trade pressure group' was formed within the forum. However, the real motive of these pressure groups is to challenge the growing supremacy of a particular country. However, China was also made a 'dialogue partner' in the ASEAN and the principle reason for this was a hope that once business relations with China increase, it would reduce the conflicts and differences in the region. Trade helps establish people- to-people contact and reduces the possibilities of war. In his ten years as a Prime Minister, Dr. Singh established cordial relations with the ASEAN nations on an economic front and portrayed India as an economic powerhouse. By 2011, the

trade of India with the ASEAN countries was around 146 billion dollars. This region can further develop into a 'free trade zone' shortly and will be one of the busiest areas of business. In his second innings as Prime Minister, Dr. Singh emphasized on developing cordial relations with Japan. This decision had included a vision. India was in need of foreign investment considering its Economic condition. Apart from that, it also required power in large quantities. Many important agreements were proposed with Japan. Significant of them were the ones related to nuclear technology and transfer of nuclear reactors. Japan as a country had provided aid to India on economic terms. It also had cooperated on a large scale in providing technology to the different businesses, power projects, transport, roads and electronic sectors of the country. To this list was added the aid to develop the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor. The Delhi Metro Rail ran on Japanese Technology and agreements were made to use this technology for setting up Metro rail network in other cities of the country. During the Second World War, the conflict between China and Japan intensified, and there was a growing opposition from the International community against the Imperialist Government of Japan and Communist Republican government of China. Jawaharlal Nehru fiercely opposed these developments. Nehru insisted that a conflict among Asian countries would be detrimental to the peace, stability and progress in the region. Hence, his emphasis was on all Asian countries developing cordial relations. While establishing ties with China and Japan, Dr. Singh had maintained a delicate balance and gave importance to economic development. Keeping India away from issues related to the South China Sea was an achievement of his foreign policy. The five-point plan based on the values of economic cooperation, civilian dialogue, mutual trust and development was the modern face of India's Foreign Policy. This policy also had a framework of pluralism, diversity, secularism and liberalism - the values associated otherwise with the Indian way of life. Dr. Singh put forward these values with confidence and self-respect, and the International

community reciprocated well. His policy had a beautiful confluence of realism and idealism.

Loss of Confidence within the Congress Political Science talks of ‘Individualist Anarchism' where an individual or a group of people continue to spread anarchy without getting bothered by government agencies, ethics, values, religion, etc. This anarchy has a potential to topple the strongest of administrations. On these lines, a nationwide chaos rendered a political party powerless; a party that had a history of over 125 years and was in power for over 60 years in the country after independence. It was the Congress Party. It was not that the Congress did not have any experience of handling an anarchic situation. But the anarchy that began in 2010 was aimed to uproot the party entirely! The Congress did not treat the Anna Hazare agitation properly. Rather, the act of arresting Hazare and placing him in Tihar Jail made him a national hero. The electronic media was immediate to pounce on this situation. A strong antiCongress sentiment had already developed in the country. The common man did not approve of this arrest. Hazare had always claimed that his agitation was apolitical, but it was not true. The Sangh Parivar was very active in setting the stage for Hazare. Hazare's intentions were to generate an anti-Congress sentiment among the people. He made use of his innocent and honest (?) image to create a challenge to the government. As the whole issue involved TRP, the media coverage gave it a political angle. In fact, all agitations take place with a political calculation in mind. Hence all political parties pounced on the government's decision of arresting Hazare and later all of them, including the Left and the BJP, became a part of the agitation. It was a clear indication that the unrest was now harbouring an anti-Congress sentiment Sensing this anti-Congress sentiment, Dr. Singh alleged that the BJP was conspiring for mid-term elections in the country by creating this instability. However, it was not only the BJP that was creating uncertainty and an anarchic situation in the country. Before this

agitation, many political parties including the Congress, the BSP, the NCP and the DMK were responsible for this anarchy! There was a complete lack of coordination everywhere. Under these circumstances, Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev found themselves gathering support from a large section of people. The Congress Party won 206 seats in the year 2009, which made many leaders within the party adopt a complacent attitude. They began to claim and boast that the Congress would go on to win an absolute majority in the general elections of 2014. But their feet were way above the ground as they could not realize that they had lost contact with the people. Around the same time, the media began to call Rahul Gandhi by names like ‘Yuvraj', ‘Prince' or even descriptions like ‘the upcoming Prime Minister.' The media showered praises on him when he travelled through the Mumbai Local Trains in 2010. The media then described him as the leader of the youth and an emerging India. The Congress party did not have any team that could project itself on Facebook. Neither did they have any community pages on any Social Networking Website. But the media upheld Rahul's conversation with the youth. However, lady luck deserted Rahul and the Congress in such a quick succession that within a year, Dr. Singh and the Congress had to encounter an intense hate campaign that targeted their character. These attacks comprised of Fascist tendencies and were so full of hatred and malice that the sentiment of discontent against the Congress soon developed into hatred and revenge! This campaign went on to distort historical facts, created hatred towards Jawaharlal Nehru and began to circulate morphed images of Mahatma Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Dr. Singh, P. Chdambaram, Kapil Sibbal, Digvijay Singh and list of other Congress leaders. This campaign generated a feeling of mistrust and confusion towards prominent Congress leaders that ultimately made way towards hatred. The party workers of Narendra Modi's BJP and the ‘Swayamsevaks' of the RSS captured the Social Media that comprised of Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp and this further eroded the confidence within the Congress.

However, things would have been different had the Congress decided to face these allegations. But it did not happen. Senior Journalist Mr. Kumar Ketkar - who has observed politics closely for the past 45 years – says, ‘Things would have been difficult for the opposition had the government took the Jan Lokpal Bill and their credibility to the masses. The BJP wanted a paralysed government but did not favour early elections. However, though the government's credibility was on a decline, BJP's credibility was not on the rise. The Communists were also in a broken state. Under these circumstances, a direct approach to the people would have punctured the rising anarchy as well as the Anna Hazare agitation. The Opposition parties were not for early elections either. Though Lal Krishna Advani demanded early elections on one occasion, his claim did not find any support from the BJP and the Sangh Parivar. It was because they wanted to set the stage for the 2014 general elections by proving the government inefficient and by indulging in character assassination of Dr. Singh. They also wanted to land Mrs. Gandhi in trouble and obstruct Rahul Gandhi's positive interaction with people. The BJP felt that the year 2014 was within their reach for power. However, they would have agreed for early elections in case the anti-Congress sentiment and the sentiment against the government credibility would have increased as per their expected rate.' Senior Journalist M. J Akbar wrote a column in the Times of India titled ‘ Three Mistakes of the Congress' on 23rd February 2014. According to him the Congress should have elevated Dr. Manmohan Singh as the country's President and made Pranab Mukherjee the Prime Minister. It would not have benefited the BJP. Mukherjee being a seasoned politician would have held all coalition partners of the Congress. Mr. Akbar also went on to suggest another option wherein the Congress could have made the then Lok Sabha Speaker Ms. Miera Kumar the Prime Minister. It would have brought the Dalits – the traditional vote bank of the Congress - closer to the party and targeted criticism of Ms. Kumar could have boomeranged on the BJP. Mr. Akbar further stated that after the defeat of the Congress in

the Assembly Elections of 5 states (in 2013), elevating P. Chidambaram or Ms. Kumar as the Prime Minister would have significantly changed the electoral equations. Politics allows you to put forward the theory of ‘ifs and buts' after the concerned incident has taken place. The Congress had lost confidence due to the Anna Hazare agitation and also because some of its ministers had to resign in the wake of corruption charges. Under these circumstances, it would be unfair to blame Dr. Singh for not handling the politics around him. The developments in Delhi were with an intention to target Dr. Singh. They came with an extreme element of jealousy towards him, and they had a full support of the establishment. This establishment consisted of people from the Congress party as well! In this background, asking Dr. Singh to resign would have implied an indirect agreement with this propaganda. Moreover, it would also have angered the set of voters that believed in Dr. Singh and the Congress. Many intellectuals had begun to complain that Hazare's agitation had adopted a non-constitutional path. They also claimed that such non-constitutional ways ultimately disrupt the very existence of democratic institutions. Sunil Khilnani, one of the leading intellectuals and author of ‘The Idea of India' says, ‘Our own history has long been a contest between central power and more local aspirations. This is inevitable in a nation as large and as complex as ours, and especially since we are a democracy. The important thing is that such challenges should be within the structures of democratic politics – and should not use violence or extraparliamentary means. Given the new types of differences and challenges, we certainly need all parties to avoid advocating religious or regional animosity and division. I hope our political parties and their leadership are able to recognize that trying to use sectarian appeals to further their immediate goals always tends to backfire in the long run, and to weaken the system as a whole. I believe we can overcome such crises if we remain true to our founding principles. These principles – of respect for diversity and for

differences of opinion and belief – were not merely idealistic: they were deeply pragmatic, since they were based on recognition that any attempt to impose uniformity or a single religion, language or culture on Indians would lead to violence and to the breakdown of the idea of India.' Senior Congress leaders had realized this conflict and were aware that the strategy of exiting Dr. Singh would boomerang on the party. Dr. Manmohan Singh remained in the system as a ‘Yogi'. Team Anna did not make any personal corruption allegation on him. (However Team Anna, the media persons and intellectuals questioned how he overlooked the corruption that took place around him) It was because no one in the Team had the collective morality to challenge him. Hence, despite the anarchy around, the system remained intact. Otherwise, it would have collapsed like the Soviet Union. Additionally, the RSS-blessed agitation of Hazare and the image maligning strategies of the BJP had only one common feeling jealousy. This jealousy was towards Dr. Manmohan Singh and also towards Sonia Gandhi. Under these circumstances, Senior Congress leaders would have thought of not changing the Prime Minister, so that history would remember Dr. Singh as someone who brought back the derailed economy. Another reason of not changing the Prime Minister was the collapse of Hazare's agitation in the next two years. There was a split in their team, and people too lost interest in the movement. The media also failed to generate a consistent TRP. Zoya Hasan, in her book ‘Congress after Indira – Policy, Power and Political Change', says There was a significant difference in the way of working of UPA-1 and UPA-2. During the former, the Congress had secured only 145 seats and had formed the government on the basis of a ‘Common Minimum Program' with the support of the Left Parties. The Central Point of the Common Minimum Program was Social welfare, and through it, the Congress party was in constant touch with its allies. Conflicting Issues were handled with talks and discussions. Because Sonia Gandhi was the chairperson of UPA-1, many economic programs were carried out by her support. The agenda consisted of the market-

oriented economic programs of Dr. Singh and Welfare oriented programs of Sonia Gandhi. Hence the government had not become weak in terms of administration. Even if the decisions faced delays, they were implemented due to pressure politics. On the other hand, during UPA-2, there was no political pressure of the allies on the Congress. However, when the corruption allegations began, the BJP tried to trap the government in the Parliament. The BJP had decided not to allow the Parliament to proceed. Hence many important bills like Food Security, Land Acquisition, and Women Reservations were stuck in Parliament without any discussion. There were two factions within the government on the issues of economic policies. And these factions experienced a great degree of difference in opinion. The neoliberal faction within the Congress was opposed to the policies that were aimed to keep the poor and those below the poverty line at the center stage. This faction aimed economic decisions on the basis of GDP, Current Account Deficit and the Development Index. This factional conflict gave rise to an inconsistency within the government. When the rate of development slowed down and foreign investors and the corporate lobby began to criticize the government, this intraparty conflict again surfaced. The Neo-liberals felt that for the government to take up social welfare programs, it was essential to speed up the economic reforms. Attempts like these were made by leaders like Pranab Mukherjee and P. Chidambaram.' In April 2013, senior Congress leader Digvijay Singh openly endorsed the ‘two power centre' theory mentioned in Hasan's book. According to him, the weakness in the style of working, the stagnant economic development and the delay in decision making was because the government was not centralized. The government, according to him, could not reflect the decisions taken by Sonia Gandhi. He also said that if one person occupies the position of the Prime Minister as well as the Congress Party President, the government will work with more consistency and competency. The struggle between the party and the government was thus made public. However, Dr. Singh and Mrs. Gandhi refuted the existence of such a conflict. The Congress party clarified that there wouldn't be any change in the working combination

that existed then. In reality, there were no examples of any difference of opinion between Dr. Singh and Sonia Gandhi in the ten years of the UPA. However, the BJP was always ready to pounce on such statements. The media was also a part of such gossips. But Sonia Gandhi's initiatives like MGNREGA and Food Security were accepted by the government without any opposition. On the other hand, the Indo-United States nuclear deal was the result of the efforts of Dr. Manmohan Singh. During the 2009 elections, Sonia Gandhi projected Dr. Singh as the Prime Ministerial face of the Congress party. After the formation of UPA-2, Sonia Gandhi declined to head the National Advisory Council. However, she could not resign from that position. But in 2009, it was Ajit Jogi who undertook a signature campaign within the Congress party to appeal Sonia Gandhi to become the Prime Minister. Mrs. Gandhi severely opposed this campaign. In any case, an important point is missed by many when this ‘two power centres' theory comes up for discussion. If the rate of development slowed down because of multiple power centres, how did the country consistently grow at a rate of around 8% from 2004 till 2010? On 19th November 2010, on the occasion of late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Birth Anniversary, Sonia Gandhi firmly said: ‘The issue of fairness is important in any democratic society. Islands of prosperity in a sea of deprivation can only give rise to storms of conflict and instability. The story of India's contrast is well known: ability, aspiration and achievement coexist with injustice, inequity and inequality. We have more millionaires than ever before, alongside millions who struggle for two square meals a day. The Right to Information, Right to Work, Right to Education and the proposed Right to Food Security represent a landmark shift in our approach to issues of welfare and human development. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister a new architecture of social provisioning is being put in place. We in India will continue to work towards a consensus for a social democracy that will truly ameliorate the lives of our people.' In the same seminar, Dr. Manmohan Singh quoted Karl Marx and said ‘no battle of ideas has ever been won on a battlefield. It is in the

minds of men that the seeds of material change are sowed.' He further said: ‘Indiraji's call for ‘growth with social justice' defined the concept of social democracy for my generation. We understood that the two must go together – the search for growth and the search for social justice. The experience of other countries, especially in Europe, tells us that government over-reach and fiscal over commitment can sometimes lead to economic crises. Our government has strengthened the foundations of inclusive growth. The historic and revolutionary rural employment guarantee program that we owe to Soniaji's inspired vision has been acknowledged around the world as a powerful instrument of social justice in a backward economy.' All this was enough to get convinced that the ideology of Dr. Singh and Sonia Gandhi was on the same plane. This was one of the best examples to notice that Dr. Singh and Mrs. Gandhi were ideologically on the same plane. The media often had its focus on the ‘Two Power Center' theory to fulfil its news content. However, an unusual drama took place in Delhi on 2nd October 2013. The Supreme Court delivered a decision that Members of Legislative Assemblies and Parliament who have a criminal record should be disqualified from their membership and should not be allowed to contest elections. The government decided to introduce an ordinance to change this decision. Dr. Singh then was on a visit to the United States and was to meet President Barack Obama and the then Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari. Meanwhile, all political parties ranging from the BJP to the Communists remarked that this decision of the Supreme Court is very harsh and impractical. The allies of the government were also of the same opinion. However, there was still some time for this new ordinance to get transformed into a law. So if any Member of Parliament or Legislative Assembly would have got convicted in any of the cases and would have got punished for a term more than two years, he/she would have packed his/her bags and gone home! Moreover, in two months from this incident, elections were scheduled in five legislative assemblies, and it would have been

difficult for him/her to contest those. Further to this, Lok Sabha elections were to take place in 2014. The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance was in trouble on two fronts. All its allies had left. Additionally, people's anger was on the rise. There were fears that the government would collapse anytime and hence, maintaining a stable government until the end of its term was going to be rope walking act! And at the backdrop of this rope walking, the government introduced this ordinance and tried to checkmate the decision of the Supreme Court. Had the President signed the ordinance, the members of Parliament facing allegations upon them would have got a chance to vote in the Parliament. It would have even become easy for them to contest elections. But soon this Ordinance turned controversial. The Opposition Parties that had expressed support towards the Ordinance went against it. The media also began to attack the government on this issue. The general public opinion went against the government. Though Dr. Singh was in the United States, he was aware that this Ordinance would generate anger within the people. But as the government was a Coalition, he had to follow the ‘Coalition Dharma.' Soon there were discussions that this Ordinance was to save Lalu Prasad Yadav. (The Judiciary had sentenced imprisonment for Lalu Prasad Yadav regarding the fodder scam case) and it became a convention that the government is trying to shield corrupt politicians. All these events gave rise to a highly melodramatic sentiment. The Opposition parties (especially the BJP) took a position against the Ordinance. However, they conveniently kept mum about the nature of the Ordinance. The people tuned themselves to their favourite dialogue of ‘all politicians are alike.' Rahul Gandhi entered the melodrama by stating that this Ordinance should have its place in the dustbin. Soon, there was an explosion in the media and there was a sentiment that Rahul Gandhi had insulted the Prime Minister (as the latter was preparing himself for talks with the United States President Barack Obama and the then Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari). The media created a sentiment of ‘Rahul v/s the government'; ‘Rahul v/s Dr. Singh' and ‘Rahul v/s the party spokesperson.' Speculations were

