Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who passed away on Thursday night, leaves a lasting legacy. He would go down as an extraordinarily self-effacing, two-term Prime Minister (2004-14), and as celebrated Finance Minister between 1991 and 1996. A ‘technocrat’ in politics, he will be remembered for decisively altering the direction and trajectory of the Indian economy after pulling it out of its dire mess in 1991. One of the great triumphs of India’s reform process, thanks to Singh, lies in how it managed its transition from a dirigisme economy to a market-driven one without ever being tripped up by financial instability.

This was a commendable feat. A distinguished economist and academic who had worked in every conceivable policy position of importance in the Finance Ministry, Commerce Ministry and the Reserve Bank of India, Singh nurtured institutions to underpin the freer play of market forces. Now, it is easy to take for granted India’s economic journey out of the BoP mess of 1991 to the heights of the high growth years between 2003 and 2011. The mess was a result of high fiscal deficits spilling over into an adverse current account balance with no capital flows – the Gulf War of 1990 worsening it all by raising oil prices. Singh as Finance Minister devalued the currency (pegged at a ridiculous level) in two swift strokes to restore investor confidence, created a semblance of a capital market, reduced tariffs in a calibrated way and relaxed licensing curbs on investment to create a confident India that was to break out of its autarkic shell.

Singh’s acuity as an economic leader lay in getting the sequencing and pace of reforms right, reducing trade barriers before financial ones. That saved India in two shocks – the East Asian crisis of the late 1990s and the Global Financial Crisis in 2011-13. He sought rigour in ideas, honing them for policy purposes. As an accomplished academic, Singh understood well what creating a ‘knowledge economy’ entailed. Yet, Singh’s failures as a politician, or rather as Prime Minister who shied away from elections and never became a Lok Sabha member, cannot be papered over — especially in the second term of the UPA. His lack of political skills and confidence was exposed, as couldn’t assert himself within the party and with the alliance partners. With the masses, Singh lacked the persona to make a connect. Meanwhile, the government lost its way, as alliance partners cut deals in coal and telecom, bringing his government to disrepute even as Singh’s reputation was untarnished.

He was increasingly regarded as a remote-controlled PM from ‘10, Janpath’, a weak leader of a rudderless government. Perhaps, his biggest blunder, both strategic and political, was to refrain from taking on Pakistan after the 26/11 (2008) terror attacks in Mumbai. Yet, Singh was a gentleman who never misused the power of his office. Today, as India faces new challenges, its leaders should pay heed to the dignity and intelligence that Singh brought to public life.