Talk:Manmohan Singh

Bit dated perhaps?

This article is pretty short for a man of Singhs(lions) caliber. Also, I think, it lacks in current events. The nuclear deal signed between India and USA is pretty historic by any rational. Manmohan Singh has had an important role to play in this as the current prime minister. It would be worthwhile if someone with better knowledge on the topic could mention about this in the article.

opposition leader sonia gandhi??

this is taken from the beggining of the article and I am not quite sure what it means.....Sonia Gandhi is the president of the party in power, I will assume this was a mistake and correct it. If somehow it refers to something else, pls let me know.

I guess it was supposed to mean that he was her advisor when she was the leader of the opposition, anyway is is quite confusing and so I think my edit should stay. Abhishekbh 08:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thirteenth Prime Minister

As clearly mentioned in the article that Dr. Singh is the sucessor to Mr Vajpayee. The link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atal_Behari_Vajpayee decribes Mr Vajpayee as the 10th PM of India. I m not sure about this, but would like someone who knows about this to review the articles, so as to rectify the errors if any. Thanks.

As detailed on Prime Minister of India, Mr. Vajpayee served two terms. When he took office for the first time, he was the 10th prime minister of India. There were two other prime ministers (as well as Mr. Vajpayee's second term) before Mr. Singh became the 13th prime minister. The previously mentioned article has a nice tablhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manmohan_Singh&action=edite. User:Gaurav

First Sikh Prime Minister

I'm sure I'm not alone in having assumed that the two previous PMs called "Singh" were Sikhs, too. Could someone knowledgable add an explanation, either on this page or the other Singhs'? Tnx, –Hajor

VP was not: [1]; CC I can't find anything on. Markalexander100 04:24, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your search efforts. Wikipedia (I should have looked) has, of course, an article on Singh, which offers the following explanation: "While all male Sikhs are Singhs, not all Singhs are Sikh. It was a name in use before the Sikhs and signified someone of high caste. Therefore you often get Hindu Singhs who are not Sikhs." So, another preconception bites the dust. –Hajor 15:20, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

In the case of Hindus, Singh perhaps has to do with the Sanskrit word for lion. The Hindu warrior caste believed themselves to be just like a lion in valour on the battlefield. In the neighbouring country of Nepal, the surname Singh is adopted by the landed gentry, just like Tagore in India.

Another interesting Singh is in the noun Singapore. I have always believed that Singapore is formed by the Sanskrit words for lion(Singh) and city(pur). So, Singapore is a city of lions. - User:Kanden 23:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

C. C. Singh is listed on Sikh politicians, is that an error? --Someones life 16:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

VP Singh who was a PM of India was a Hindu. Manmohan Singh is the first Sikh PM but there has been a Sikh President (a mostly ceremonial post) of India.

regarded

Why was the word "regarded" bolded? Quadell (talk) 18:33, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

In Gurumukhi ?

Why Manmohan's name in Gurumukhi ? Should PV Narasimha Rao's name written in Telugu and Devegowda's in Kannada ? - Kesava 07:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quite possibly? 62.252.224.12 16:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. That would fit very much for a multilingual country like India. -- Sundar 05:34, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Definitely. We should encourage people who can write in those languages to add such names as appropriate. QuartierLatin1968

Lok Sabha

The article notes his defeat at South Delhi in 1999. Where is his current constituency? Adam 09:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He's not a member of Lok Sabha, but is a member of Rajya Sabha from Assam according to this. The notion of a constituency is not associated with a Rajya Sabha member as he and others represent a state and not a single constituency. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:04, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Is there no requirement that the PM be a member of the Lok Sabha? Is he the first PM not to be a member? Adam 06:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only requirement is that the PM should be a member of either of the houses of Indian Parliament. If s/he is not a member s/he must get elected within six months of appointment as PM or a minister in the cabinet. I think he's not the first Indian PM who is not a member of the Lok Sabha. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 06:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. This should be noted in the article. Adam 06:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please explain yourself

To the user who keeps reverting my valid comments, using multiple sockpuppets, please note that the wikipdeia personal attack policy is directed at other users and not persons on whom the article is based. Please explain to me:

1. Why I shouldn't reinsert my comments here
2. Since you keep reverting me, why I shouldn't return the favor and do some liberal reverting of my own on your contributions?
3. Why I shouldn't add the following entry in this article:

==Leaked CIA Report==

According to a classified report by the CIA that was recently leaked to the Washington Post, Dr. Singh underwent a nervous breakdown at age 35, when during a routine medical check up, it was revealed that his longtime partner and wife, Lady Devi, was in fact, a man. Dr. Singh claimed that he always pumped Devi with the lights off and so he never actually saw her naked. But to his credit, even after this revelation that his wife is a man, Dr. Singh forgave her, or rather him, and continues to live with her/him happily even after many many years. Since this report has become public knowledge, Dr. Singh has become an extremely popular figure among the gay/lesbian communities of India, which constitute a substantial portion of the population.