on the rise about this sudden outrage of Rahul Gandhi. Some people felt that this was a sudden outbreak of temper while some felt it was an example of smart politics. Some even felt that this was an act of immaturity! For some, Rahul had stamped his self –esteem over others. But the larger question of government making its way out of the situation remained. However, it can be said that Rahul saved the government from further embarrassment. This Ordinance would have resulted in a new argument between the President and the Prime Minister. Speculations were rife that disagreements between Dr. Manmohan Singh and Pranab Mukherjee had surfaced to public levels. These developments would have given rise to a sentiment that Mr. Mukherjee tried to generate a trap for Dr. Singh. Similarly, the feeling that Congress encourages corrupt and criminal politicians would have intensified. Rahul Gandhi's interruptions hence saved Dr. Manmohan Singh from further traps. However, the media was soon to pounce on the ‘Gandhi family v/s the government' debate. But no one from the media acknowledged that Rahul Gandhi had taken the right step. Rahul later declared that opposing the Ordinance was his opinion. But to say that Dr. Singh was weak in this entire episode was meaningless. When Dr. Singh returned from the United States, Rahul went and met him personally, and the situation calmed down. But these were not the reasons for the weakening of the Congress. The party suffered major jolts because of Arvind Kejriwal and Narendra Modi. The political vacuum that had developed due to Anna Hazare's agitation gave rise to two new faces in Indian politics. They were Arvind Kejriwal and Narendra Modi. The country was aware of the Fascist tendencies of the latter since the dreadful riots of 2002. The BJP also wanted to bypass Lal Krishna Advani and search a new leader as their Prime Ministerial candidate. The party experienced an internal tussle in this entire issue. This fight resulted in the then President Nitin Gadkari's resignation on account of financial irregularities and this further smoothened the path of Modi. However, Narendra Modi was no official Prime Ministerial candidate then. But

due to his constant propagation through Social Media, his regular tours and also because of the internal developments within the BJP, he had developed an audience in the country, and they had developed a curiosity and expectation from him. The media had already created a ‘superman like image' of him. Additionally, his slogan of a ‘Congress Mukt Bharat' attracted many neo-voters along with the then existing BJP voters, to him. The media also created the ‘Angry Young Man' image of Arvind Kejriwal and made it reach the common people. His ‘Aam Aadmi Party' ran a government in Delhi for 49 days and managed to generate a significant sympathy. The middle class developed a curiosity towards Kejriwal. They felt that he could change the established politics in the country. This feel further accelerated the anti-Congress wave in the country. On 5th March 2012, Assembly Elections took place in the five states Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Goa, Manipur and Uttarakhand. The Congress managed to win Manipur and Uttarakhand. However, these victories could not generate confidence in an already punctured party. The party lost very badly in Uttar Pradesh. It had projected around 70 seats in the state but could manage only 28. The state of Uttar Pradesh experienced a Tsunami of Mulayam Singh Yadav-ledSamajwadi Party. By bagging 224 seats, they drove off the Congress, the BJP and the BSP. The feeling till now was that the country principally revolves around the Congress and the BJP. However, these results slammed that generalization. Rahul Gandhi had concentrated on Uttar Pradesh on an individual basis. However, his efforts did not bear fruits. These results proved that the Congress party did not have any voter base in the State (though they had increased their previous tally by eight seats). The party failed to assemble dedicated party workers in the State. Sonia Gandhi later made it clear that the situation had resulted because of the general lack of enthusiasm among the Congress workers and dispensing candidature to wrong candidates. But in the Assembly Elections of 21 states from 2009 to 2013, the Congress could secure a total of 177 seats and lost 86 seats. As against this, the BJP could win only 46 seats and lost a whopping 133

of them! Statistically, the Congress had secured a gain of 91 seats while the BJP had lost 87 seats. In the Karnataka Assembly Elections of 2013, the Congress scored an absolute majority by securing 122 seats whereas the BJP could secure only 40! But the Congress could not project this victory in the media. They also did not relate this to the failure of the Anna Hazare agitation. The media too ignored this victory by the Congress. In April 2012, after these elections, Rahul Gandhi travelled to the drought affected districts of Maharashtra. The media reported that he spent only two and half hours in the region. The media even criticized Sachin Tendulkar's nomination as a Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament by the Honourable President of India. Sections of the media stated that this was not an appropriate step. They applied an absurd logic in questioning why the names of Sunil Gavaskar and Kapil Dev did not feature before Sachin's name. However, under these circumstances, the Congress never appointed any expert spokesperson to defending its position. Their existing spokespersons were no match for the fast changing abilities of the electronic media. As compared to the BJP, the Congress spokespersons lacked those essential gimmicks required for debates on the television screen. Leaders with unmoved facial expressions and body language were hence incapable of entering into a conversation with viewers. The Ministers in the Central Government also had lost contact with the media persons. The Congress leaders also could not sum up the courage to challenge the figures mentioned in the unearthed scams During the UPA-2, Dr. Singh, Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi were away from the media and the people. No leader in the Congress party was aware to acknowledge the growing power of the media houses. However, on 9th May 2012, Congress President Sonia Gandhi was stern while addressing the party workers. Her silence till then had resulted in a state of confusion, restlessness and surprise within the party. After the party's defeat in the state of Uttar Pradesh and the municipal corporations of Delhi and Mumbai, it looked evident that the party was incapable of winning elections. On one end Rahul Gandhi had declared that he would form a network of One Crore Congress

party workers across the country. However, on the other end, the party's defeat in Uttar Pradesh was enough to contradict this. Sonia Gandhi instructed the party workers to stop indulging in group politics. However, the reality was that the Congress was composed of many groups within itself and all of them looked down at each other. It had its effects on the party's performance in the Assembly Elections of 5 states in 2013. The Congress party had lost badly in Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Rajasthan and Delhi. In Delhi, the Aam Aadmi Party led by Arvind Kejriwal defeated the Congress (the Congress secured only eight seats with the defeat of its Chief Minister Ms. Shiela Dixit) The Aam Aadmi Party lacked a certain program and vision and also did not possess a prominent organizational base. But it still secured a record number of seats which was a testimony to the discontent among the people against the Congress. Going by past performance, people of Delhi had accepted Shiela Dixit's leadership and acknowledged her role in the state's development. However, the discontent against the Center had resulted in her defeat. The Central Government and the State Government function from the same place. So it was expected that the discontent against the Center would get transferred to discontent against Ms. Dixit. In the state of Rajasthan, the Congress had introduced many welfare schemes like free/cheap medical services, food security and pension. But all this did not help as the Congress leaders had lost communication with people. The people now no longer have food, clothing and shelter as their ‘only' needs. Apart from this, their self-pride and their mutual grievances also need to be addressed. However, the Congress and its party workers were so engrossed in power that they failed to get an indication of the approaching political storm! They failed to check the ‘Ashwamedha' of Narendra Modi. On the other hand, the Aam Aadmi Party could do that in Delhi. The body language of the Congress was enough to convince that they were not ready to fight with a renewed vigour! It became impossible for the government and the Congress party to sustain the political storms it faced from 2010 to 2014. It suffered a country-wide embarrassment due to an improper handling of the

media and a general lack of communication. For example, in Assam, the struggle between the Bodo tribes and the refugee Bangladeshi Muslims intensified due to sharing of false images on Social Media. Facebook and Twitter were full of write-ups that propagated deporting all Bangladesh citizens from India. But the issue was not as simple as its projection on social media. It had many internal angles associated with it. But the BJP-backed Social Media projected it as a Hindu – Muslim conflict and contributed in generating an anti-Congress sentiment in the country. A similar feeling peaked on Social media during the hanging of Afzal Guru and Ajmal Kasab. The former was handed over a death penalty, but soon there was pressure on the government to subject the latter to the same treatment on an immediate basis. Attempts were also made to spoil the relations between India and Pakistan by this issue. Finally, Kasab was subjected to a death penalty, but Social Media started a propaganda that the same was done by the government to reap political benefits. The initiatives like the Right to Information Act, National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, the programs involving the supply of drinking water and associated cleanliness efforts and the waiver of loans on farmers made the UPA-1 shine among the masses. However, the UPA-2 could not cash on its initiatives like Direct Cast Transfer, Land Acquisition, Food Security, Pension Legislation and an Independent State of Telangana.

A Sage called Dr. Singh Dr. Manmohan Singh's Prime Ministerial tenure was for ten years. Jawaharlal Nehru was the Prime Minister for seventeen consecutive years. ( 1947-1964). Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister was sixteen years. The first stretch of her was from 1966 to 1977. The next was from 1980 to 1984. Atal Bihari Vajpayee's tenure was for seven years while Rajiv Gandhi occupied the position for five years. For different reasons, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, V.P Singh, Chandrashekhar, Devegouda and I.K Gujral could not complete their five-year tenure. An Indian Prime Minister's chair is always at a terminal point of a volcanic eruption. This volcano engulfed Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. In the elections of 2004, more than 350 members of Parliament had supported Sonia Gandhi for the Prime Minister's position. But she defined the moment by declining the position and displayed a selfless attitude and qualities of relinquishment. Sushma Swaraj and Uma Bharati had threatened to shave their heads as a mark of 'curse' had Sonia Gandhi become the Prime Minister. But Mrs. Gandhi did not let them implement this nasty declaration. The Share market was also worried about the prospects of Mrs. Gandhi becoming the Prime Minister. The 'Sensex' was so rapid in its collapse that television channels then described it as a 'blood bath.' But Mrs. Gandhi not only exemplified a selfless attitude but also put forward Dr. Manmohan Singh's name for the position. There was a feeling of immense respect in the county towards Dr. Singh. Many BJP leaders privately used to say that Dr. Singh should have belonged to their party. The opposition parties also chose to remain silent for many months against the clean and scholarly image of the Prime Minister. But Dr. Singh had to face many instances in his first five years which ultimately made him politically 'prepared' as a leader. It was a test of his resilience. When the Congress won the elections in 2009, the media was prompt enough to give its credit to

his clean and honest image and his governance. 'Good governance' of Narendra Modi was unheard then. But from 2010 till 2014, the opposition parties and their 'sleeper cells' in the media were so venomous in their criticism of Dr. Singh that anyone else in his position would have given up or would have entered a state of psychological devastation. But Dr. Singh faced this criticism like a Yogi. His mind never suffered any diversion, and with an intense and a matured mental framework Dr. Singh continued his '16 hour a day' work stretch. There were anyone and everyone who was criticizing him without even an iota of respect towards the position of the Prime Minister. But deep down in their heart, Opposition leaders and these journalists conceded the fact the Dr. Singh had not grabbed a single penny for his personal gain. Also, he did not do anything to cause any illegal benefit to his relatives. But these critiques decided to target his greatest strength his character! The BJP, the communists and the media focussed on his character and aimed to render him powerless. They showered allegations that the ministries who Dr. Singh headed had indulged into scams worth crores of rupees. While the judiciary and the CBI were carrying out investigations towards these allegations, these members began to concede that Dr. Singh had got no personal benefit from these transactions. But their intention was to hold him responsible for all the scams and irregularities and eventually make him resign. Dr. Singh was not voluble. He also did not have any lobbying within the media and never even tried to push forward any piece of news through the media for his personal benefit. His way of working resembled the 'Ekla Cholo Re' of Rabindranath Tagore. His qualities of being reticent and soft-spoken were admired and praised at one point. However, they soon became an issue of mockery and laughter in the later years. It was a fact that Dr. Singh, in his tenure of ten years, had delivered around 1400 speeches on various issues and various national and international platforms. However, had the media listened to all those by giving them a patient ear and had broadcasted them for the general public, it would not have entered into a hasty conclusion about him.

Many political opposition leaders went to the extent of saying that Dr. Singh did not have a personality of his own and he preferred dancing on Sonia Gandhi's tunes. During the nuclear deal, the same media went on to say the Dr. Singh had challenged the leadership of Mrs. Gandhi. And the same media raised the issue of 'dual power centres' within the government and continued their allegations on him. Harish Khare, a senior journalist and Dr. Singh's former media consultant, recalls a significant memory through his article in 'The Hindu.' It was against the backdrop of the corruption allegations against Dr. Singh. It reflected Dr. Singh's personality. He says, “It was June 2009. I joined as the media consultant of Dr. Singh. On the very first day of my work, he (Dr. Singh) had a detailed discussion with me that lasted for an hour. After the discussion when I was about to step out of his office, he called me and asked me to sit for a minute. He said, "Harish, I want to tell you one thing. If you notice me taking a decision that would benefit myself, my acquaintances or any of my family members, do let me know about it then and there. Persist with your question even it results in me or my family getting in an uncomfortable situation." But the same Dr. Singh got entangled in the issues of corruption to such an extent that he chose not to respond to the questions raised by the opposition and the media and decided to face the situations as they came to him. The Anna Hazare movement produced many egoist individuals who were filled with jealousy and were motivated by selfish politics. They proclaimed themselves ethical and honest and without any concrete evidence held Dr. Singh responsible for all the irregularities. This 'theory' was placed so well in the political system that eventually the common man of the country also began to believe it was true. Many editors of prominent newspapers went on to make statements that though Dr. Singh is a clean man; he chose to ignore the corruption that was happening right under his nose. But what could be the answers to these statements? People questioned him as to why he did not behave like a dictator and crush every agitation around him. They also questioned him as to why he

did not face the fascism of Narendra Modi through street politics. However, people who ask these questions expect a leadership that compromises on the core democratic values. A Democracy is for the welfare of the citizens. Differences within parties and ideologies are the very basis of democracy. Agitations take place because a section of people finds their demands not getting fulfilled. The answer seekers do not understand this simple point that if these agitations are crushed, then we intend to break the very spirit of democracy. While addressing the All India Congress Committee on 17th January 2014, Dr. Singh described the changing India and said that, "I believe that we have got very little credit as compared to what we have achieved so far. One of the major reasons for this is the rise of expectations among the younger generation of the country and this has happened due to rapid economic development, social change and political empowerment. Large scale exchange of knowledge and thought has become possible due to a surge in the electronic and social media. People expect better performance from the government agencies. They expect a rapid change in the social, economic and political system. Still a large population of the country has lived under poverty and there is no denial to this fact. People of the nation expect a rapid change to this situation. Under these circumstances, there is no surprise that there is a constant pressure upon the government to perform well and provide better facilities and provisions to the people. Corruption is an issue which has gathered a special concern among the people of this country. It is said about our government that we did not undertake serious efforts to tackle corruption. But the reality is that no other government before brought transparency and accountability to the system as we did." The gusty four years of UPA-2 indicated coming of chaos and anarchy in the country. Had Dr. Singh resigned succumbing to the pressure, it would have invited a system collapse, and Indian democracy would have got severely affected. The most experienced person in the house is many times a reason for the house being

cohesive despite differences. But once this qualified person walks away, what remains of the house are the differences, fights and an ugly turn of events. Dr, Singh was aware of these happenings and hence was firm in not resigning from his position. He had the necessary support of Sonia Gandhi. The only fault of theirs in this entire turn of events was that they showed an immense political maturity and instead of resisting these factions chose to maintain harmony with them. Modesty is a temporary quality, and it takes a while to assimilate it wholly in the personality. Hindu philosophy states that a victory over anger, greed and jealousy is a win over the 'self'. Modesty was an integral part of Dr. Singh's personality. However, modesty as quality is neither visible nor measurable. But its absence is easily noticed. On this note, it makes us wonder whether the leaders who opposed Dr. Singh possessed this quality to his extent. And who was to judge the merits of the various news editors, the leaders of the BJP including Narendra Modi, Jayalalitha, Mamta Banerjee and all those who showered allegations upon Dr. Singh? This group, formed after the Anna Hazare movement did not utter a single word against Narendra Modi. What could be the reason for this? After the declaration that he would agitate against corruption, Baba Ramdev decided that he would come to Delhi. Back then, Dr. Singh decided to send four cabinet ministers to the Delhi airport to receive him. The motive behind this decision was honest. It implied that the government was ready to have a discussion with Baba Ramdev on any issue that he would raise. One wonders whether a Chief Minister would have shown such courtesy. Baba Ramdev's image then was of someone who would cheat. The nation later realized that he was double-edged and ambitious. But it was necessary at that stage to display that the government was willing to indulge in talks. And hence, Dr. Singh took a step forward in that direction. Dr. Singh's style of functioning attempted sorting differences without indulging in conflict. He made it a point to listen to his opponent, enter into a discussion and then eventually resolve the issue. Hence in spite of not being a politician, or a lawyer, or a revenue officer, or a

