I am an admirer of Dr Manmohan Singh. I am willing to be critical about him because of the wrong decisions he has taken and the right decisions he has not taken. I have to be objective. The question is whether the ardent admirers of Congress president Sonia Gandhi are willing to be critical of her wrong decisions, the populist measures, that have pushed the economy into a crisis.

Let us look at prime minister Singh’s term in office of the last nine years in two phases, UPA-I and UPA-II. The economic performance of UPA-II was spectacular, that of UPA-II is the worst ever on record. There is nothing to show that the success of UPA-I was due to the economic decisions taken by the Singh government. The economic disaster of UPA-II was entirely due to government’s mismanagement.

Why was there economic growth during the UPA-I term? It was due to the decision taken by then finance minister Yashwant Sinha between 1999 and 2002. He had reduced the administered interest rates from 12 per cent to 8 per cent. This encouraged people to take loans and it spurred economic activity. Inflation was at a record low in these years and it was accompanied by high growth. Low inflation and high growth continued in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. When inflation began to rise from 2008 onwards, it was argued that this was a global phenomenon. Global inflation has gone down but domestic inflation remains high.

It is the increase in the minimum support price by 33 per cent for the food grains producers between 2006 and 2009 that has spurred inflation. It has of course helped the UPA to win the election in 2009. The Congress and the UPA won the battle but India has lost the war on the economic front. Wherever this has been done, it has been ruinous.

Recently, Thailand has increased the support for price for rice farmers. It has fuelled inflation and the Thai economy is on the brink.

The seeds of the destruction of the economy during UPA-II were laid during the UPA-I tenure. The farm loan waiver, the MNREGA, the Pay Commission, the fertiliser and fuel subsidy were acts of profligacy.

It is a fair question to ask whether Manmohan Singh is responsible for the sorry state of the economy. Yes, he is. There are political pressures from the Congress party. If he felt that the decisions he was being asked to were not right, then he should have resisted it. If he could not convince the party, he should have resigned. For example, people in the know told me that Singh was opposed to the Food Security Bill. In his Independence Day speech, he proclaimed it as one of the achievements of the UPA. He should speak his mind. All that I can say is that he could have resigned. He had the option. But he chose to stay on. Then he has to take responsibility for what has gone wrong with the economy.On a scale of 1 to 10, I would give him a negative rating.(As told to Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr)

(Surjit Bhalla is an independent economic analyst)