If you are speechless, I will proceed to reinsert my comments here. Awaiting your reply, The Village Idiot 20:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you imagine pretty good. Keep it up. --IncMan 13:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

First off, Manmohan Singh is not popular amongst the gay/lesbian community in India. I doubt if any politician is, except maybe Omar Abdullah, Rahul Gandhi or Shabnam mausi (none of who are gay, btw). I don't know where you got that rubbish from. Secondly, his wife's name is Gurcharan Kaur not Lady Devi. --Notquiteauden 21:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Third, it's a faux pas for you to write about 'her'. --someone else 00:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Urdu

Why cant we keep his name in Urdu on the main page? He was after all educated in Urdu, and it is an India language. --Notquiteauden 21:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Urdu is an Indian language and (with due respect to Urdu) so are hundreds of others. But, I didn't know that his complete early education was in Urdu. If this was true, we can mention it somewhere in the article. But, I would personally like to have only Gurmukhi script (since it's his mother tongue since his mother tongue Punjabi is commonly written using that script) and not even Hindi Devanagari as otherwise it doesn't look good to read with too much non-English text in the English wikipedia. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:06, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Gurmukhi is not a language. It is a script used to write a language. Many people confuse Punjabi and Gurmukhi. They are two different things. Punjabi can be written in any script. 65.26.247.222 (talk · contribs) August 16, 2005.

Yes you're right. I'm sorry. I now correct it to Gurmukhi script. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The blue turbaned bandit strikes again - this time at this own people

<<Removed WP:BLP Violation. See diff for attack>>

obvious POV, what are you getting at? sganjam 06:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

POV

As an American university student stereotype, I know next to nothing about Dr. Singh or his career. But the article seems needlessly one-sided. It implies, for example, that Singh singlehandedly saved the economy. THis almost never is the case. And I can think of very few people who deserve a statement as broad as "held in high esteem, and regard, all over the country and the world." The Village Idiot's comments do not belong in the article, but they imply that some people find things about Singh to criticize. These need to be mentioned in the article. Fishal 04:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree. RexNL 02:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm also an American, but I know a lot about Singh (on account of my parents' being from India). You are right about the lack of a NPOV. I went through the article and made it sound more like what Singh actually did, and I removed the NPOV sign. However, you should read a bit about Singh elsewhere, like on the BBC. While he didn't do everything, he did engineer the economic liberalization package that was the first step toward a series of future liberalizations. (Sort of like Deng Xiao Ping). After Sonia Gandhi decided not to take the PMship, the markets in Bombay plummetted, but they rose sharply a few days later when she announced that Singh would become PM instead of her. Read what I wrote and see if it's okay.

1.Manmohan Singh wasnt a neo-lib in the first place.Let me quote P. Sainath,

After all, the South Commission report was signed by Manmohan Singh 90 days before the liberalization process, can he really have changed his views that much in that time?

So it is quite obvious that the reforms where IMF initiated,and Singh just implemented them. This may or may not be true...Or may or may not be good or bad,but it is a valid criticism.

2.About the thing about stock markets,do you think that the sharp rise of the market is necessarily an indication of national welfare and a vindication of Dr.Singh,at least considering the conditions existing in India?The "sharp rise" invited criticisms,which said that the marketvalahs expected too much favours from Dr.Singh,unlike Sonia Gandhi. A neo-lib might take pride in these feets,but one should not forget that there are other political ideologies and knowledgible people existing in this world!

3.The BJP often says that Dr.Singh is the weakest prime minister India has ever had.That too should count as a criticism.