businessman, Dr. Singh could negotiate with others with a clean and honest approach. Was this his strength or his fault? An individual can move away from a refined and dignified approach and drop down to the levels of his/her uncultured and outspoken critics. On the other hand, he/she can maintain dignity, modesty, restraint and respond to critics without getting aggressive or restless. The personality of Dr. Singh always kept the latter approach. Neither was he aggressive, nor he criticized anyone on personal issues in his entire tenure. The (lack of a) politician in Dr. Singh misread the whole agitation of Anna Hazare and the resulting group of people that was its output. He could not figure out the dishonest, sinister, jealous behaviour and the politics of hatred that formed a part of this campaign. He could not understand the thorough understanding these agitators had with the media. Had he been an experienced 'politician', he would have turned the tables of the agitation towards the agitators and would have punctured the entire movement. But he did not do that. He was firm, rock solid and self-collected since the start of the agitation towards its end and faced the entire developments on his own. At the start of his second innings (UPA-2), the Nira Radia tapes were unearthed, and through the 2G Spectrum issue, the corporate lobbying in the country came to light. These thugs of the business world made use of the media to conceal their internal struggles and loot and with the help of civil society hid all the irregularities beneath the false walls of ethics and morality. The civil society was intelligent enough to use the Goebbels technique and glued the people's attention to the political leaders and not towards the corporate world. They targeted the political leaders but did not utter a word against the beneficiaries of this corruption. Dr. Singh tried to take the country on the path of development. But the greedy capitalists sought to grab most of its benefits to themselves by overcoming the democratic values and thus severely affected the economy. But the person who got the blame for this was Dr. Singh! In the decades of 70s and 90s, the country experienced movements that involved large groups of agitators. The Democratic Institutions of the country experienced ruptures, and it seems Dr. Singh got an

indication of history repeating itself. He had a vision that made him aware of those agitations, and it made him convinced that these motives of jealousy and hatred do not last long. Intellectuals like Ramchandra Guha while criticizing Dr. Singh had to say this about him. "He's intelligent, upright, and possesses all these vast experience of working in the government for over four decades," "But the timidity, complacency and intellectual dishonesty will make him a tragic figure in our history." Politics expects us to have a 'reaction for an action' attitude and that remains an essential trick of this trade. However, it is also vitally necessary to nurture a serene and an honest approach to politics. India's political thought process had leaders like Gokhale, Ranade, Gandhi, and Nehru who were particular in nurturing these qualities in the policy. For beyond the political fights and the arithmetic involved in forming a majority, politics functions on ideology. Had it run only on the former, Dr. Singh would not have sustained for all ten years. Sonia Gandhi announced his name for the Prime Minister's position because of the ideology he represented. That he did not have much political understanding was not given importance. She was eager to have a scholar occupy the Prime Minister's chair. She was keen that this chair should be for someone who had an understanding of world affairs and would live up to the dignity and grace associated with the position. It was Mrs. Gandhi's moral responsibility to ensure that there is a feeling of respect for the Prime Minister's position. And she lived up to her responsibility during both the occasions.” There were fear and insecurity all around during the NDA regime. Hence, in 2004, people conferred power to the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance. It was a historic chance for the UPA. For during the NDA, the rift between the country's majority and the minority communities had widened. The riots of 2002 had made even a moderate leader like Atal Bihari Vajpayee feel helpless. It was a serious blot on the 'India Shining' campaign of the NDA. The people decided to keep the NDA out of power, and it was for the first time since 1977 that a government after getting elected had to face such

anger from the people. They wanted a government to behave well and display an honest approach. Dr. Manmohan Singh was an answer to this demand. Many intellectuals allege that because Dr. Singh was not a seasoned politician, he could not recover the downfall of his government's image. What these people say is true. Dr. Manmohan Singh was never a politician. Indira Gandhi used to mingle with people and quickly become a part of them. Rajiv Gandhi had done the same in his tenure. Sonia Gandhi, while introducing a new vigour within the Congress had travelled the length and breadth of the country. Dr. Singh's personality was not of this type. He did not participate in any agitation, and he had not travelled all over the country as a politician. He eventually became an introvert. His tight-lipped approach entered into a state of silence. He was a silent person in the Parliament and kept things to himself. His expressions remained unchanged even during humorous moments in the Parliament. Was this a state of abandonment or a state of 'Sthitpradny' as explained in the ancient Indian philosophy? The latter implies working continuously despite facing opposition and troubles. It was the reason he stood firm when the 2G spectrum and coal blocks allocation issues came knocking his doors. It was also because he was ready to face any questions from the investigating team. But his silence resulted in a loss of connection with the people. People could not judge what was going through his mind. When you do not understand what is going through the mind of a person, a negative feeling stems up. Dr. Singh encountered a similar fate. There is a negative connotation associated with silence. People feel it as being blank or being away from noise and chaos. However, this is a myth. It happens because not many people have experienced silence. However, silence is an altogether different phenomenon. It is very constructive in itself. It has an existence and is a musical flow that is usually unheard. Silence helps a person understand the integral aspect of a situation. Dr. Singh as a Prime Minister faced a lot of things. There were

allegations showered on his government; agitations occurred, and his ministers had to resign. Files from his office began suddenly appeared in the media; the judiciary began to interfere with his government's functioning, a General from the Armed Forces started his high-handed behaviour, the CBI undertook steps to land the government in trouble, his fellow party colleagues backstabbed him, and the media began to broadcast false interpretations. But the 'silent' Dr. Singh got an indication of the jealousy and hatred-filled politics around him. He was able to foresee the policy of anarchy beckoning the country. During the ten years of his tenure as the Prime Minister, Dr. Singh was dignified enough not to name anyone in his criticism. But in his last press conference, he clearly mentioned Narendra Modi and indicated that he possess the potential to divide the country. He stated that the rise of 'Modism' in the country was a threat to the unity, integrity and pluralism of the country. He indirectly wanted to say that Modi did not represent the all-inclusive political ideology of the country. He was not the face of the country. Even though the opposition members stepped up their attack on him, nobody displayed any guts to bring down the government. Dr. Singh was responsible for letting the people know that the Prime Ministerial position can remain clean, honest and dignified by way of selfconduct. In the coming years, whenever there will be any discussion involving the 'image' of the Prime Minister, the person in that position then will be compared with Dr. Singh.

The journey to the Prime Minister's Office The media often ignored Dr. Manmohan Singh's journey from 'Gah', a small village near Islamabad (in pre-partition Pakistan) to 7 Race Course, the Prime Minister's Office. Dr Singh himself was never too keen to speak about it. His media consultant Sanjay Baru says that Dr. Singh never liked the concept of image building. He never liked the idea of people developing sympathy towards his image. After Partition, his family first came to Amritsar. He completed his education at Chandigarh and obtained a scholarship to study, first at Cambridge and later at Oxford, with a degree and PhD respectively. Before enrolling himself for PhD research, he also worked at Cambridge as a professor. He was the youngest student while doing so. While studying at Chandigarh, Gurusharan Kaur entered his life. She was pursuing then her B.A degree. Their association started with a simple introduction which then made way to a deep involvement which later resulted in marriage. Dr. Singh's younger brother Surjit Singh says that theirs was a love marriage. Dr. Singh then possessed a bicycle, and they both used to go for movies at Kiran Cinemas at Chandigarh. This theatre was famous only for playing English films. Around 1950, Dr. Singh decided to join the administrative services. A professor at Cambridge University recommended his name to the then Finance Minister of India, Mr. T.T Krishnamachari. But certain provisions of the Punjab University created hindrances in his joining. Then in 1965, he started working at the 'United Nations Trade Body' (UNCTAD). However, the professional relations between 'UNCTAD' and the Delhi School of Economics pulled him back to Delhi. At Delhi, P.N Haksar and P.N Dhar were the two most influential secretaries to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. In 1971, he entered the Civil Services and joined the Foreign Trade Ministry as an Economic Adviser. Within

a year he was chosen as the Chief Economic Adviser to the Finance Ministry. It is from here that he first started to handle issues concerning inflation. His journey continued, and he became the Finance Secretary and then a member of the Planning Commission. Climbing the professional growth ladder, he then became the Governor of the 'Reserve Bank of India' and eventually the Vice President of the Planning Commission of India. While working at these positions, Dr. Singh had to face many allegations. He was a supporter of the 'Garibi Hatao' campaign of Indira Gandhi. His 'socialist' approach attracted criticism from many. In 1977, Janata Party formed the government and later in 1980 Indira Gandhi again assumed the Prime Minister's Office. Around that time, Dr. Singh was working with Mr. H.M Patel. In 1985 when Rajiv Gandhi became the Prime Minister, he appointed Dr. Singh as the Vice President of the Planning Commission. Dr. Singh drafted the seventh five-year plan. However, Rajiv Gandhi did not endorse the draft. There were certain misunderstandings with Rajiv, which made him accept the secretariat position at the South Commission in Geneva. During his stint at Geneva, he prepared a report that had a roadmap for South Asia to get rid of poverty and develop its resources and business. In this report, he stated that post the Cold War, it was necessary for the developing countries to install economic cooperation to achieve the objective of economic development. To achieve this, he stated that there was a need to liberalize businesses. However, his theory of liberalization attracted criticism from many Economic Experts. The Congress party was trying to move from the Nehruvian Socialism towards Capitalism. Senior Congressmen believed that if they choose the path of capitalism and liberalization then rural India would not vote for them. But Dr. Singh was opposed to this thought. However, this internal struggle within the party did not remain a new thing for him in the later years. In 1998, the Congress Party met at Panchmadi in Madhya Pradesh. While deciding on its economic policy and direction, Mani Shankar Aiyyar intervened and proposed to replace the word 'planned' with 'balanced'. Dr. Singh was seen getting restless for a few minutes after hearing this. He was

then the leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha. He made Mr. Aiyyar remove the word 'balanced.' In May 1991, P.V Narsimha Rao became the Prime Minister after the brutal assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. The World then was experiencing developments that lead to political instability. Soviet Russia had collapsed. The United States had attacked Iraq on the issue of Kuwait. The Indian Economy was directly affected by these incidents. Around the same time, India experienced a collapse in its governments. The first collapse was in November 1990 and the second was in March 1991. The Government under Mr. Chandrashekhar had to mortgage the gold reserves of the country. The nation needed a Finance Minister who could energize the Economy. When Mr. Rao was listing the probable names for his Cabinet, Mr. Naresh Chandra (the Cabinet Secretary) hurriedly presented him a six-page report that described the state of the Indian Economy. Mr. Rao read it and asked Mr. Chandra, "Is the Economic Situation so bad?" Mr. Chandra replied that not only it is bad, but it has dropped many levels which could lead to bankruptcy. Finance Secretary Mr. S.P Shukla and Chief Financial Adviser Mr. Deepak Nayyar were with Mr. Chandra. They told the Prime Minister that there are only two options before the nation; the first was to accept the present situation as it is or the second one, which was of liberalizing the economy. If the government would announce the policy of liberalization, then it would attract criticism of a lesser intensity. However, if the IMF or the World Bank asks us to follow the liberalization path, then we would face more stringent criticism. Post this Mr. Rao started to search for senior leaders within the Congress for the Finance Ministry. He began to search for someone who would have an understanding of the financial issues and someone who could converse with the various Economic institutions in the world. He was also looking for someone who would not dominate the Prime Minister and could be sacked if his policies fail in implementation. P.C Alexander, who was close to Mr. Rao, was given this search responsibility. The former suggested many names and also got

indulged in many political calculations. He approached Mr. I.G Patel who was the former Governor of the Reserve Bank of India. But Mr. Patel refused the offer. Then Dr. Manmohan Singh's name was suggested. Alexander called Dr. Singh over the telephone and asked him if he could be the Finance Minister. Dr. Singh immediately responded with a yes. But there was no communication from Mr. Alexander for the next two days. On Saturday, 22nd June 1992, P.V Narsimha Rao was sworn in as the Prime Minister of the country. Earlier in the day, Mr. Alexander called up Dr. Singh and asked him to come to the 'Rashtrapati Bhavan' by afternoon and get sworn in as the Union Finance Minister. Dr. Singh was the Director of the UGC then. He began working the next day after this ceremony. For the first two days, he worked from home. He organized a press conference on Monday at the Finance Ministry. In the Press Conference, he explained the objectives of his Economic Policies. Next day he met Prime Minister Rao and explained to him that the nation urgently requires 5 billion dollars and for this, we have to take IMF's assistance. Mr. Rao gave him a much needed 'go ahead.' In the elections to the Lok Sabha in 1999, Dr. Singh was given the candidature from the South Delhi constituency. This constituency consisted of a predominately upper-middle-class population. As this class had benefited primarily from the Liberalization policies, it was thought that they would easily vote him to victory. BJP's Vijay Malhotra was the opposition candidate. Congress had won 10 out of 14 seats from this constituency in the State Assembly elections held a year back in 1998. Moreover, the Muslim and Sikh population in this constituency was around 50%. But people from the Congress still considered Dr. Singh as an outsider. Though his administrative and financial achievements were known all over, election calculations were different. Sonia Gandhi personally issued the contesting ticket to Dr. Singh. So the opposition within the party was not prominently seen. The party had sanctioned Rs. 20 lakh for this constituency and in this amount, the MLAs, municipal leaders and party workers were to be handled. However, Dr. Singh was unaware of these

developments. Some businesspeople from Kolkata were eager to come forward and help the party. But Dr. Singh refused to meet them. Some of the party leaders began to pressurize him to accept the funds from these businessmen. These leaders also claimed that the expected expenditure for this constituency could cross the one crore mark. The expenses were to include assembling the party workers, reserving an office space for them, their food costs and also the related banners and posters. But Dr. Singh refused to accept any funds. Some of the party workers would themselves go to Dr. Singh and ask if he would need any help. But he used to reply them stating that their good wishes are enough for him. Some party workers brought an amount totalling seven lakhs of rupees. However, Dr. Singh handed over the entire amount to his wife. (After the elections the full amount was returned) The whole corporate class was with Dr. Singh. Elites like Khushwant Singh, Javed Akhtar personally campaigned for him. But he could not reach the masses. The Congress party ensured his defeat by internal politics, and he lost the elections by 30,000 votes. This defeat was unexpected. But now his party men labelled him as someone who is not a hardcore politician. However, this defeat came as a shock for Dr. Singh and his family. This shock refused to leave him for a year ahead. But Sonia Gandhi again gave him the candidature from Assam for the Rajya Sabha. He represented Assam for 22 years in the Rajya Sabha. On 15th May 2014 when he filed his nominations from Assam for the fourth time, there were agitations held by Assam Gana Parishad, BJP and the other opposition parties. They claimed that though Dr. Singh has been representing Assam for the past 22 years, he has not visited Assam even for 22 days. After filing his nominations, he addressed the media and said, "The people of Assam have put their faith in me for the past 22 years. I cannot return their favours in this lifetime."

Dr. Singh declared his assets as part of the nomination filing procedures: Total Assets - Rs. 11.60 crores Floating Assets - Rs. 4.08 crores (Cash - Rs. 3.9 crores; Wife Rs. 20 lakhs) Cash Amount - Rs. Twenty thousand (entire amount in the name of his wife) Deposits and Savings - Rs. 37 lakhs. (Self - Rs. 20, 31,385 lakhs; Wife - Rs. 16, 62,570) Jewellery - Rs. Three lakhs 45 thousand (all in the name of his wife) Vehicle - Maruti 800 (Self-owned) Fixed Assets - Agricultural or non-agricultural land (Nothing) Residence Assets - A house at Chandigarh and a flat worth Rs. 7.52 lakhs in South Delhi. In 2004 when his selection was final for the Prime Minister's position, people turned up in large numbers to congratulate him. There were friends, relatives and individuals around in general. A small 'Shamiana' was set up on the lawn at the back of his house to accommodate such a large number of people. Those who turned up were offered a cold drink and some wafers. This 'Shamiana' was set up hurriedly as the news was totally unexpected. The country's Prime Minister has always been in the news because of his/her close relatives. In the 40 years of his service and ten years as Prime Minister, no one from his household had their name come up in the media. His relatives have not had any active presence in public functions. He has three daughters, and all of them are highly educated. One of his daughters is a professor in Delhi. The youngest of them resides in the United States. But neither the relatives nor the husbands of these daughters have ever interfered in politics and power. His daughter says that her father was always busy with work. In the past 40 odd years, only once they had a family trip when all of them visited Nainital for three days. However, Dr. Singh gifts his

daughters with books, on their birthdays and the same continues even today. He has diabetes, but Doctors have always certified him with excellent health. There has been no change in his eating habits for the past 60 odd years. Simple living has formed a part of his life. The position of the Prime Minister is the highest in the country. This post represents crores of Indians. All the gifts received by Dr. Singh during his foreign visits have been registered with the government of India. But Dr. Singh has a personal liking for Cups, Saucers and Pots. More than him, it is Mrs. Gurusharan Kaur who has this liking. Out of the 44 gifts received by him since July 2013, 38 of them have been submitted back to the concerned store place. These include Rolex watches worth Rs. 9 lakhs, Jewellery sets worth Rs. 1.25 lakhs, bracelets worth Rs. 35 thousand and a coin that was given to him by Vladimir Putin which dates back to the Mughal period. He has kept himself a tea-set. The cost of this tea-set is less than five thousand rupees. According to government rules, gifts costing more than five thousand rupees have to be deposited with the government. In 2009, the then United States President Barack Obama hosted a dinner at the White House in honour of Dr. Manmohan Singh. This was the most expensive dinner in his honour. Dr. Singh gifted Mr. Obama with five books. One of them is the English Version of the 'Panchatantra'. Dr. Singh's wife Gurusharan Kaur gifted Ms. Michelle Obama with a 'Pashmina Shawl.' Not much is known about the personal liking and disliking of Dr. Singh. During the G-20 summit in Russia in 2009, there was an intense discussion in political circles about the type of gift to be given to him. Someone pointed out that the Singh family loves tea-sets. Michelle Obama is reported to have gifted Mrs. Kaur a Porcelain tea set. Similarly, German Chancellor, Ms. Angela Merkel gifted a Meissen Tea Set to the couple during the former's visit to India in 2011. Out of the 50 gifts received by Dr. Singh, two remained with them. The rest were deposited with the government.

