The perception of Manmohan Singh as a "puppet" of Sonia Gandhi during his tenure as Prime Minister of India has been a topic of considerable debate and analysis. This characterization stems from various factors, including the dynamics of power within the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), Singh's leadership style, and the influence exerted by Gandhi as the Congress party president.

Power Dynamics In The UPA

When Manmohan Singh became Prime Minister in 2004, following Sonia Gandhi's unexpected decision to decline the position, many observers noted a significant power imbalance. Singh, known for his technocratic background and soft-spoken demeanour, often appeared to be overshadowed by Gandhi, who retained considerable control over party decisions and coalition politics. Critics argued that this arrangement led to a scenario where Singh was "in office but not in power"—a sentiment echoed in Sanjaya Baru's book The Accidental Prime Minister, where he described Singh as having "surrendered" to Gandhi and accepting her as the "centre of power" in the government.

Baru's account highlighted instances where Singh's authority was undermined. For example, he was reportedly side lined in key cabinet appointments and policy decisions, with ministers being chosen based on their loyalty to Gandhi rather than Singh's preferences. This led to perceptions that Singh was merely a figurehead, executing policies that were largely dictated by Gandhi and the Congress party leadership.

Public Perception And Criticism

The narrative of Singh as a puppet gained traction during his tenure, particularly during periods of political turmoil and corruption scandals that plagued the UPA government. Critics pointed to his passive response to issues like the 2G spectrum scam and other allegations of corruption within his administration as evidence of his inability or unwillingness to assert control over his ministers. This perception was further fuelled by comments from political opponents, who used the "puppet" label to question Singh's effectiveness and leadership capabilities during election campaigns.

Moreover, Singh himself acknowledged the challenges of leading a coalition government where multiple stakeholders had significant influence. He famously stated that "there cannot be two centres of power," reinforcing the idea that he accepted a subordinate role within the political hierarchy established by Gandhi.

Counterarguments: Singh's Agency

Despite these criticisms, some analysts argue that labelling Singh solely as a puppet overlooks his agency in critical policy decisions. For instance, he played a pivotal role in advancing economic reforms and navigating complex international agreements, such as the Indo-US nuclear deal. These actions demonstrated his ability to exercise influence when it aligned with his vision for India's growth, suggesting that he was not entirely passive but rather strategic in his approach.

Furthermore, Singh's tenure also involved moments where he took firm stances against opposition within his party and coalition partners. His commitment to certain policies against popular sentiment—such as foreign direct investment (FDI) in retail—illustrated that he could assert himself when necessary.

Conclusion

The characterisation of Manmohan Singh as a puppet of Sonia Gandhi reflects a complex interplay of political dynamics within India's coalition government. While there is substantial evidence supporting claims of Gandhi's dominance over party affairs and cabinet appointments, it is equally important to recognize Singh's contributions and moments of assertiveness during his premiership. Ultimately, this duality highlights the intricate nature of leadership within a parliamentary democracy where personal agency must often navigate party loyalty and coalition politics.

IDN