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.