Dr. Manmohan Singh Prime Minister of India Personal Profile India’s fourteenth Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh is rightly acclaimed as a thinker and a scholar. He is well regarded for his diligence and his academic approach to work, as well as his accessibility and his unassuming demeanor. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was born on September 26, 1932, in a village in the Punjab province of undivided India. Dr. Singh completed his Matriculation examinations from the Punjab University in 1948. His academic career took him from Punjab to the University of Cambridge, UK, where he earned a First Class Honors degree in Economics in 1957. Dr. Singh followed this with a D. Phil in Economics from Nuffield College at Oxford University in 1962. His book, “India’s Export Trends and Prospects for Self-Sustained Growth” [Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1964] was an early critique of India’s inward-oriented trade policy. Dr. Singh’s academic credentials were burnished by the years he spent on the faculty of Punjab University and the prestigious Delhi School of Economics. He had a brief stint at the UNCTAD Secretariat as well, during these years. This presaged a subsequent appointment as Secretary General of the South Commission in Geneva between 1987 and 1990. In 1971, Dr. Singh joined the Government of India as Economic Advisor in the Commerce Ministry. This was soon followed by his appointment as Chief Economic Advisor in the Ministry of Finance in 1972. Among the many Governmental positions that Dr. Singh has occupied are Secretary in the Ministry of Finance; Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission; Governor of the Reserve Bank of India; Advisor of the Prime Minister; and Chairman of the University Grants Commission. In what was to become the turning point in the economic history of independent India, Dr. Singh spent five years between 1991 and

1996 as India’s Finance Minister. His role in ushering in a comprehensive policy of economic reforms is now recognized worldwide. In the popular view of those years in India, that period is inextricably associated with the persona of Dr. Singh. Among the many awards and honours conferred upon Dr. Singh in his public career, the most prominent are India’s second highest civilian honour, the Padma Vibhushan (1987); the Jawaharlal Nehru Birth Centenary Award of the Indian Science Congress (1995); the Asia Money Award for Finance Minister of the Year (1993 and 1994); the Euro Money Award for Finance Minister of the Year (1993), the Adam Smith Prize of the University of Cambridge (1956); and the Wright’s Prize for Distinguished Performance at St. John’s College in Cambridge (1955). Dr. Singh has also been honoured by a number of other associations including the Japanese Nihon Keizai Shimbun. Dr. Singh is a recipient of honorary degrees from many universities including the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford. Dr. Singh has represented India at many international conferences and in several international organizations. He has led Indian Delegations to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Cyprus (1993) and to the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993. In his political career, Dr. Singh has been a Member of India’s Upper House of Parliament (the Rajya Sabha) since 1991, where he was Leader of the Opposition between 1998 and 2004. Dr. Manmohan Singh was sworn in as Prime Minister on 22nd May after the 2004 general elections and took the oath of office for a second term on 22nd May 2009. Dr. Singh and his wife Mrs. Gursharan Kaur have three daughters. DR. MANMOHAN SINGH - ACADEMIC RECORD 1962 - D. Phil., Nuffield College, University of Oxford. Topic: India’s Export Trends and Prospects for Self-Sustained Growth. [Published

by Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1964] 1957 Economic Tripos [First Class honours], University of Cambridge 1954 M.A. Economics, Panjab University – First Class with first position in the University 1952 B.A. Economics (Hons.), Panjab University – Second Class with first position in the University 1950 Intermediate Punjab University – First Class with first position in the University 1948 Matriculation, Punjab University – First class

PRIZES AND AWARDS 2000 - Conferred Annasaheb Chirmule Award by the W.LG. Alias Annasaheb Chirmule Trust setup by United Western Bank Limited, Satara, Maharashtra 1999 - Received H.H. Kanchi Sri Paramacharya Award for Excellence from Shri R. Venkataraman, former President of India and Patron, The Centenarian Trust 1999 - Fellow of the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi. 1997 - Conferred Lokmanya Tilak Award by the Tilak Smarak Trust, Pune

1997 - Received Justice K.S. Hegde Foundation Award for the year 1996 1997 - Awarded Nikkei Asia prize for Regional Growth by the Nihon Keizai Shimbun Inc. (NIKKEI), publisher of Japan’s leading business daily 1996 - Honorary Professor, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, Delhi 1995 - Jawaharlal Nehru Birth Centenary Award of the Indian Science Congress Association for 1994-95 1994 - Asiamoney Award, Finance Minister of the Year 1994 - Elected Distinguished Fellow, London School of Economics, Centre for Asia Economy, Politics and Society 1994- Elected Honorary Fellow, Nuffield College and University of Oxford, U.K. 1994 - Honorary Fellow, All India Management Association 1993 - Euromoney Award, Finance Minister of the year 1993 - Asiamoney Award, Finance Minister of the Year 1987 - Padma Vibhushan Award by the President of India 1986 - National Fellow, national Institute of Education, N.C.E.R.T. 1985 - Elected President, Indian economic Association 1982 - Elected Honorary Fellow, St. John’s College, Cambridge, 1982 - Elected Honorary Fellow, Indian Institute of bankers 1976 - Honorary Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 1957 - Elected Wrenbury Scholar, University of Cambridge, U.K. 1955 - Awarded Wright’s Prize for distinguished performance, St. John’s College, Cambridge, U.K. 1956 - Awarded Adam Smith Prize, University of Cambridge, U.K.

1954 - Uttar Chand Kapur Medal, Panjab university, for standing first in M.A.(Economics), Panjab University, Chandigarh 1952 - University Medal for standing First in B.A. Hon.(Economics), Punjab University, Chandigarh Recipient of Honorary Degrees of D.Litt. from: Punjab University, Chandigarh Guru Nanak University, Amritsar Delhi University, Delhi Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi University of Bologna, Italy University of Mysore, Mysore Chaudhary charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar (D.Sc) Kurukshetra University Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology, patiala (D.Sc) Nagarjuna University, Nagarjunanagar Osmania University, Hyderabad University of Roorkee, Roorkee (Doctor of Social Sciences) Doctor of Laws by the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University (formerly Agra University) - Doctor Letters degree Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad (Deemed University) D.Sc. (Honoris Causa) Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur

WORK EXPERIENCE AND POSITIONS HELD May 22, 2004 – May, 2014: Prime Minister of India March 21, 1998 – May 22, 2004: Leader of Opposition, Rajya Sabha (Council of States) Parliament of India June, 2001: Re-elected as member of Rajya Sabha for a Term of six years August 1, 1996 - Dec 4, 1997: Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce, Rajya Sabha June 21, 1991- May 15, 1996: Finance Minister of India June, 1995: Re-elected Member of Rajya Sabha for a term of six years September, 1991: Elected Member of Rajya Sabha March 1991-June 1991: Chairman, University Grants Commission Dec 1990 – March 1991: Advisor to Prime Minister of India on Economic Affairs August 1987 – Nov 1990: Secretary General and Commissioner, South Commission Jan 1985- July 1987: Dy. Chairman, Planning Commission of India Sept 1982 – Jan 1985: Governor, Reserve Bank of India April 1980 – Sept 1982: Member-Secretary, Planning Commission, India Nov.1976 – April 1980: Secretary, Ministry of Finance Dept. of Economic Affairs, Government of India Member [Finance], Atomic Energy Commission, Govt. of India

Member [Finance], Space Commission, Govt. of India 1972 – 1976: Chief Economic Adviser, Ministry of Finance, India 1971 – 1972: Economic Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Trade, India 1969 – 1971: Professor of International Trade, Delhi School of Economics, Delhi University, India 1966 – 1969: UNCTAD, United Nations Secretariat,New York Chief, Financing for Trade Section 1966: Economic Affairs Officer 1957 – 1965: Punjab University, Chandigarh 1963-65: Professor of Economics 1959-63: Reader in Economics 1957-59: Senior Lecturer in economics

OTHER ASSIGNMENTS Leader of the Indian delegation to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Cyprus (1993) Leader of the Indian delegation to the Human Rights World Conference, Vienna (1993) Governor of India on the Board of Governors of the IMF and the International Bank of Reconstruction & Development (1991-95)

Appointed by Prime Minister of India as Member, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister (1983-84) Chairman, India Committee of the Indo-Japan; Joint Study Committee (1980-83) Leader, Indian Delegation to: Indo-Soviet Monitoring Group Meeting (1982) Indo-Soviet Joint Planning Group Meeting (1980-82) Aid India Consortium Meetings (1977-79) Member Indian Delegation to: South-South Consultation, New Delhi (1982) Cancun Summit on North-South Issues (1981) Aid-India Consortium Meetings, Paris (1973-79) Annual Meetings of IMF, IBRD & Commonwealth Finance Ministers (1972-79) Third Session of UNCTAD, Santiago (April-May 1972) Meetings of UNCTAD Trade & Development Board, Geneva (May 1971 – July 1972) Ministerial Meeting of Group of 77, Lima (Oct.1971) Deputy for India on IMF Committee of Twenty on International Monetary Reform (1972 – 74) Associate, Meetings of IMF Interim Committee and Joint Fund-Bank Development Committee (1976-80, 1982-85) Alternate Governor for India, Board of Governors of IBRD (1976-80)

Alternate Governor for India, Board of Governors of the IMF (198285) Alternate Governor for India, Board of Governors, Asian Development Bank, Manila (1976-80) Director, Reserve Bank of India (1976-80) Director, Industrial Development Bank of India (1976-80) Participated in Commonwealth Prime Ministers Meeting, Kingston (1975) Represented Secretary;-General UNCTAD at several intergovernmental meetings: Second Session of UNCTAD, 1968 Committee on Invisibles & Financing Related to Trade, Consultant to UNCTAD, ESCAP and Commonwealth Secretariat Member, International Organizations: Appointed as Member by the Secretary-General, United Nations of a Group of Eminent Persons to advise him on Financing for Development (December, 2000) PUBLICATIONS Author of book “India’s Export Trends and Prospects for SelfSustained Growth” [Clarendon Press, Oxford University, 1964] Have published a large number of articles in economic journals S/o. Shri Gurmukh Singh Born on 26th September, 1932 Married in 1958 to Smt. Gursharan Kaur Have three daughters

Epilogue April 2016 became a landmark, for a significant development in the history of India. Communications Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad announced that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) had generated more than 1 Billion (100 crores) ‘Aadhaar' numbers in a span of five and a half years. The UIDAI was established in January 2009, and the UPA government appointed Infosys CoFounder Nandan Nilekani as its chairman in June 2009, with a rank equivalent to the Cabinet Minister. In February 2012, the UIDAI launched an online verification system for ‘Aadhar' numbers, and in November 2012, Dr. Manmohan Singh launched the Aadhar-linked Direct Benefit Transfer Scheme that aimed to directly transfer money to the bank account of the recipient, thereby bypassing the leakages in the system and reducing corruption. However, a year back in 2014 BJP leader Subramanian Swami had demanded the prosecution of Nandan Nilekani under the Prevention of Corruption Act for squandering national resources to US-based companies. He had also said that if the NDA comes to power, it will scrap the then existing form of ‘Aadhar.' Mr. Swamy is now member of the Rajya Sabha. Arun Shourie, when interviewed by Karan Thapar for India Today, reminded everyone that there was no clarification from the government on issues like the Vyapam Scam or the Lalitgate or the Chhatisgarh PDS Scam. These issues were almost a year old when he spoke on the occasion of the Modi government completing two years in office. However, the general sentiment when these issues came up was the absence of Anti-Corruption Crusader Anna Hazare. Hazare's failure to raise any issue - right from Vyapam to Lalitgate raised many questions! Equally surprising is the silence of Baba Ramdev on the Black Money issue; something that he had campaigned intensely during the Manmohan Singh government. The ‘India against Corruption' movement was zealously called the ‘Second Independence Movement' by many. But as of June 2016, no one has any clue about the outcome of this campaign. No one would

be able to tell where it stands now. Kiran Bedi, a prominent voice from the movement joined the BJP in early 2015 and after a disastrous electoral performance under her leadership in Delhi; she was mostly inactive in politics. However, in May 2016, she was appointed as a Lt. Governor of Puducherry. General V.K Singh, who also had shown his support to this movement, joined the Bhartiya Janata Party in March 2014 and subsequently won the Lok Sabha elections from the Ghaziabad constituency of Uttar Pradesh. He is now a Minister in the Narendra Modi government. Five Indian States underwent elections for their Legislative Assemblies in the month of May. May 2016 also marked the Second Anniversary of the Modi government. These elections, hence, were crucial for both the Congress and the BJP as they would reflect the mood of the nation after the 2014 General elections. The states were Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Pondicherry. The Bhartiya Janata Party, with its allies, won the State of Assam by defeating the incumbent Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi but its performance in the other four states was dismal. The Congress ( with its alliances in the respective states) on the other hand lost both the states – Assam and Kerala – where they had their government and came up with a decent performance in West Bengal and won Pondicherry. Their performance in the state of Tamil Nadu was not impressive. The scorecard of both parties on all the seats contested in all the five states was as follows: Kerala: Congress: 51. BJP 1. West Bengal: Congress 42. BJP 4. Assam: Congress 23. BJP 60. Tamil Nadu: Congress 9. BJP 0. Pondicherry: Congress 14. BJP 0. Total seats (out of the 822 assembly seats in 5 states) won: Congress: 139. BJP 65.

Barring the impressive performance of the BJP in the state of Assam (with the help of its allies), its tally in the other four states could not even touch the double digit mark. The victory in Assam came in the background of a 15-year anti-incumbency faced by the Congress. But the real questions that surfaced after these election results were that how could a political party, which secured a landslide victory in the general elections of 2014, stoop down to single digit numbers in four of the five States? The Congress could not win even 50 seats in the General Elections of 2014. However, two years later in 2016, it continued to have little (Tamil Nadu) to somewhat significant (Assam, Kerala and West Bengal) to significant (Pondicherry) electoral presence. The BJP had won 282 seats in the General Elections of 2014. However, barring their victory in the state of Assam, it had little to boast! Senior Journalist Kumar Ketkar in his article ‘Whose Defeat is it anyway?' for Rediff had to say the following: The Congress lost two states -- Kerala and Assam -- and suffered a setback in the alliances it had made -- with the Communist Party of India-Marxist in West Bengal and with the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in Tamil Nadu. But that is only a partially true picture. Yes, the Mamata Bannerjee-led Trinamool Congress could not be dislodged from power and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam led by J Jayalalithaa retained power. But the brouhaha that the Bharatiya Janata Party is now invincible and the Congress is almost on the ventilator in the political ICU is a tendentious presentation of facts. If as the media thinks the real fight in India is between the BJP and Congress, then it is clear that the BJP is less than half of the Congress. (Based on the total number of seats mentioned above). Then why is the impression being given that the BJP is a winner, when actually regional parties have won and the BJP has merely acquired Assam and entered the north-east? In Bengal, the BJP's vote share has fallen from 17% to 11%.

From the point of acquiring political power, it can be considered a loss to the Congress because of the loss of power in Kerala and Assam, but in terms of numbers, the BJP has suffered. The Lok Sabha election is still three years away and it is too early to declare the arrival of a new permanent phenomenon of the Bharatiya Janata Party. Unless the performance matches the polls, it would be difficult, even in the states, to declare a winner. It is not a one-day match. It is a Test series, which will conclude in 2019. In 2015, the BJP lost the assembly elections in Delhi and Bihar and hence needed to show that the party was not on the decline. In that context, the BJP has something to show with Thursday's election results. But if the BJP or even the regional parties delude themselves that they are going to win the Test series, then they are over-interpreting the results. The glow of the cream starts fading when the heat hits the face. On 18th April 2016, Mr. Jairam Ramesh wrote for The Hindu, titled 'The new KG scam'. He pointed that on 26th June 2005, Narendra Modi, as Chief Minister of Gujarat had announced that Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation (GSPC) had discovered India's biggest gas reserves in the deep waters of the Krishna-Godavari (KG) River Basins. He stated that 11 years since the announcement, there had been zero gas recovered from the KG Basin. GSPC, Mr. Ramesh wrote, had spent around Rs. 20,000 crores during this period and had discovered nothing. He wrote two more articles in The Hindu to elaborate these points and referred to the GSPC's Annual Reports to say the following: When the company's estimates of its gas reserves in KG basin have been coming down sharply, how was GSPC allowed to borrow so much money every single year? Where did this money come from? And what was it used for?

