Margaret Thatcher, often called the Iron Lady west of the Iron Curtain, retired long ago and reportedly suffers from dementia in her late eighties. In the U.S., George H.W. Bush was retired by the ballot, while Ronald Reagan, who battled Alzheimer’s and died years ago, showed signs of senility even in office. Yet, in India, we find a Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, nearing his eightieth year, clinging to power—perhaps, some say, as a regent until a younger leader assumes the reins.
This critique harbors no intent to disparage Mr. Singh’s integrity or academic credentials. He deserves credit for steering India out of Nehruvian socialism and the stifling License Raj, where productivity was both regulated and penalized. However, his recent statements and handling of vital national issues suggest a tired mind, raising questions about his fitness to lead. Mr. Prime Minister, it’s time to retire—Sat Sri Akal!
Some of Singh’s remarks are not just ill-considered but myopic, seemingly detached from facts or consequences. In August 2010, The Hindu reported the Supreme Court’s suo motu order directing the Union Government to distribute food grains to millions in need rather than letting them rot in rain-soaked warehouses. The government admitted that 67,000 tonnes of grain had spoiled due to neglect. Outraged by this paradox—starving millions alongside wasted food—the Court mandated free distribution to Below Poverty Line (BPL) families. Singh’s response was exasperating: he claimed the government couldn’t distribute food gratis and insisted the Court should not meddle in policy matters. This statement was not only morally questionable but legally baseless, as letting food rot violates the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Such a response from a Prime Minister is deeply irresponsible.
On September 8, 2010, The Hindu quoted Singh prioritizing economic progress over environmental concerns: “We cannot solve problems by perpetuating poverty in the name of the environment. If the country’s mineral wealth isn’t exploited, economic growth will suffer.” This bizarre stance raises questions: Was Singh lobbying for conglomerates like Vedanta or POSCO? Can he cite a single instance where environmental destruction and displacement of tribals eradicated poverty? Leaders like Singh, who make decisions with long-term consequences, won’t face the fallout. His words betray both the impoverished and future generations.
On October 24, 2010, The Hindu reported Singh labeling Naxalites as the nation’s greatest threat. He overlooks a critical truth: Naxalism isn’t a biological phenomenon but a social one, born from lopsided, insensitive, and avaricious economic policies peddled by successive governments—including his own.
Propriety demands stepping down when one can no longer discern the purpose of leadership. Mr. Singh, it’s time to hang up your boots and bid farewell.
5 comments:
Excellent, Anil! The way you linked the three incidents - the foodgrain issue, the mining and then his comments on Naxalites was smooth.
If this is what one can expect of a person of Mr.Singh stature, no hope of salvation for the poor people. This is why I repeatedly say that democracy is the worst hypocrisy of modern world.
Excellent Post.
This is debate is very old, and those who reach age of 60 are given a farewell, to retire and consider themselves to be unfit and told "sir you are aged now your decision making capacity and physical strengths are not supportive to the challenges you face to be working". We do not have maximum age bar for contesting in elections and people on wheel chairs run for elections and win, people with lost knees,partially blind and deaf and with by pass surgeries and on heavy medication are expected to be fit to do the most critical and difficult jobs with great efficiency!
A PIL has been filed recently in Allahabd High Court against the descripancies in retirement age by a Neelendra Pandey, a local social worker.He quoted the dissimilarities of retirement ages among different establishments.
Having said that,who says the PM makes any decisions in India?They are just pawns of the parties they represent.Apart from the ocassional demented comments he makes,Singh doesnot make decisions on policy matters.For that matter, no PM in India does that.
The criteria that we see in India is that all our PMs are impotent by virtue of age.It is probably a general representation of our character.
@ Bals,
All said and done , debated and discussed or argued, human beings are sensitive to their own -personal welfare, gains and existence.The comments of Mr Singh on these two issues tells that in many words.
@ Dr Antony,
How will they retire, because it is ,"after me deluge".
" To this Mr Manmohan Singh responded exasperatedly that the government cannot distribute food grains free and the Supreme Court should not interfere in policy matters. "
Mr. Manmohan Singh, our Prime Minister, is a well-educated gentleman, unlike most of his ilk. but in spite of it, he has taken the stance of fabled dog in the manger ! He is not ready to give away freely to hungry millions of Indian citizens ( of whom he is the First Servant ) food which is rotting. Food, which in other countries would have been buried,as unfit for human consumption ! Is it the ego of office which has interfered with his gentlemanly judgment, to oppose the third arm of our Constitution, the Supreme Court of India, which has rightly voiced what millions of Indian citizens agree to, wholeheartedly ?
Mr. Singh seems to have abdicated his responsibility to the people and has given ear ( and mind ) to his spin doctors !
@ amalg999
I wonder where the wisdom from his academic life has gone? His comments and conduct of policies and decisions
are outlandish,myopic and nonsense
Post a Comment