I for one,consider Dr.Singh as a great personality,but an encyclopedia should have a place for criticisms as well.--Sahodaran 05:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so "Village Idiot" is a user name, and I thought Fishal was being rude. I too, do not agree with the point of view that Manmohan Singh engineered India's Economic reforms. I am of the view that he merely implemented them. I was a kid back then but I remember a cartoon depicting Rao and Singh with two bags filled with some papers and cash coming out from IMF building. Their arms were twisted like wires. In the caption Rao was saying to Singh, "If someone asks, tell them our arms were not twisted, we twisted them ourselves." Liberalization had not even started back then. What the cartoon depicted was that Rao and Singh after some arm twisting have agreed to implement some of IMF and World Bank's policies in return for loans. At that point what Rao and Singh had agreed to do was not very popular in India, but they were without choice.

Sahodaran, I am not sure what are you trying to say in point 2? Point 3, BJP accusing Singh of being weakest PM, how does that count as criticism. BJP has an axe to grind, opposition can say whatever they want, but unless it is based on facts it does not even merit a mention in this sense "BJP criticizes him of being a week PM". You do not have to find criticism for the sake of it.

I'm not opposed to listing his accomplishments, nor do I believe that we should go out of our way to find obscure failures. However, there are many POV adjectives in this article that need to be removed. For example, "He is one of the most qualified..." That's not objective fact. --Munchkinguy 02:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

foreign minister

K. Natwar Singh is no longer External Affairs Minister, right? But who is his replacement, or is the position still vacant? In any case, the cabinet list is outdated. – ugen64 20:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

He has been divested of his charge and Manmohan Singh temporarily holds his portfolio. Note that Natwar Singh is still a cabinet minister without a portfolio. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 03:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know he's minister without portfolio, but I was hesitant to change the cabinet chart without figuring out what was going on with the external affairs ministry. :) – ugen64 01:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Manmoha.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Manmoha.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Hindi Name

Why is the surname सिंह (sinh) instead of सिंघ (singh)? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That'd be 'sĩh', actually. And, since that's how the Hindi article has it, I'd assume that's the Hindi for it. The alternative you give would have a hard g at the end. Which isn't how it's pronounced, AFAIK. BovineBeast

The 'n' was just a quick way of transliterating nasals :D Well you see, the problem is that the Gurmukhi has an aspirate 'g'(ਘ) where as the Devanagari has simply 'h'. Although I've had limited exposure to Hindi news reports, I'm pretty certain they say 'Singh'. I don't know Devanagari very well, so it may just be a misunderstanding on my part. If anyone can clarify, it's appreciated. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 01:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

While Hindi is spoken as it is written, over the years some pronunciation has got corrupted, without people noticing it. What is written in English as Singh is incorectly pronounced as सिंघ (singh) instead of सिंह (sinha). Just do a search on those words and you will notice the prevelance of सिंह over सिंघ .

Lion is not said the same in Hindi and Punjabi. In Hindi it's सिंह and in Punjabi it's सिंघ, but when it comes to Sikhs, Hindi speakers will just say it in the Punjabi way (even though they may spell it the Hindi way). There you go. Tuncrypt 21:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think I might have been incorrect on this, but whatever. Tuncrypt 06:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The spelling in the article is the same as in the reputed Hindi-paper New Bharat Times...So I guess it´s fine

Comments about the article

-He was born on... in.. and is a member of the left-of-centre Indian National Congress party.

left-of-centre!! What does this mean and why should it be in the same sentence with date of birth? Congress is not a left wing party; it is liberal but not leftist. In the true sense it is not even liberal, but I am comparing here.

-Singh is also known as a low-key politician, enjoying an image as "squeaky clean."

Should be ...enjoying a "squeaky clean" image. Since Squeaky clean sounds rather unpolished and un-encyclopedic is should not be used. In fact, should be ... "Mamohan Singh is held in high esteem all over the country owing to the fact that is not seen as a politician, but rather a technocrat." Remove the next to next sentence.

-Singh is widely regarded as the architect of India's original economic reform programme which was enacted in 1991 under Rao's administration. He was mentored by earlier PM Rao.

Earlier PM Rao? Unless there are two Raos in these sentences there is no need for earlier Rao. And what did Rao mentor Mamohan Singh in?

-Rao's government was defeated in the next election because Rao and other top ministers were widely seen as corrupt. Singh, however, was able to escape with minimal harm to his reputation as a reformer.