A consortium of nearly 15 PSU banks lent about Rs.20, 000 crore to GSPC over the past 15 years. These banks include the State Bank of India, Vijaya Bank, Union Bank of India, Bank of India and so on. According to the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report of 2015, the interest costs on these loans alone are Rs.1, 800 crore per year. However, GSPC's net income before interest in 2015 was only Rs.80 crore. Which means it does not have enough money to pay the interest on its borrowings. So, technically, isn't GSPC insolvent? Should it not be declared as a defaulter by these banks? A current Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) served as a director on the board of GSPC between 2006 and 2013 and even chaired its audit committee which typically approves such borrowings. Perhaps the RBI can ask these banks what the status of these loans to GSPC are, similar to how it has questioned other loans to other companies. If there was no gas to be found, then what was all this borrowed money used for? Typically when businesses borrow for new projects or expansion, they tend to hire more workers, build more factories etc. However, GSPC's wage bill was constant in this time period, indicating that the company did not hire more employees. However, a category called "Other expenses" saw a jump from Rs.16 crore in 2006 to Rs.500 crore in 2013. What these "other expenses" entailed is perhaps best left to one's imagination Mani Shankar Aiyar is his article on the NDTV website, called this an ‘outrageous fabrication that has resulted in a clutch of India's leading banks being taken for a ride.' However, there was no uproar in the country on these developments. No media – print or electronic – bothered to stretch it for serious discussions and the voices that were very prominent during the ‘India against Corruption' movement have preferred to remain silent! On April 28, retired diplomat Ambassador M.K Bhadrakumar wrote an article for Rediff where he explained the Foreign Policy scenario of the Modi government. He was critical of the government's handling of Pakistan and described Narendra Modi visiting Pakistan and meeting

Nawaz Sharif as the ‘nadir of the foreign policy.' His criticism of handling Pakistan also included the handling of Pathankot air base attack and inviting the Pakistani Intelligence Officers to investigate the attack! He was equally critical of the government's handling of China, especially of the Uighur activists. He blamed Prime Minister Modi for making his followers believe that he would dismember Pakistan and stare down China after assuming power, a thing that he always mentioned in his election speeches. He also pointed out that the over-zealous Modi supporters on Social Network Sites judged the government's foreign policy ‘achievements' by illogical scenes such as his speeches at Madison Square and his many meetings with President Barack Obama. The Modi government is facing challenges on many fronts economic, political and global! Certain developments since it came to power did not sound encouraging. There were reports that in 2015, India lost its ‘top ten position' in the FDI Confidence Index in a survey conducted by T.A Kearney. It had happened for the first time in a decade, the earlier development being 2002. This report raised questions over the ‘Make in India’ initiative by the government and made everyone wonder whether this action had begun to bear fruits. In April 2016, there were reports that the job growth in India for Eight Sectors was the lowest in the past Seven years. These Sectors were Textiles, Leather, Metals, Automobiles, Gems and Jewelry, Transport, Information – Technology and Handlooms. It also came to light that many of these Sectors experienced job cuts due to shrinking exports, as exports shrunk for almost 15 months in a row. In May 2016, there were reports that Retail Inflation hit a 21-month high on account of rising food prices. June 2016 marked the Twenty-Fifth year since India liberalized its Economy. The country travelled this path despite stiff opposition to it during its inception. The P.V Narasimha Rao government, with Dr. Singh as his Finance Minister, completed its term in 1996. The economic thought and action of Dr. Singh were implemented between 1996 and 2004 when the Congress was never in power. This idea found a wider application when Dr. Manmohan Singh became the

Prime Minister in 2004 and remained in office till 2014. The nation experienced a large-scale transformation on both the rural and urban fronts in this decade. However, a majority of the economic policies and decisions of his government continue to get reflected in the current administration, thus underlying his immense contribution to the country through his towering stature. ***** On 21st December 2017, a special court in Delhi acquitted everyone who was accused in the 2G spectrum allocation case that had rocked the country a few years back. The details of this case have already been explained in one of the chapters in this book. The Judge, O.P Saini said that the CBI could not prove anyone guilty and lashed out at the CBI for dragging Dr Manmohan Singh's name, as there was no evidence to show that Mr A Raja had in any way tried to mislead the former Prime Minister. The big points from this verdict, as reported by NDTV were as follows: I have absolutely no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any charge against any of the accused, made in its well-choreographed charge sheet. The genesis of the case lies not so much in the actions of A Raja but in the action/inaction of others. There is no material on record to show that A Raja was mother lode of conspiracy in the instant case. No evidence on the record produced before the court indicating any criminality in the acts allegedly committed by the accused persons relating to the fixation of cut-off date, manipulation of first come first served policy. Non-understanding of issues led to a suspicion of grave wrongdoing where there was none. DoT could neither effectively communicate the issues to others nor others could understand the same. Issues got snowballed when media reports started appearing.

The lack of clarity in the policies as well as guidelines added to the confusion. The guidelines have been framed in such a technical language that the meaning of many terms are not clear even to DoT officers. In the beginning, the prosecution started with the case with great enthusiasm and ardour. However, as the case progressed, it became highly cautious and guarded in its attitude making it difficult to find out as to what prosecution wanted to prove. By the end, the quality of prosecution totally deteriorated and it became directionless and diffident. However, on account of the various actions and inactions of the officials, as noted above, nobody believed the version of DoT and a huge scam was seen by everyone where there was none. It is clear that complete facts were not placed before the then Hon'ble Prime Minister by his own office for which Sh. A. Raja cannot be faulted. I may also add that for the last about seven years, on all working days, summer vacation included, I religiously sat in the open Court from 10 AM to 5 PM, awaiting for someone with some legally admissible evidence in his possession, but all in vain. Not a single soul turned up. This indicates that everybody was going by public perception created by rumour, gossip and speculation. However, public perception has no place in judicial proceedings. The last point on this list is both significant and surprising! Why didn't anyone from the ruling government, who had left no stone unturned in blaming and degrading the UPA government on this issue come forward and present any evidence in this case? The BJP had always accused Dr Manmohan Singh and the Congress Party on this issue. Was this an attempt to create rumours, gossip and speculation, as mentioned by the Court? This was also a big judgement for the Congress Party who image had become associated with scams and corruption. However, questions were now raised about the role of the then Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Mr Vinod Rai. The Congress leadership demanded that Mr Rai should apologise for misleading the country on this very important issue.

Dr Manmohan Singh welcomed the judgement by stating that this was a massive propaganda against the UPA government and all this had no foundation. "I do not want to boast (about) anything. The court's judgement has to be respected. I am glad that the court has pronounced unambiguously. All the massive propaganda which was being done against the UPA was without any foundation. The judgement speaks for itself," he said.

Monumental Mismanagement On 8th November 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi surprised everyone by his sudden address to the country. This address included an announcement that appeared very revolutionary but continues to disrupt the nation even as we write this chapter. The announcement was that starting from midnight of November 9, all 500 and 1000 rupee notes in circulation will no longer remain a legal tender. The reasons cited for this step were the combat of black money and corruption and also an attack on fake currency that funds terrorism. Here is the full text of the Prime Minister's speech: My dear citizens, I hope you ended the festive season of Diwali with joy and new hope. Today, I will be speaking to you about some critical issues and important decisions. Today I want to make a special request to all of you. You may recall the economic situation in May 2014 when you entrusted us with an onerous responsibility. In the context of BRICS, it was being said that the "I" in BRICS was shaky. Since then, we had two years of severe drought. Yet, in the last two and a half years with the support of 125 crore Indians, India has become the "bright spot" in the global economy. It is not just we who are saying this; it is being stated by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In this effort for development, our motto has been 'Sab Ka Saath Sab Ka Vikas': We are with all citizens and for development of all citizens. This Government is dedicated to the poor. It will remain dedicated to them. In our fight against poverty, our main thrust has been to empower the poor, and make them active participants in the benefits of economic progress. The Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana, the Jan Suraksha Yojana, the Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana for small enterprises,

the Stand-up India programme for Dalits, Adivasis and Women, the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Scheme for gas connections in the homes of the poor, the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojana and Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana to protect the income of farmers, the Soil Health Card Scheme to ensure the best possible yield from farmers' fields, and the e-NAM National Market Place scheme to ensure farmers get the right price for their produce —these are all reflections of this approach. In the past decades, the spectre of corruption and black money has grown. It has weakened the effort to remove poverty. On the one hand, we are now No. 1 in the rate of economic growth. But on the other hand, we were ranked close to one hundred in the global corruption perceptions ranking two years back. In spite of many steps taken, we have only been able to reach a ranking of seventy-six now. Of course, there is improvement. This shows the extent to which corruption and black money have spread their tentacles. The evil of corruption has been spread by certain sections of society for their selfish interest. They have ignored the poor and cornered benefits. Some people have misused their office for personal gain. On the other hand, honest people have fought against this evil. Crores of common men and women have lived lives of integrity. We hear about poor auto-rickshaw drivers returning gold ornaments left in the vehicles to their rightful owners. We hear about taxi drivers who take pains to locate the owners of cell phones left behind. We hear of vegetable vendors who return excess money given by customers. There comes a time in the history of a country's development when a need is felt for a strong and decisive step. For years, this country has felt that corruption, black money and terrorism are festering sores, holding us back in the race towards development.

Terrorism is a frightening threat. So many have lost their lives because of it. But have you ever thought about how these terrorists get their money? Enemies from across the border run their operations using fake currency notes. This has been going on for years. Many times, those using fake five hundred and thousand rupee notes have been caught and many such notes have been seized. Brothers and sisters, On the one hand is the problem of terrorism; on the other is the challenge posed by corruption and black money. We began our battle against corruption by setting up an SIT headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, immediately upon taking office. Since then • a law was passed in 2015 for disclosure of foreign black money; • agreements with many countries, including the USA, have been made to add provisions for sharing banking information; • a strict law has come into force from August 2016 to curb benami transactions, which are used to deploy black money earned through corruption; • a scheme was introduced for declaring black money after paying a stiff penalty; My dear countrymen, Through all these efforts, in the last two and a half years, we have brought into the open nearly 1 lakh 25 thousand crore rupees of black money belonging to the corrupt. Honest citizens want this fight against corruption, black money, benami property, terrorism and counterfeiting to continue. Which honest citizen would not be pained by reports of crores worth of currency notes stashed under the beds of government officers? Or by reports of cash found in gunny bags? The magnitude of cash in circulation is directly linked to the level of corruption. Inflation becomes worse through the deployment of cash earned in corrupt ways. The poor have to bear the brunt of this. It has a direct effect on the purchasing power of the poor and the middle class. You may yourself have experienced when buying land or a

house, that apart from the amount paid by cheque, a large amount is demanded in cash. This creates problems for an honest person in buying property. The misuse of cash has led to artificial increase in the cost of goods and services like houses, land, higher education, health care and so on. High circulation of cash also strengthens the hawala trade which is directly connected to black money and illegal trade in weapons. Debate on the role of black money in elections has been going on for years. Brothers and sisters, To break the grip of corruption and black money, we have decided that the five hundred rupee and thousand rupee currency notes presently in use will no longer be legal tender from midnight tonight, that is 8th November 2016. This means that these notes will not be acceptable for transactions from midnight onwards. The five hundred and thousand rupee notes hoarded by anti-national and anti-social elements will become just worthless pieces of paper. The rights and the interests of honest, hard-working people will be fully protected. Let me assure you that notes of one hundred, fifty, twenty, ten, five, two and one rupee and all coins will remain legal tender and will not be affected. This step will strengthen the hands of the common man in the fight against corruption, black money and fake currency. To minimise the difficulties of citizens in the coming days, several steps are being taken. 1. Persons holding old notes of five hundred or one thousand rupees can deposit these notes in their bank or post office accounts from 10th November till close of banking hours on 30th December 2016 without any limit. 2. Thus you will have 50 days to deposit your notes and there is no need for panic. 3. Your money will remain yours. You need have no worry on this point.

4. After depositing your money in your account, you can draw it when you need it. 5. Keeping in mind the supply of new notes, in the first few days, there will be a limit of ten thousand rupees per day and twenty thousand rupees per week. This limit will be increased in the coming days. 6. Apart from depositing your notes in your bank account, another facility will also be there. 7. For your immediate needs, you can go to any bank, head post office or sub post office, show your identity proof like Aadhaar card, voter card, ration card, passport, PAN card or other approved proofs, and exchange your old five hundred or thousand rupee notes for new notes. 8. From 10th November till 24th November the limit for such exchange will be four thousand rupees. From 25th November till 30th December, the limit will be increased. 9. There may be some who, for some reason, are not able to deposit their old five hundred or thousand rupee notes by 30th December 2016. 10. They can go to specified offices of the Reserve Bank of India up to 31st March 2017 and deposit the notes after submitting a declaration form. 11. On 9th November and in some places on 10th November also, ATMs will not work. In the first few days, there will be a limit of two thousand rupees per day per card. 12. This will be raised to four thousand rupees later. 13. Five hundred and thousand rupee notes will not be legal tender from midnight. However for humanitarian reasons, to reduce hardship to citizens, some special arrangements have been made for the first 72 hours, that is till midnight on 11th November. 14. During this period, government hospitals will continue to accept five hundred and thousand rupee notes for payment.

15. This is for the benefit of those families whose members may be unwell. 16. Pharmacies in government hospitals will also accept these notes for buying medicines with doctors' prescription. 17. For 72 hours, till midnight on 11th November, railway ticket booking counters, ticket counters of government buses and airline ticket counters at airports will accept the old notes for purchase of tickets. This is for the benefit of those who may be travelling at this time. 18. For 72 hours, five hundred and thousand rupee notes will be accepted also at • Petrol, diesel and CNG gas stations authorised by public sector oil companies • Consumer co-operative stores authorised by State or Central Government • Milk booths authorised by State governments • Crematoria and burial grounds. These outlets will have to keep proper records of stock and collections. 19. Arrangements will be made at international airports for arriving and departing passengers who have five hundred or thousand rupee notes of not more than five thousand rupees, to exchange them for new notes or other legal tender. 20. Foreign tourists will be able to exchange foreign currency or old notes of not more than Rs 5000 into legal tender. 21. One more thing I would like to mention, I want to stress that in this entire exercise, there is no restriction of any kind on non-cash payments by cheques, demand drafts, debit or credit cards and electronic fund transfer. Brothers and sisters,

In spite of all these efforts there may be temporary hardships to be faced by honest citizens. Experience tells us that ordinary citizens are always ready to make sacrifices and face difficulties for the benefit of the nation. I see that spirit when a poor widow gives up her LPG subsidy, when a retired school teacher contributes his pension to the Swacch Bharat mission, when a poor Adivasi mother sells her goats to build a toilet, when a soldier contributes 57 thousand rupees to make his village clean. I have seen that the ordinary citizen has the determination to do anything, if it will lead to the country's progress. So, in this fight against corruption, black money, fake notes and terrorism, in this movement for purifying our country, will our people not put up with difficulties for some days? I have full confidence that every citizen will stand up and participate in this 'mahayagna'. My dear countrymen, after the festivity of Diwali, now join the nation and extend your hand in this Imandaari ka Utsav, this Pramanikta ka Parv, this celebration of integrity, this festival of credibility. I am sure that all political parties, all governments, social services organizations, the media and indeed all sections of the society will take part in this with enthusiasm and make it a success. My dear countrymen, Secrecy was essential for this action. It is only now, as I speak to you, that various agencies like banks, post offices, railways, hospitals and others are being informed. The Reserve Bank, banks and post offices have to make many arrangements at very short notice. Obviously, time will be needed. Therefore all banks will be closed to the public on 9th November. This may cause some hardship to you. I have full faith that banks and post offices will successfully carry out this great task of national importance. However, I appeal to all of you to help the banks and post offices to meet this challenge with poise and determination. My dear citizens, From time to time, based on currency needs, the Reserve Bank with the approval of the Central Government brings out new notes of higher value. In 2014, the Reserve Bank sent a recommendation for

issue of five thousand and ten thousand rupee notes. After careful consideration, this was not accepted. Now as part of this exercise, RBI's recommendation to issue two thousand rupee notes has been accepted. New notes of five hundred rupees and two thousand rupees, with completely new design will be introduced. Based on past experience, the Reserve Bank will hereafter make arrangements to limit the share of high denomination notes in the total currency in circulation. In a country's history, there come moments when every person feels he too should be part of that moment, that he too should make his contribution to the country's progress. Such moments come but rarely. Now, we again have an opportunity where every citizen can join this mahayajna against the ills of corruption, black money and fake notes. The more help you give in this campaign, the more successful it will be. It has been a matter of concern for all of us that corruption and black money tend to be accepted as part of life. This type of thinking has afflicted our politics, our administration and our society like an infestation of termites. None of our public institutions is free from these termites. Time and again, I have seen that when the average citizen has to choose between accepting dishonesty and bearing inconvenience, they always choose to put up with inconvenience. They will not support dishonesty. Once again, let me invite you to make your contribution to this grand sacrifice for cleansing our country, just as you cleaned up your surroundings during Diwali. Let us ignore the temporary hardship Let us join this festival of integrity and credibility Let us enable coming generations to live their lives with dignity Let us fight corruption and black money Let us ensure that the nation's wealth benefits the poor

Let us enable law-abiding citizens to get their due share. I am confident in the 125 crore people of India and I am sure country will get success. Thank you very much. Thanks a lot. Namaskar. Bharat Mata Ki Jai. The electronic media gave its approval to this decision. Most of the television news anchors declared this as the biggest decision since independence and some of them called it a ‘masterstroke' even without understanding its entire consequences! Social Media users also contributed to this with their euphoria. Some enthusiastic 'profiles' on social networking platforms chided former Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh by stating that one does not necessarily need a degree in economics to carry out reforms. However, Social Media often breeds impulsiveness. Most of the opinions expressed on this platform lack an in-depth study of a subject. The electronic media is also walking the same path. Hence there was hardly any critical discussion on this subject for the next few days. Almost everyone was keen to call this a ‘surgical strike' on Black money! In a detailed Press Conference on 9th November, senior Congress leader P. Chidambaram responded to the sudden, dramatic decision of the Prime Minister. His response included some basic, and yet very potent questions to the government. He stated that the Prime Minister had justified this decision as part of the larger plan to crackdown on black money and if this is the purpose, then it deserves the full support of the Congress party. However, he also emphasised that this decision should be seen in the background of particular facts and data. The facts and data presented were as follows: 500 and 1000 rupee notes, by value, account for 86.4% of all the notes in circulation. All those notes will be withdrawn.

