Former Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar has voiced his criticism of the party’s decision to appoint Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister in 2004, arguing that Pranab Mukherjee should have been chosen instead. Aiyar believes that this choice played a significant role in Congress’s electoral defeat in 2014.
Aiyar shared his thoughts, asserting that Pranab Mukherjee should have led the UPA-II government, while Manmohan Singh could have been elevated to the office of President of India when the position became vacant in 2012. Aiyar, 83, expressed that such a move would have prevented the “governance paralysis” that followed.
The former Congress leader added that the decision to keep Manmohan Singh as PM while shifting Pranab Mukherjee to Rashtrapati Bhawan effectively “doomed” any chance of Congress forming UPA-III.
Aiyar made these observations while launching his upcoming book, A Maverick in Politics, which chronicles his political journey, from his early years to his fall from prominence.
In his interview with PTI, Aiyar emphasised the impact of poor governance and the inability of the Congress leadership to effectively address the public’s concerns, which laid the foundation for their dismal performance in the 2014 general elections.
Aiyar noted that by 2012 Manmohan Singh had undergone multiple heart surgeries and struggled physically, which affected his governance. Simultaneously, Sonia Gandhi’s health issues were also not officially addressed leaving both the Prime Minister’s office and the Congress presidency in a state of stagnation. This lack of effective leadership, according to Aiyar, contributed to the inability to handle crises such as the Anna Hazare-led anti-corruption movement.
On the matter of Pranab Mukherjee’s potential role, Aiyar argued that Pranab’s health, vigour, and political experience made him a better fit to lead the government. In contrast, Manmohan Singh, despite his distinguished service, would have been better suited to a ceremonial role, such as President, he feels.
Aiyar pointed out that Mukherjee himself had contemplated this shift in his memoirs, where he recalled Sonia Gandhi’s vague suggestions about promoting Singh to the presidency.
Aiyar also criticised the handling of key issues, such as corruption allegations and the Commonwealth Games scandal, which also tarnished the UPA government’s image. The mismanagement of the Anna Hazare movement, in particular, was a turning point, he added. Aiyar recounted a low point when three Union ministers met controversial figure Baba Ramdev at the airport, signalling a lack of direction and weakening public confidence.
Ultimately, Aiyar believes that even if Pranab Mukherjee had become Prime Minister in 2012, Congress may have still lost the 2014 election. However, he contends that the party would not have suffered the humiliating defeat, falling from 414 seats in 1984 to just 44 in 2014, if there had been more decisive leadership.