Singh escaped with minimal damage? This implies his image was tarnished too, even if slightly. When in fact Singh was in no way party to the scams under Rao's government. Some of the well known scams were - Fertilizer scam (involved fertilizer minist and Rao's Son I believe), Jain Hawala Diary (almost every politician including Advani and Vajpayee, but not Manmohan), St Kitts case (A case from the time when Singh was not even in Congress, Rao, Rajiv Gandhi, Chandraswamy), Paybacks to JMM to vote against no-confidence motion (JMM leaders and Rao)

-Opposition and 2004 Election Singh stayed with the Congress Party despite continuous marginalization and defeats in the elections of 1996, 1998 and 1999. He did not join the rebels in a major split which occurred in 1999, when many major Congress leaders objected to Sonia Gandhi's rise as Congress President and Leader of the Opposition.

The word 'Opposition' in the heading should be used in Sonia's article not in Manmohan Singh's.

Anyway, Manmohan Singh's loyalty towards Congress does not need a mention. The article itself says he is a "low key politician." Singh, did not have big political ambitions and did not involve himself in power play.

After Congress' defeat in 1996 there were two splits in Congress. The first one due to the fact that after Rao there were several Big shots who wanted to take the helm of Congress - Madhav Rao Scindia, Arjun Singh, Narayan Dut Tiwari (etc.) left congress to form their own parties when Sitaram Kesari became president of Congress. Manmohan Singh was not a big shot and outside Congress he had no identity (especially with the masses) he did not have any political ambitions either; there is no reason why he should have left Congress. Anyway all those politicians came back with Sonia.

The second split took place when Sonia Gandhi agreed to take part in the affairs of Congress. When she became president of Congress (if I remember correctly) three politicians left, PK Sangma, Sharad Pawar and another guy. They objected to Sonia's foreign origin issue. In reality Sharad Pawar left because he did not see a future for himself in Congress party under Sonia, and floated his own regional party in Maharashtra, where he had his own image. Sangma wanted to find favour with BJP. This was no even a split, since only one leader of any value (Pawar) left. Pawat has had no problem in making alliance with Congress since then. Manmohan Singh did not have to go out of his way to stay with Congress. While most Congress big shots were marginalized, Singh in fact enjoyed a certain respect in Congress in spite of having a horrible record in elections.

-But Singh continued to stay on as a leader within the party, most notably helping to revamp the party's platform and organization.

Is there a source for this info? It is widely known that Singh was Sonia Gandhi's most trusted Congress lieutenant, but was he directly involved in a revamp of Congress? I doubt. A case could even be made for Jairam Ramesh's work for revamp, who like Mamohan Singh is a favourite of Gandhi, even Salman Khurshid was given a go at it.

-The Congress alliance won a surprisingly high number of seats in the Parliamentary elections of 2004, owing largely to a nationwide disenchantment of millions of poorer citizens with the BJP's focus on the surging middle-class, and also its dismal record in handling religious tensions.

Yes the Congress win was a surprise but most speculations about the reason are passed as facts, and while they are speculations they are wrong. The fact is Congress won because it used to go for elections alone but this was the first time that it made pre-poll alliances. That is why Congress won more seats. The poor are not jealous of the middle class, the middle class fuels the economy and provides employment for the poor. Religious tension did not contribute much either, the Muslim vote for BJP was just as strong as in previous elections.

-Although most expected him to head the Finance Ministry himself, he entrusted the job to P. Chidambaram.

Who expected Mamohan Singh to be FM? P. Chidambram is widely considered to be a better Finance Minister than Manmohan Singh. Singh, in spite of being pro free economics is a tad bit leftist. P Chidambram was in deed expected to be the Finance Minister.

Leftist policies, POV

which included the reduction of several redundant socialist policies

sounds a little subjective to me...

sganjam 06:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Cabinet

Is this section really required in an article about Manhmohan Singh? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's just have it in a separate list and link it from ==See also==. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention

I'm not up on what Western media call him... but if he's a Sikh, shouldn't he be referred to as Manmohan rather than Singh? My understanding is that among Sikhs, "Singh" is a title rather than a name. The Sikh cricketers on India's national team are all referred to by their given names — for example, Harbhajan Singh is known as "Harbhajan" instead of "Singh". I'm open to enlightenment on this issue. — Dale Arnett 16:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by title? All Sikh males have Singh has a middle name and Females have Kaur as a middle name. So they just reffer to him with this middle name aswell, I really don't see anything wrong with that. You don't have to earn the title by doing anything, you just need to be Sikh.