If a person tenders an old note, it has to be replaced. The government has practically acknowledged that these notes cannot be replaced by smaller denomination notes. Hence new series notes of 500, 2000 and presumably 1000 will be printed. Ultimately, only the old notes that would not get exchanged by the new ones would get demonetized. How much would that be, by value, is uncertain and unknown. This would be the real test of the success of demonetization. Introduction of new series of notes is estimated to cost between Rupees 15 thousand to 20 thousand crores. Hence the economic gains of demonetization should be at least equal to that amount. Replacement of old notes by new notes should be done quickly, efficiently and with the least inconvenience to the people, especially the poor, the middle class, the farmers, the daily wage earners, small traders, businesspersons, students and housewives. That is because all of them will have some notes of high denomination. Forty years ago, a 500 rupee note was a note of high denomination. Today it is doubtful if it could be regarded the same. One has to be taking into account the inflation in the intervening period. This note is widely circulated and used today and hence the government had no option but to bring it back. However, if the people manage to exchange all the old 500 rupee notes that they have, with the new ones, then what purpose will this exercise serve? The introduction of a 2000 rupee note is a puzzle. How will this move help in preventing the generation of black money? If new income or wealth is unaccounted, then will that not be hidden in 2000 rupee notes? How is demonetization of high denomination notes served, if there is an introduction of an even higher denomination note (Rupees 2000)? The government should explain this puzzle The economic wisdom of the government's decision will be tested on three parameters:

The present Cash to GDP ratio is 12%. Will it come down to the world average of about 4%? The value of the high denomination notes, currently in circulation, is about 15 lakh crore rupees. Will this value come down significantly? Will gold imports surge, indicating that unaccounted income, wealth may seek refuge in bullion and gold? This press conference was perhaps the most comprehensive response to the decision, which otherwise met shallow descriptions such as ‘surgical strike' by impulsive broadcasters on electronic and social media. Mr. Chidambaram continued to explain and educate people on this issue through his weekly column in The Indian Express, titled Across the Aisle that featured every Sunday. Many in this country get confused between illegal transactions (or ‘Black money') and cash transactions. All transactions in cash are not illegal. A large section of the many ‘legitimate' transactions in the country involves cash. We pay a rickshaw driver after a ride, and he does not give us any receipt. Same happens with occupations like a cobbler, tailor, barber, a small shopkeeper, a paan wallah, a vegetable vendor or a fruit seller. All these are cash transactions, but they all are legitimate! On the other hand, there are many small shops, small scale markets, movie theatres, outlets in a mall, restaurants, lodges and hotels where customers get a receipt, however, the transaction happens in cash! Apart from this, there are many transactions associated with agriculture that happen in cash. Many farmers have to pay their land labourers in cash. The unorganized sector also indulges itself in numerous cash transactions. Hence, if there is a sudden withdrawal of a large percentage of currency notes from the market, then it has its immediate effects on all these sectors and occupations. And it was not a surprise when reports of job losses and layoffs began to emerge from different parts of the country. There was a story of about 45,000 people - most of them being contractual workers – losing their jobs in the industrial city of Faridabad. On 9th

December, The Times of India reported that 20,000 diamond workers had become jobless in Surat due to the impact of demonetization. On the same day, Hindustan Times reported about demonetization severely affecting the Jute mills and Tea Estates in Bengal and rendering many people unemployed as a consequence! The Hindu had reported a similar plight of weavers in Malegaon, Maharashtra on 5th December. The worst hit was agriculture. Many farmers found it difficult to buy seeds for the Rabi cultivation. One of the reasons for this was that rural cooperative banks were not allowed to exchange the notes. And the reason for this was not known! Deflation hit the agriculture sector because of a significant reduction in demand. Many people in the cities, especially the middle classes, feel that reduction of prices points out to prosperity. And this is because of their self-centered way of looking at the world. Deflation directly hits the income of the producer, that is the farmers, and the same happened in the country! In many places, wholesale markets were shut down, and the retail market contracted, reporting a huge dip in their sales. Rural India also saw an increase in the demand for NREGA jobs and this due to job losses suffered by migrant labourers owing to the cash crunch because of demonetization. The Indian Express reported that if the average labour turnout for NREGA between July and November was 30 lakh, then this number rose to 50 lakh per day in December 2016 and further increased to 83.6 lakh per day in January 2017. However, Social Media users and audiences from urban India were largely unaware of these developments. Most of them continued propagating how demonetization is beneficial in the ‘long run', and its effects won't be immediately seen. However, no one was ready to define a time frame for this ‘long run.' There were many instances and examples which proved that the implementation of this decision was terrible. The most prominent one among these involved the new 2000, and 500 rupees note. It came to light that very few or no ATMs in the country underwent recalibration for vending these new notes. P. Chidambaram in his column in The Indian Express, titled 'Across the Aisle: Monumental Mismanagement' pointed to the fact that

recalibration of around 2, 15,000 ATMs in the country could at least take a month. In the same article he also mentioned that the 500 and 1000 rupees notes, in discrete numbers, sum up to 2,300 crore. However the printing capacity of the RBI's Printing Press is only 300 crore of discrete notes in a month. To use his words, If we replace note for like note, it will take seven months to replace all the demonetized notes. If we replace a 500-rupee note by a 100rupee note, it will take five times longer. If we print more 2,000 rupee notes, the time will be shorter. Apart from the issue of ‘Black money', the government also brought up the issue of counterfeit currency and related the decision of demonetization to it. Many supporters of the government claimed that this decision would badly affect those who print counterfeit currency and circulate it in the country. However, a study by the NIA had estimated the amount of counterfeit currency in circulation as only Rupees 400 crores. Owing to modern technology, it has become very easy to generate a counterfeit. Hence the best way to tackle this is a periodic replacement of existing currency notes. In fact in January 2014, the UPA government under Dr. Manmohan Singh and the then RBI Governor Dr. Raghuram Rajan had decided to phase out all pre2005 notes. However the BJP had vehemently opposed the move! The ‘demonetization' decision generated skeptical reactions and criticism from many intellectuals. Economist and Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen termed this decision as ‘despotic action.' Economist Jean Dreze expressed that demonetization in a booming economy is like shooting at the tyres of a racing car. In his article in The Hindu on 27th December, he termed this as the mother of all disruptions. Chief Economist of the World Bank and India's former Chief Economic Advisor Kaushik Basu warned that the cash crunch due to demonetization could result in a slowdown and inject more pain shortly. He echoed P. Chidambaram when he said that the second and third round effects would result in an eventual slump in the economy as productivity will suffer, and the agricultural sector will get a hit. At the ‘Hindustan Times Leadership Summit' in New Delhi, Paul

Krugman, the 2008 Nobel Prize Winning Economist warned that demonetization might not deliver long-term benefits to India. By December 2016, the government had begun a new narrative. Every prominent leader of the Bhartiya Janata Party, including the Prime Minister, now emphasized on India becoming a ‘cashless economy.' Very less emphasis went on ‘Black money' and ‘counterfeit currency' All this raised serious questions about the actual objective of the government in this entire exercise of (so called) demonetization. Praveen Chakravarthy, in an article in India Spend on 5th December, came up with some interesting statistics. In the article titled, How Modi changed (and changed) the Demonetization Narrative he pointed out that, In his address to the nation speech on November 8, Narendra Modi spoke for 25 minutes and uttered the phrase ‘black money' 18 times and mentioned ‘fake currency' and ‘counterfeit' five times. Hence the media termed it as a ‘war on black money'. However, there was zero mention of ‘digital/cashless' in this speech. However by November 27, there was no mention of ‘fake currency', but the phrase ‘digital/cashless' was used thrice as much as ‘black money.' Finally, the article concluded with the following observation: …urging citizens to use less cash and resort to digital transactions is a laudable objective and must certainly be encouraged. But when a decision was taken to remove a whopping 86% of the country's currency overnight with all its attendant costs, one would have hoped there was one strong rationale for it, even if it meant achieving multiple objectives. Either the Prime Minister has realized that the original primary objective of eliminating black money may not be met or there was not the adequate thought behind the decision. Hence it becomes imperative to discuss the feasibility of making India a cashless society, especially when large transactions here take place in cash. When we talk about a cashless society, we miss a critical fact that in a country of more than 125 crore people, there is only 14,60,000 point of sale at the retail level. Also, how many countries in the world are cashless? And even if we pay high-value

transactions by cheque or credit card, is it feasible to go cashless for low-value transactions? Moreover, how fair is it on the government's part to interfere with the citizen's right to pay in cash? However, the most significant and perhaps the most troubling statistics came forward by the end of December. An article in the Economic Times on December 5 raised doubts over the accumulation of around 80% of the banned currency in the banking system. This amount crossed more than 90% as the month of December came to an end. The Wire quoted Economist Arun Kumar who said that by the end of December over 95% of the invalidated currency may return to the banking system! The Indian Express, on November 30, also made a similar analysis. Hence the fundamental question that came up was – where is black money? This period also saw Dr. Manmohan Singh make a comeback on the country's economic horizon and pour out the much needed economic wisdom for the people and the government. He wrote an article in The Hindu on the 9th of December and in a careful choice of words, called this entire exercise as ‘Making of a Mammoth Tragedy.' He wrote that in one hasty decision, the Prime Minister had shattered the faith and confidence that hundreds of millions of Indians had reposed in the Government of India to protect them and their money. This was a far-reaching statement and a warning that pointed to the shattering of the economic fabric of the country! He also pointed out to the fact that the country's trade numbers were at multi-year low, its industrial production was shrinking, and the job creation also was meagre. Hence, he wrote that this decision will hurt the economy and will have ripple effects on the GDP and job growth! Pointing towards the self-centric attitude of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, he wrote, It may be tempting and self-fulfilling to believe that one has all the solutions and previous governments were merely lackadaisical in their attempts to curb black money. It is not so. Leaders and governments have to care for their weak and at no point can they abdicate this responsibility. Most policy decisions carry risks of unintended consequences. It is important to deftly balance these risks with the potential benefits of such decisions. Waging war on black

money may sound enticing. But it cannot entail even a single loss of life of an honest Indian. However, his speech in the Rajya Sabha on November 24 was the defining moment and underlined how the government had gone wrong in taking this decision. He called this ‘Monumental Mismanagement' and the same generated headlines all over, highlighting the significance of his statement! The text of the ex-Prime Minister is as follows: I rise to highlight some of the problems that have risen after the decision to demonetize Rs 500 and Rs 1000 currency notes. Prime Minister has been arguing that this is the way to curb black money, to prevent growth of forfeiture currency notes and also to help in control of terrorist finance activities. I do not disagree with these objectives. But I do want to point out this that in the process of demonetization monumental mismanagement has been undertaken about which today there are no two opinions in the country as a whole. Even those who say that this measure will do harm or cause distress in the short term but be in the interests of the country in the long run should be reminded of what John Keynes said once," In the long run all of us are dead." And therefore, it is important to take note of grievances of the ordinary people who have suffered as a result of this imposition on the country overnight by the Prime Minister. And I say so with all responsibilities, that we do not know what will be the final outcome. Prime Minister has said that we should wait for 50 days. Well 50 days is a short period. But for those who are poor and from the deprived sections of the society even 50 days torture can bring about disastrous effects. And that's why about 60 to 65 people have lost their lives, maybe more. And what has been done can weaken and erode our people's confidence in the currency system and in the banking system. I would like to know from the Prime Minister the name of any country he may think of where people have deposited their money in the banks but they are not allowed to withdraw their money. This alone, I

think, is enough to condemn what has been done in the name of greater good of the people of the country. And Sir, I would further like to point out that in my opinion that the way the scheme has been implemented will hurt agricultural growth in our country, will hurt small industry, will hurt all those people who are in the informal sector of the economy. And my own feeling is that the national income, that is the GDP, can decline by about 2 per cent as a result of what has been done. This is an underestimate, not an overestimate. Therefore, I feel that the Prime Minister must come up with some constructive proposal on how we can implement this scheme and at the same time prevent this distress that has been caused to the common people. It is no good that every day the banking system comes with modification of the rules, the conditions under which the people can withdraw money. That reflects very poorly on the Prime Minister's office, on the Finance Minister's office and on the Reserve Bank of India. I am very sorry that the Reserve Bank of India has been exposed to this sort of criticism which I think is fully justified. I, therefore, would not like to say much more than this. I urge upon the Prime Minister to find practical, pragmatic ways and means to relieve the distress of the people who happen to be a great majority. After all, 90 per cent of our people work in the informal sector, 55 per cent of our workers in agriculture are reeling in distress. The cooperative banking system which serves large number of people in the rural areas is non-functional and has been prevented from handling cash. So, in all these measures convince me that the way this scheme has been implemented is a monumental management failure, and in fact, it is a case of organized loot, legalized plunder of the common people. With these words, sir, I conclude. It is not my intention to pick holes in what one side does or another side does. But I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister will view that this late hour will help us to find practical, pragmatic ways and means to provide relief to the suffering of the people of this country. Thank you.

This speech was enough to create an impact on politicians and masses alike. The print and the electronic media gave it an extensive coverage. Many of the social media users conceded that Dr. Singh had a point. Overall, it gave an indication that one statement from this stalwart was enough to create ripples in the country! However, this session was marred by the unfortunate absence of Prime Minister Modi from Parliament sessions. Even after causing huge disruption to the economy and a lot of suffering to the common people, the Prime Minister chose not to make any statement on the floor of the house. Wasn't he the one who announced the demonetization decision? However, he spoke about this issue through his radio address of Mann ki Baat and also through the many rallies he addressed. This indicated that Mr. Modi had no regard for the Parliament and was never bothered about its proceedings. The Opposition continued their demand that the Prime Minister should make a statement and this created a deadlock! The government did not bother to abide by its responsibility for ensuring that the Parliament should run smoothly. As a consequence, the 2016 winter session of the Parliament was among the most unproductive in 15 years! Even L.K Advani, the senior leader of the BJP, expressed his disapproval over the way the house was conducted. On January 10, 2017, The Indian Express reported what the Reserve Bank of India said in its 7-page note to the House Panel regarding the demonetization issue. It said that on November 7, it was the government which advised the RBI to consider the note ban and it got the RBI nod the next day! In the seven-page note submitted on December 22 to the Parliament's Department Related Committee of Finance, the Reserve Bank of India said, "Government, on 7th November 2016, advised the Reserve Bank that to mitigate the triple problems of counterfeiting, terrorist financing and black money, the Central Board of the Reserve Bank may consider withdrawal of the legal tender status of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000." The note went on to state that, " It was advised in that letter that cash has been a facilitator of black money and elimination of black money will eliminate the long shadow of the ghost economy and will be positive

for India's growth outlook. They also observed that in the last five years, there has been an increase in circulation of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 notes with an increasing incidence of counterfeiting of these notes. There have been widespread reports of the usage of Fake Indian currency notes (FICN) for financing of terrorism and drug financing. The FICN have their origin in the neighbouring country and pose a grievous threat to the security and integrity of the country. Hence the government has recommended that the withdrawal of the legal tender character of these notes is apposite. GoI advised the Bank to place these matters of immediacy before the Directors of the Central Board of the Reserve Bank of India for consideration..." The article further stated that According to RBI's note, accessed by The Indian Express, the RBI Central Board met the very next day to "consider the Government's advice," and after "deliberations," decided to recommend to Central Government that the legal tender status of the banknotes in the high denominations of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 be withdrawn." The Government "considered the recommendations" and decided to withdraw the notes. That same evening, Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed the nation and announced the decision to withdraw the notes effective midnight November 8. However, eight days later, in the Rajya Sabha, Union Minister of Power, Coal, New and Renewable Energy Piyush Goyal made a statement that this decision of demonetization was taken by the RBI Board. Hence one wonders why this contradiction between the Government and the RBI? Another thing that underlined the fact that demonetization was a failure was Prime Minister's address to the nation on December 31, 2016. Narendra Modi did not speak on the actual purpose of taking this decision and its outcome after the ‘requested period' of 50 days! However, doubts were raised about the status of autonomy of the Reserve Bank of India. Nobel Prize winning economist Dr. Amartya Sen, while criticizing demonetization, said that the Reserve Bank does not take any decisions, as all of them are now taken by Prime Minister Modi. Former Reserve Bank governors YV Reddy and Bimal Jalan also expressed concern over the RBI's autonomy.

