Decency’s Legacy Amid Charismatic Populism

The 39th U.S. President, Jimmy Carter, died on December 29, shortly after the demise of the 13th Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, on December 26. Both leaders, known for their decency, had their contributions to history grossly underestimated. Each lost to populist, charismatic, right-wing leaders promising greatness to their demoralized nations: Ronald Reagan in the U.S. and Narendra Modi in India.

President Carter was born and raised in rural Georgia, growing up among mostly Black children. Manmohan Singh hailed from Gah village, now situated just off the Lahore-Islamabad expressway in Pakistan. Both brought to their adult lives values imbibed early: faith, tolerance, and hard work. Carter’s election as U.S. President was unexpected; he began campaigning as a relative unknown in Washington, though already Governor of Georgia. Similarly, when Congress President Sonia Gandhi presented Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister after the 2004 election victory, it stunned other aspirants.

PM Singh’s first term saw him fearlessly pursue his reform agenda and engage with the U.S., culminating in the India-U.S. nuclear deal, which unsettled his coalition. President Carter similarly took bold actions: tackling inflation, expanding conservation efforts by protecting 100 million acres in Alaska, deregulating oil and gas prices to achieve energy independence, granting Panama sovereignty over the Panama Canal, brokering peace between Egypt and Israel through the Camp David Accords, and bringing climate change into focus well before other developed nations. Both leaders were instinctively committed to human rights, democratic institutions, and free elections.

However, both were undermined by events they failed to foresee or prevent. Carter vacillated between pushing globally for respect for human rights and supporting the Shah of Iran, a critical U.S. ally. By the time he realized that the Shah needed unwavering American support, Iranian public opinion had already shifted toward the Islamic resistance led by exiled Imam Khomeini. The occupation of the U.S. embassy in Iran in 1979 by a regime-aligned mob and the taking of 52 U.S. diplomats and staff hostage left Carter’s presidency in crisis. Similarly, Manmohan Singh remained committed to dialogue with Pakistan despite the Mumbai train bombings and failed to forestall the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. The massacre in 2008, following Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s ouster, left the Indian government embarrassed and its foreign policy challenged.

Indian voters, however, overlooked these lapses and re-elected the Manmohan Singh government in 2009, with Congress winning even more seats. But the Congress leadership, led by Sonia Gandhi, appointed Pranab Mukherjee as Finance Minister, seemingly to curb PM Singh’s zeal for rapid economic reform and expanded U.S. engagement. As the father of Indian economic reforms, Singh recognized the political maneuvering. Mukherjee, who had once been Singh’s boss, was reportedly unhappy at being overlooked for the top job. When retrogressive taxes were imposed, a top industrialist, after complaining to Singh, found his response demoralizing—Singh confessed he could not push his Finance Minister on the matter. The right course for Singh in 2009 would have been to resign if he couldn’t appoint a Finance Minister aligned with his vision. Instead, he allowed internal power struggles to tarnish his second term, which ended marred by corruption allegations.

The difference between Carter and Singh lies in their post-office tenures. Carter reinvented himself as a global force, facilitating peace, combating diseases in the Global South, and advocating free and fair elections—a role aptly described as “waging peace.” Singh, on the other hand, continued to sit in the Rajya Sabha, often a target of political attacks. His lack of mass appeal and limited oratorical skills left him defenseless. His occasional retorts lacked the rhetorical force needed in an India increasingly driven by slogans, propaganda, and rabble-rousing.

The January 9 State Funeral for Carter presented an ironic scenario. President Joe Biden repeatedly invoked the word “character” to define the late leader, each time pointedly staring at Donald Trump, who was about to assume the presidency in eleven days. Trump is the antithesis of everything Carter symbolized. Similarly, in India, while the government hesitated over the location of Manmohan Singh’s last rites and a potential memorial, it promptly announced one for late President Pranab Mukherjee.

The U.S.’s adherence to protocol, especially the eulogies—including one by Gerald Ford, whom Carter defeated in the 1976 presidential election—was admirable. In contrast, India’s politicization of such moments is disheartening and needs rectification.

The New York Times Editorial Board aptly wrote a eulogy titled: “America Needs More Jimmy Carters.” Surely, India, too, could do with more Manmohan Singhs.

KC Singh is former secretary, Ministry of External Affairs