The year 2016 was the silver jubilee year of India’s economic liberalization. The county got into an accelerated growth path in all these years. The country became a 2 trillion dollar economy in 2014. There were reports that a large section of the population was lifted from extreme poverty. The decision of demonetization shattered this growth path and gave a negative shock to the economy. It will be interesting to see how the Narendra Modi government navigates the economic ship of the country in the remaining two and half years of its tenure, especially after a disastrous first half! Dr. Manmohan Singh was in news again on January 11, 2017. This time it was the Congress party's ‘Jan Vedna' conclave in New Delhi. Speaking at the conclave, he described the decision of demonetization as a disaster. He pointed out that all rating agencies had projected India's growth rate as 7%, as opposed to the previous projection of 7.6%, whereas some agencies had projected it as low as 6.3%! He warned that employment in agriculture, industry and services will fall along with the overall production in the country. Finally, he said that things have gone from bad to worse and the ‘worst is yet to come.'

Budget 2017 The Union Budget for the year 2017 was significant on three counts. First, it was the fourth Budget of the Narendra Modi government. Second, it followed the decision of demonetization that the Prime Minister took in November 2016. Third, the Modi government completed two and half years out of its five years term in November 2016 hence many economists were expecting significant reforms or landmark legislations from this Budget! However, it was essential to understand the state of the country’s economy before the Budget as the decision of demonetization had caused a lot of disruption to it. On this background, on 30th January, Dr. Manmohan Singh and Mr. P. Chidambaram jointly addressed a Press Conference that aptly described this state. The country listened in rapt attention as two of her most experienced economic stalwarts put forward some very vital statistics. They both unveiled the document, ‘Real State of Economy’, prepared by the research and coordination department of the ‘All India Congress Committee’ under Mr. Rajiv Gowda. Speaking at the Press Conference, Dr. Singh emphasized that Indian economy was not in good shape and pointed to the fact that International Monetary Fund (IMF) had downgraded the country’s growth rate from 7.6% to 6.6%. Some of the key points presented relevant the Press were: There was a significant drop in the enrollment of students from 2014; the numbers fell from 132,428,440 to 129,122,784 between 2013 and 2016 International Monetary Fund (IMF) has downgraded the GDP growth rate from 7.6% to 6.6% There has been a decline in the job creation. As per the Labor Bureau data, the new jobs created in 2016 were less than 1.5 lakh. The slowdown in the Indian economy because of demonetization will last four to five years. The funds in the startup sector fell by 42.7% The credit growth is the lowest in several decades

However, the Budget presented by the government failed to make any noticeable impact on the Indian economy. There was no announcement of any significant reforms, and there was a general sense of disappointment everywhere. The Congress party was ready with facts to attack the government, and Mr. Chidambaram again spearheaded this attack. His marathon speech in the Rajya Sabha emphasized on many important points about the Budget as well as the decision on demonetization. He noted that despite the slow-down in the economy, the government had reduced its spending and public expenditure as a percentage of GDP had contracted. The slack, he said, was not picked up by the private sector as well. The credit to industry had declined, and it turned negative in December 2016, and as a consequence, there was no private investment in the economy. He also pointed out that Foreign Portfolio Investment (FPI) that was positive until October 2016 had turned negative in November and December as money was pulled out of the country. Citing demonetization as the reason for jobs getting destroyed, he pointed to the unfortunate fact of not even a lakh new jobs getting created in the current financial year. Demonetization, he further said, had resulted in the closure of around 75% of all small and medium scale industries in the country. While talking about agriculture, he cited the UPA government and reminded everyone that year after year the Minimum Support Price (MSP) in the agricultural sector was increased, while this government is completely silent on the same. He expressed a sharp disappointment on the fact that there is no mention of ‘MSP’ in the budget despite two years of drought, cyclones in the country, followed by the recent decision of demonetization. His speech also included the fact that there was a sluggish demand in the country, coupled with exports contraction and a lack of private investment. Additionally, there was a reduction in private consumption which was a result of demonetization. How should the government boost the aggregate demand? For this, he emphasized on a cut on indirect taxes. But the government had not done the same.

Mr. Chidambaram continued his attack on the Prime Minister on the issue of demonetization. He stressed that no one informed the Prime Minister or the Finance Minister that 500 and 1000 rupee notes are 2,300 crore in number and the printing capacity of all the four printing presses is only 300 crore notes a month. So that means it would take 7 or more months to print all these currency notes and bring them to circulation. Despite this how could the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister say that things would become normal in some days? No one told the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister that if the size and shape of these notes were to change, ATMs would not dispense these notes! Hence they took two months to recalibrate the ATMs, and many of them were still not recalibrated. Finally he cited the NSSO (National Sample Survey Organization) survey which stated that 15 crore people in the country are daily wage earners (eg: farm laborers, head load workers, etc) whereas an additional 25.5 crore workers are daily income earners ( eg: fruit sellers, flower sellers, carpenters, plumbers etc). Demonetization, he emphasized, had devastated the livelihood of these 40 crore people as they struggled for their income or wage. So why was all this done? What have we achieved out of this exercise? And why is the government insisting 're-monetization', if the intention of this exercise was ‘de-monetization' at the first place? At the end of his speech, he pointed out that all the money had come back to the banks, excluding the one that lay in Nepal, Bhutan and the NRIs spread around the world. Finally, he reminded that the government's narrative changed from time to time. It started with corruption and black money and switched over eventually to a cashless society!

Verbal Attack on Dr. Manmohan Singh: On 9th February 2017, an unexpected development occurred in the Parliament. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while speaking in the Rajya Sabha criticized former Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh in a manner that did not sync with his position! He criticized the opposition parties on their stand on the issue of demonetization but used caustic words for Dr. Singh. To quote him, "in this country, perhaps there will be hardly anyone from the economic field who has had dominance on the country's financial affairs for half of the country's 70 years of independence. Out of 70 years, for 30-35 years, he has been directly associated with financial decisions. "So many scams occurred... We politicians have a lot to learn from Dr Sahab. So much happened, there is not a single blot on him. Dr Sahab is the only person who knows the art of bathing in a bathroom with a raincoat on." The Congress party staged a walkout after this remark from the Prime Minister. However, these statements again reflected on an age-old attempt by the Bhartiya Janata Party – to malign the image and discredit the contribution of Dr. Manmohan Singh in India's growth story! When Dr. Singh opened the country's economy in 1991, his political opponents called him ‘an American agent' or ‘a World Bank agent.' The answer to his vision was this question towards his patriotism! The media, too, had described it as ‘havoc to the country'. However, Prime Ministers who succeeded him could not change the economic framework he had set up for the nation. During the second term of the United Progressive Alliance, a heavy Social Media campaign was targeted against him and it was always propagated that he is a weak Prime Minister. To prove this point, many theories were written and countless images were photo-shopped and circulated everywhere. In reality, Prime Minister Singh steered the nation when the world faced an economic depression that was comparable to the great depression of 1929! India's average growth rate in the first five years of his tenure

was 8.5% and it clocked an average of 7.5% in all the ten years. Consumption in rural India grew at a faster rate during his tenure and this laid the foundation of a transformation of these regions. However as these developments were taking place, the opposition parties were busy tarnishing the image of Dr. Singh, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and the Congress party. The people of India, especially the neoliberal class, which is a product of the economic policies of Dr. Singh and the Congress party, believed in this campaign. The statement by Prime Minister Modi reflects an attempt to make people think that nothing significant has happened in the country since independence. It also reflects an attempt to completely deny the contribution of Dr. Singh in the growth story of India On 6th April 2017, four bills related to the Goods and Service Tax (GST) was passed by the Rajya Sabha without any amendments. Other opposition parties had sought changes in the Bill, but the Congress Party – largest in the house – voted for the bill and against the changes in it. The man who was responsible for maintaining a consensus between the Congress and the BJP for the smooth passage of the bills was none other than Dr. Manmohan Singh! "It is a historic bill. It is making a new beginning... It is a consensus bill, so I am very happy. It will have some pitfalls but we learn as we go along. We should not assume that there will be no difficulties. There must be a constructive spirit. There must be cooperation between the federal government and the state government to resolve those outstanding issues," he said. This, despite the fact that when his government introduced this bill, the fiercest opposition came from the BJP and particularly from the then Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi. When asked whether he was disappointed that his government could not pass the GST, he only said, "let bygones be bygones." It was always ‘nation first’ for Dr. Manmohan Singh. Denying the contribution of Dr. Manmohan Singh implies denying the growth story of India. Hence it is fitting to quote him from his last press conference as Prime Minister.

‘History will be kinder to me than the contemporary media, or for that matter, the opposition parties in Parliament.’ Budget 2018 A few months after the decision of demonetization, there were elections in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Goa, Uttarakhand and Manipur. The BJP scored a resounding victory in the state of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand but lost bitterly in the state of Punjab to the Congress under the leadership of Captain Amarinder Singh. The fight for the states of Goa and Manipur was very close. A section of the Print and Electronic Media and also the Social Media was quick to conclude that these results reflected that the people of the country supported the decision of demonetization. However, a patient analysis after the initial excitement proved these statements as immature and factually incorrect. If the people of the country chose to support the decision, then was this support restricted only to the states where the BJP won, namely Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand? Should we then consider that the people of Punjab voted against this decision? And what can we say about the people in the states of Goa and Manipur where the fight between the Congress and the BJP was very close? It implied that it was essential to analyse and comment on the decision from an economic perspective. An economic decision comes with its short-term effects and the long-term effects soon follow. The year 2017 witnessed a fall in the country’s GDP, and the small and medium-scale industries were hit hard as a consequence. It is significant to notice that these are the industries which employ a large number of people and their closure implies affecting the livelihood of a large section of the people. However, if this step was not enough, the government introduced a flawed version of the GST on 1st July 2017. There was widespread criticism on the passage of the GST and the inconvenience it caused to people, especially traders and small businesspeople across the country. Questions were raised on the inclusion of multiple rates despite the concept being ‘one nation – one tax.’ The government chose to roll out the GST by calling a special midnight session from the Central Hall of the Parliament. However,

what was the need to create an event out of an occasion that involved rolling out of a taxation system? Equally amusing was the presence of luminaries like Amitabh Bachchan and Lata Mangeshkar - both remotely associated with the economy and taxation – at a time when there was widespread confusion about GST in almost every part of the county. This confusion soon led to anger and protests, and it disrupted the functioning of the economy for months after the rollout. Meanwhile, Congress President Mr Rahul Gandhi (then the Vice President) spoke about his party’s narrative during his speech at the University of California, Berkeley. He said, At the heart of this powerful engine which India has built with its blood, sweat and bare hands since 1947, are jobs and economic growth. No amount of growth is enough for India if it’s not accompanied by the creation of jobs. It doesn’t matter how fast you grow. If you are not creating jobs, you are not actually solving the problem. So the central challenge of India is jobs. Roughly 12 million young people, 12 million, enter the Indian job market every year. Nearly 90 per cent of them have a high school education or less. India is a democratic country and unlike China, it has to create jobs in a democratic environment. India does not have and nor does it want China’s coercive instruments. We cannot follow their model if massive factories controlled by fear. Jobs in India are going to come instead from small and medium scale industries. India needs to turn colossal number of small and medium businesses into international companies. It was perhaps the first time that Mr Gandhi voiced this narrative on an International platform. He had spoken about this in India and this narrative was in perfect sync with what Dr Manmohan Singh said in his last press conference as Prime Minister in 2014. (The text of the Press Conference follows this chapter). In December 2017, there were elections held in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh and the Congress held on with its narrative and emphasised on it more in Gujarat. Apart from Mr Gandhi, other luminaries of the Congress party like Dr Manmohan Singh, Mr P Chidambaram and Kapil Sibbal not only underlined this narrative but

also criticised the twin decisions of Demonetization and a flawed GST. They attacked the ‘Gujarat model’ which had failed to generate jobs and had left a large section of the population dissatisfied and in deep discontent. The result of the Gujarat elections was an eyeopener for everyone. The BJP which had aimed for a tally of 150 (against the background of Gujarat being the Prime Minister’s home state) seats managed to get only 99, whereas the Congress Party increased its tally to 77. These numbers were enough to rattle the overhyped ‘Gujarat Model’ which was already developing cracks, as mentioned in the first chapter of this book. In Himachal Pradesh, however, the BJP defeated the Congress party and the state followed its tradition of changing the government once every five years. The Gujarat election results made many people recall Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar’s words that no one in the country had the capacity or was strong enough to challenge Narendra Modi in the 2019 general elections. In a move that surprised many and shocked almost everyone, in July 2017, Nitish Kumar resigned as Chief Minister of Bihar and moved out of the ‘Grand Alliance’ and in the same evening accepted the position of Chief Minister with the support of the BJP. Another significant development that occurred in January 2018 was the release of the book ‘2G Saga unfolds’ by Mr A Raja. We have already seen in Chapter 7 how a special court in Delhi acquitted all the 35 accused in the 2G spectrum case and they included Mr A Raja and Ms Kanimozhi. The court also had slammed the CBI for its failure to produce any evidence against them. Mr Raja said that he gave the first copy of the book to Dr Manmohan Singh and added that, “I wanted to give the first book to him because of the protection, patronage given by him to break the cartel in the telecom sector. It was with his cooperation that I did this revolution of reducing tariff and increasing teledensity and wanted spectrum to be made available for public use ." Against the background of the twin blows on the economy (in the form of a flawed GST and demonetization) coupled with a failure to create jobs and multiplying rural distress, everyone was keen to see what lay in the Annual Budget for the year 2018. However, it turned

out to be a disappointment for people who had rooted for reforms from this government since 2014. However, this budget came at a disappointing background of the level of agricultural GDP and the real agricultural revenue remaining constant over the period of four years. Former Finance Minister and senior Congress leader P. Chidambaram criticised the budget after raising several critical points. He pointed out that the industrial GVA and the manufacturing GVA numbers indicated a decline and the government had no new measures to boost exports. He also stressed that there was nothing in the budget to suggest that the farmers’ real income will rise and the farm sector distress will hence continue and deepen. He also pointed out that the government has merely claimed that it will increase the MSP by 1.5 times but there were no details associated with it anywhere in the budget. Similarly, the budget lacked ideas to boost private investment and encourage banks to lend and investors to borrow for new investments. He also pointed out to the cut in allocations of funds to schemes like MGNREGA, PMAY, Swachh Bharat Mission, National Drinking Water Mission, National Health Mission, Mid-day Meal Scheme etc. Finally, on the grand announcement of ‘Modicare’, he asked the Finance Minister and the government that, “The promise of Rs 5 Lac per family for secondary and tertiary healthcare is a big Jumla. The target group is 10 crore families. There is as yet no scheme. Assuming that each family will avail of Rs 50,000 - 1/10th of 5 Lac rupees - the amount required per year would be 5 Lac crore rupees. If the insurance companies will foot the bill at a premium of Rs 5,000 to 15,000 per family, it will require an outgo of Rs.50, 000-1.5 Lac crore per year. Is the Finance Minister serious?”

Full text: Dr. Singh's last press conference First, let me wish you all a very happy New Year. Let me say at the outset that I do believe we are set for better times. The cycle of global economic growth is turning for the better. Many of the steps we have taken to address our domestic constraints are coming into play. India's own growth momentum will revive. An important development in the year that has gone by is the demonstration of the strength of our democracy. Our people have demonstrated their faith in the institutions of democracy by voting in record numbers in the recent assembly elections. My party did not do well in these elections, but we welcome the extent of participation, and we will reflect on what the results tell us for the future and learn lessons. Our democratic Constitution and the institutions of our democracy are the cornerstone of Modern India. All of us who wish to build a better India, rid of poverty and corruption, must respect these institutions and work through them. They are the legitimate instruments in our hands, with all their limitations. No one individual or authority can substitute for the due processes of democratic governance. Friends, Over the past decade we have been through many ups and downs. During my first term in office, India witnessed for the first time in its recorded history a sudden acceleration of economic growth to 9.0 per cent. This exceptional performance was followed by a slowdown initiated by the global financial crisis. Over the past couple of years, all Emerging Economies have experienced a slowdown. India was no exception. Economies have ups and downs and we should not focus overly on the short term. We should recognize that even if we include the years of slowdown, the rate of growth achieved in the past nine years, is the

highest for any nine year period. And it is not just the acceleration of growth that gives me satisfaction. Equally important is the fact that we made the growth process more socially inclusive than it has ever been. In 2004 I committed my government to what I said would be "A New Deal for Rural India". I believe we have delivered on that promise very substantially. We followed farmer friendly policies including raising support prices for farmers, expanding credit to farmers, and through increased investment in horticulture, in rural development, and rural infrastructure, especially roads and electricity. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme has assured agricultural labour of a floor and has increased their bargaining power. Improved delivery of health and education services is giving new hope to our brothers and sisters living in rural areas of the country. These initiatives have ensured that agricultural GDP has grown faster than earlier. India has become one of the world's largest producers of food-grains, sugar, fruits and vegetables, milk and poultry. Rural wages have increased in real terms much faster than earlier. Rural real consumption per capita has increased four times faster. Because of these developments the percentage of the population below the poverty line has fallen much faster in the period 2004 to 2011 than it did in the previous ten year period. As a result, the number of people below the poverty line has come down by 13.8 crore. Friends, Education has been a key element of our strategy to increase the productive capacity of our economy and improve access to better jobs. I have myself been a beneficiary of liberal scholarships and public investment in education. I can, therefore, well understand the critical importance of investing in education. I take great pride in the fact that we have transformed the education landscape of our country. Through Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, through new scholarships for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Minorities, and with a focus on the Girl Child

and young women, we have widened educational opportunities. We have set up new universities, new institutes of science and technology, new industrial training centres and enabled the flowering of individual enterprise in skill building and education. I also feel satisfied with our legislative effort. Despite unprecedented parliamentary holdups, we have passed several important laws that seek to empower our people and our democratic institutions I do not wish to elaborate on our achievements in the economic arena. These are spelt out in detail a booklet which has been separately distributed and I would be happy to answer questions. There are however three points which I would like to mention. First, I am concerned that we have not been as successful as we need to be in generating employment in the manufacturing sector. This is an aspect of performance which we are working hard to correct. We need a much stronger effort in support of small and medium enterprises which can be a major source of good quality employment. Our Manufacturing Strategy gives high priority to this objective for the future Second, we have also not been as successful in controlling persistent inflation as we would have wished. This is primarily because food inflation has increased. However, we should remember that our inclusive policies have put more money in the hands of the weaker sections. To keep food prices in control we need to increase supplies and also improve marketing arrangements and logistics. This is especially important for items which are perishable, such as fruits and vegetables. Much of this work lies in the domain of the States. I am happy to say that the Food Security Act that we have passed will to some extent shield the common man from rising food prices. The worry about inflation is legitimate but we should also recognize that incomes for most people have increased faster than inflation. I have already mentioned that real wages in rural areas have

increased faster than before. Per-capita consumption in both rural and urban areas has increased significantly. Third, we are deeply committed to the objective of combating corruption. An array of historical legislations has been enacted to make the work of the Government transparent and accountable. Governance has been made more answerable as never before. Most of you have been routinely using the Right to Information Act to access Government documents which was not possible earlier. There is much public concern on high profile allegations of corruption, notably in regard to 2G spectrum allocations, coal block allocations and cases related to land. We have taken major steps to change the existing procedures for allocation of spectrum and coal by shifting to auctions so that these problems do not arise in future. Where some decisions taken earlier, when allocations were made administratively, have come under question, they are being investigated. Any wrong doing will be punished through due process of law. Land issues are in the domain of state governments and we have consistently advised state governments to ensure transparency in these cases. Let me conclude with a few words about the external environment. The one lesson we shall all learn from our experience over the past decade is that the world around us is becoming more challenging. This is both a function of our greater integration with the world and of the international community's expectations from a rising India. This is India's manifest destiny. We should recognize it as such and learnt to deal with it. India will continue to invest in its defence and national security, in providing security to its own people and ensuring regional security and stability. At the same time, we will continue to seek better relations with our immediate neighbours knowing that the destiny of the Indian sub-continent is linked through a shared history and a shared geography. It has also been my effort to build long term, stable and mutually beneficial relations with all major powers and all our Asian

neighbours. We should continue to benefit from global opportunities and contribute to global efforts in creating and managing global institutions to deal with global challenges. Friends, I have enormous confidence in our people's ability to deal with challenges at home. In a few months time, after the general election, I will hand the baton over to a new Prime Minister. I hope it will be a UPA chosen Prime Minister and our party will work to that end in the campaign for the General Elections. I am confident that the new generation of our leaders will also guide this great nation successfully through the uncharted and uncertain waters of global change. As we enter the New Year we will continue to implement our policies, with vigor and commitment, aiming to revive growth, promote enterprise, generate employment, eliminate poverty and ensure the safety and security of all our people, particularly women and children. Our Government will work ceaselessly till its last day. Thank you. Jai Hind

List of References

Indian Economy – Changes in Society - Media India’s Economic Reforms and Development – Essays for Manmohan Singh – Edited – Ishar juj Ahluwalia and I.M.D Little – Oxford India Perrenials – 2nd Edition – 2013 An Indian Social Democracy – Integrating Markers, Democracy and Social Justice – Edited by Sunil Khilnani, Manmohan Malhotra – Two Volumes – Academic Foundation – Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust -2013 An Uncertain Glory – India and its Contradictions – John Drez and Amartya Sen – Penguin Publication -2013 The Argumentetive Indian – Amartya Sen – Penguin India - 2015 The Idea of India – Sunil Khilnani – Penguin India – 2015 Tomorrow’s India – Another Tryst with Destiny – Edited by B.G Verghese – Penguin India - 2006 Break Out Nation – Ruchir Sharma – Penguin India – 2012 Business World – Special Issue – Twenty Years of Infrastructure and Reforms ( 1991 -2001) Dated 22nd August 2011 India Today – Special Issue 1947 – 1997 – Dated 18th August 1997 Reforms 2020 – Last 20 years, next 20 years – Indian Express – November 2011 The Big – Small Screen – Indian Express ‘I’ Supplement – 21st to 27th October 2012 The New Middle Class – Indian Express ‘I’ Supplement – 11th to 17th August 2013 Alive – June 2012 Freedom First – August 2010 ‘Samaj Prabodhan Patrika’ – January – December 2010 ‘Parivartanacha Vaatsaru’ 1st March to 15th March 2011, 1st April to 15th April 2011, 16th June to 30th June 2012 Jwalamukhichya Tondavar – by Kumar Ketkar ( Granthali Publication) Understanding News – John Hartley – Mathewn and Company – New York – 1982 Network – An Oscar Winning Film

The political developments from 1990 till 2014 – Analysis – Interviews, Speeches of Dr. Manmohan Singh – speeches during foreign visits – foreign policy 24, Akbar Road – Rashid Kidwai – Translated by Suresh Bhatewara – Chinar Publication – February 2013 Dailies and Magazines like Frontline, India Today, Tehelka, Outlook, Seminar, Governance Now, Caravan, Economist, Newsweek, Time, Open. Newspapers like The Indian Express, Times of India, Hindustan Times, Economic Times, Telegraph, The Hindu, Business Standard, First Post, New York Times, Washington Post. The Website of the Prime Minister’s Office ( PMO) The NaMo Story – Kingshuk Nag – Rolly Books – 2013 The weekly ‘Vivek’ – 24th April 2011 Vimarsh

Columns Indian Express – Shekhar Gupta ( National Interest), Surjit Bhalla, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Sanjay Baru, Suhas Palshikar, Seema Chisti, Christophe Jafferelott, Shailaja Vajpayee ( Telescope), Breaking Down News ( Pratik Kanjilal), Ratna Vishwanathan, Arvind Veermani, C. Raja Mohan ( The Great Game Folio), Ishar Juj Ahluwalia, Sunil Jain, Subrota Mitra Times of India – M. J Akbar ( Out of Turn), Vinod Mehta ( By Invitation), Swaminathan S Ankleshwaraiyya Aiyyar ( Swaminomics), Siddharth Bhatia, Milind Deora, N. K Singh, K Benedict, Mukul Rohtagi, Srivats Krishna, Santosh Desai, P. Raghwan, Dilip Padgaonkar, Gautam Adhikari Hindustan Times – Barkha Dutt ( Third eye), Rajdeep Sardesai ( Beyond the Bite), Sagarika Ghosh ( Bloody Mary), Karan Thapar ( Sunday Sentiments), Harsh Mandar ( Democracy Wall), Manas Chakravarthy ( Loose Canon), Vinod Sharma, Chanakya

Dr. Manmohan Singh Falling Man – Vinod Jose ( Caravan) – 1st October 2011 Man out of Time – Simon Denyar ( Open – 3rd March 2014) Manhole Ahead – Lola Nayar ( Outlook – 13th May 2013) From Asset to Liability – Dheeraj Nayyar, Bhavana Vij Arora ( India Today – 13th May 2013) No, Prime Minister – Shobha Chaudhary ( Tehelka – 11th May 2013) The Last Mughal of our Times – Ajay Singh ( Governance Now – 16th to 31st January 2014) The Last Chance for a Lost Leader – S. Prasannarajan (India Today, 12th August 2013) MMS, the closest Spiritualist – Narayani Ganesh ( Times of India) http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21656709-government-withholdsreport-nutrition-contains-valuable-lessons-secrecy-and http://www.ndtv.com/opinion/it-would-be-cruel-to-wish-modi-happy-newyear-1261236 http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/blowin-in-the-gujaratwind/ http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/patels-and-the-neomiddle-class-syndrome/ http://scroll.in/article/730489/speech-excerpts-modis-policy-u-turns-are-atribute-to-my-governments-work-says-manmohan-singh http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Swaminomics/why-no-applausefor-138-million-exiting-poverty/ http://www.thehindu.com/data/mgnrega-reduced-poverty-empoweredwomen-ncaer/article7530923.ece http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/aadhaar-enrollment-crosses-1-billionmark-ravi-shankar-prasad-1338621 http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/swamy-prosecutenilekani-for-graft/article5851882.ece http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/bangalore/nilekani-squanderednational-resources-to-us-firm-swamy/ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Mystery-shrouds-death-of-40wanted-in-MP-education-board-scam/articleshow/47450214.cms http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/reporter-on-vyapamtrail-dies-in-mp/ http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/jabalpur-medicalcollege-dean-with-links-to-vyapam-accused-found-dead/ http://www.newsx.com/national/4870-chidambaram-attacks-sushmaswaraj-who-took-the-call-to-issue-fresh-passport-to-lalit-modi http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-cag-report-slams-gujarat-sdevelopment-details-grave-financial-irregularities-2005622

http://m.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/jairam-ramesh-on-the-krishnagodavari-basin-scam/article8486493.ece http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-article-by-jairamramesh-on-the-kg-basin-scam-part-ii/article8533360.ece http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-article-by-jairamramesh-on-the-kg-basin-scam-part-ii/article8533360.ece http://m.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-gspc-numbers-dont-stackup/article8591270.ece http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/gujarat-state-petroleumcorporation-gspc-jairam-ramesh-2831338/ http://www.ndtv.com/opinion/no-modi-government-is-not-untainted-byscams-1418055 http://thewire.in/29132/what-went-wrong-with-gujarats-kg-deen-dayalgas-reserve-discovery/ http://m.rediff.com/news/column/modi-two-modi-has-now-realised-thelimits-to-indias-power/20160428.htm http://www.firstpost.com/politics/full-text-manmohan-singhs-last-pressconference-as-indias-pm-1320837.html http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report-fdi-confidence-index-india-dropsout-of-top-10-for-first-time-in-over-a-decade-2109142 http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/job-growth-in-8-sectors-at-7-yearlow-govt-data/story-UkWVLA9jQyZJZuNCWXI3BO.html http://indianexpress.com/article/business/economy/inflation-spikes-to-576-in-may-on-costly-food-items-2850828/ http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/farmers-rallybareilly-target-to-double-farmers-income-by-2022/ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Dalits-adivasis-get-raw-deal-inBudget/articleshow/51283450.cms http://www.rediff.com/news/column/assembly-elections-whose-defeat-isit-anyway/20160520.htm http://www.firstpost.com/india/modi-didnt-start-digital-india-it-was-rajivgandhi-sam-pitroda-2476320.html http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/demonetisation-oldnotes-rs-500-and-1000-rupees-notes-ban-income-tax-taxation-blackmoney-p-chidambaram-4372284/ http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/across-the-aisledemonetising-notes-or-demonising-cash-500-1000-new-currency-indiancurrency/ http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/across-the-aisle-nojobs-no-credit-growth-no-private-investments-4397127/ http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/manmohan-singhdemonetisation-currency-notes-ban-monumental-mismanagementparliament-winter-session-p-chidambaram-column-4409140/ http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/demonetisationsurgical-strike-pathankot-uri-attack-army-pakistan-border-infiltration-

4421004/ http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/across-the-aislewinners-losers-and-those-ruined-demonetisation-narendra-modi4432631/ http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/demonetisationcashless-economy-a-distracting-mirage-black-money-income-taxdepartment-4443622/ http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/11/08/heres-the-full-text-of-modisspeech-on-the-discontinuation-of/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An5zqsZsn7E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGZ_1d595KY http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/haryana/45-000-workers-lose-jobs-in-fbad-units/334720.html http://www.hindustantimes.com/kolkata/after-jute-mill-a-tea-gardencloses-in-bengal-citing-demonetisation/storyzZcW33fTMeYB0QqteGoK2M.html http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Amartya-Sen-termsdemonetisation-a-despotic-action/article16730675.ece http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/11/08/heres-the-full-text-of-modisspeech-on-the-discontinuation-of/ http://www.indiaspend.com/cover-story/how-modi-changed-and-changedthe-demonetisation-narrative-54391 http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/across-the-aisledemonetising-notes-or-demonising-cash-500-1000-new-currency-indiancurrency/ http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/demonetisationcashless-economy-a-distracting-mirage-black-money-income-taxdepartment-4443622/ http://m.economictimes.com/wealth/personal-finance-news/deposit-of-80of-banned-currency-in-banks-raises-doubts-about-success-ofdemonetisation/articleshow/55771366.cms?from=desktop https://thewire.in/83821/may-not-demonetisation-end/ http://m.economictimes.com/wealth/personal-finance-news/deposit-of-80of-banned-currency-in-banks-raises-doubts-about-success-ofdemonetisation/articleshow/55771366.cms?from=desktop http://indianexpress.com/article/business/banking-andfinance/demonetisation-month-to-go-bankers-say-90-95-per-cent-moneywill-return-to-system-4402467/ http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/Making-of-a-mammothtragedy/article16779252.ece http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/demonetisationmanmohan-singhs-full-speech-in-rajya-sabha-4392829/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An5zqsZsn7E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGZ_1d595KY

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/haryana/45-000-workers-lose-jobs-in-fbad-units/334720.html http://www.hindustantimes.com/kolkata/after-jute-mill-a-tea-gardencloses-in-bengal-citing-demonetisation/storyzZcW33fTMeYB0QqteGoK2M.html http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Amartya-Sen-termsdemonetisation-a-despotic-action/article16730675.ece http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/11/08/heres-the-full-text-of-modisspeech-on-the-discontinuation-of/ http://www.indiaspend.com/cover-story/how-modi-changed-and-changedthe-demonetisation-narrative-54391 http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/across-the-aisledemonetising-notes-or-demonising-cash-500-1000-new-currency-indiancurrency/ http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/demonetisationcashless-economy-a-distracting-mirage-black-money-income-taxdepartment-4443622/ http://m.economictimes.com/wealth/personal-finance-news/deposit-of-80of-banned-currency-in-banks-raises-doubts-about-success-ofdemonetisation/articleshow/55771366.cms?from=desktop https://thewire.in/83821/may-not-demonetisation-end/ http://m.economictimes.com/wealth/personal-finance-news/deposit-of-80of-banned-currency-in-banks-raises-doubts-about-success-ofdemonetisation/articleshow/55771366.cms?from=desktop http://indianexpress.com/article/business/banking-andfinance/demonetisation-month-to-go-bankers-say-90-95-per-cent-moneywill-return-to-system-4402467/ http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/Making-of-a-mammothtragedy/article16779252.ece http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/demonetisationmanmohan-singhs-full-speech-in-rajya-sabha-4392829/ http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/from-theviewsroom/parliament-in-shambles-because-the-pm-wont-address-thehouse-on-demonetisation/article9433189.ece http://indianexpress.com/article/business/economy/demonetisation-onnovember-7-it-was-govt-which-advised-rbi-to-consider-note-ban-got-rbinod-the-next-day-rajya-sabha-4467235/ http://indianexpress.com/article/india/as-rural-hands-return-nregademand-spikes-over-60-per-cent-4465577/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6qwsRgqxjg http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/economic-survey/congressreleases-real-state-of-economy-2017-report/listshow/56877943.cms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGNbV3vbpDM http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2017/02/08/modi-slams-manmohan-singhfor-criticising-demonetisation-decisio/

http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/rural-indiatops-consumption-charts-114040300969_1.html http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/interview/history-will-be-kinder-to-methan-the-media-says-manmohan/article5535346.ece http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/there-will-be-pitfalls-says-manmohansingh-as-gst-bills-are-passed-1678311