Rampant POV

Is this an encyclopedia or a job advert. Phrases like "most highly respected", great, highly respectable etc are typed with impunity. This is an encyclopedia not a propaganda machinery. Also, there are so many unnecessary stories cleverly planted in his biography which have nothing to do with him. I have cleaned up the article and made the language free from weasel words. Please respect the sanctity of the article and discuss it on talk page before adding anything. He hasnt even completed his term and already it has been declared that he is great and respected. Also, why mention him alone as the architect of economic liberlisation when there were many key people involved including Chidambaram and maybe several others. POVremover 00:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

References added

References have been added in areas talked about.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cathyh (talk • contribs) .

The first reference mentions him as architect of economic reforms not "architect of India". POVremover 04:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: POVremover has been indefinitely BLOCKED by ADMIN--Cathyh 04:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This is true. But please provide the reason for the blocking. He was blocked only due to his username and nothing else. As he has changed the name now, it doesn't show anything about him. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 07:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the comments, I agree with him. The BBC reference only says architect of reforms. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 07:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Manmohan Singh Article has blatant POVs

It is a matter of urgent concern. User Cathyh and Fed3 who I suspect are one and the same person have inserted many POV statements for Manmohan Singh. Statements like "Architect of modern India" is a non-sense. The reference this user has provided is from BBC where its only written "architect of economic reforms" not "architect of modern India". There are several places where "highly respected" etc has been liberally used. This article is mainly baseless POV. Harryford 06:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think they are the same person then please go to WP:RFCU. As the page is now protected, you both need to discuss the issue here and stop this blame game. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 07:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Cathyh is using fradulant POV

My previous name POV remover was blocked because of naming policy not bad conduct.

You are fradulantly implicating me. The entire edit history on talk page can be checked and I did not delete other's content. This is your second fraud.

Your third fraud is that you yourself deleted my messages from talk page.

Your fraud number four: You called me silly several times and I never called you names. It is you who are uncivilized and rude. You used capital letters many times and it can be seen on history page of the article which is rude. You ignored my requests for talk and your fraudulant POVs are misleading others. The opening statement itself is misleading and fradulant. The BBC article says "architect of economic reforms" not "architect of India". There are several other POV statements which have made this article a misleading and biased one. Harryford 07:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. This is getting all of us no where. If you want to continue the senseless blame game instead of discussing the article, then go ahead. I will report you both on WP:3RR for edit-warring on both the article and talk page irrespective of which one of you is right. I would advise you to forget about it and make a list of things which you consider POV and why. Explain which references you see as faulty. All that can be done here below this comment. I have already started the new heading. Within a day or two we could come to a consensus and unprotect the page. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 07:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

Please add your suggestions below to reach a consensus on the article. Here are my points.

• Remove POV from the lead and clean-up. There is too much in the lead which could be distributed into "personal life", "education", "professional life", "awards" or other such sections. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 07:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Fraud and POV in Manmohan Singh Article

• I agree with Aksi that there is too much POV, (even fraud) and content in the opening section.

• Fraudulant Content in the opening section such as "architect of modern India" should be corrected to "architect of economic reforms in narsimha rao government". Manmohan Singh is not the only one who carried out these reforms, there are several others who made contributions. One example is P Chidambaram.

In the light of this fact, the language should be changed to, "Manmohan Singh was ONE OF THE architects of economic reforms in India" and references should given as to who these key people were including ManMohan Singh. Failing to do this means Manmohan is given all the credit which is not his. Others' who have contributed are not acknowledged. These may include people from Tamil nadu Such as P Chidambaram and others from UP, Gujarat, Karnataka and I believe others states too.

• Statement " he is the most educated prime minister in history" should be verified. What about rajendra prasad, radhakrishnan etc.

• "Singh is also known as a unassuming politician, enjoying a formidable, highly respected and admired image". This is the third POV,laudatory, deifying image, giving him an almost demi-god status and the article has just begun.

• "Due to his work at the UN, International Monetary Fund and other international bodies, he is very highly respected in the world." This is the fourth POV statement and "...very highly respected..." is forcefully added. This statement should be modified to "He also worked in the UN and International Monitory Fund". besides it should be asked what was so great that he did in UN and IMF which made him such a highly respected person?

• Information like "outstanding parliamentarian award" is useful information and should be retained.

• He has been generally regarded as honest and a technocrat which till now is well deserved and should be retained.

• "His economic policies - which included the reduction of several socialist policies - were popular, especially among the middle class. He enjoys strong support among the middle and educated classes of India due to his educational background." This is the fifth POV, totally baseless deifying, glorifying statement. "enjoys strong support", "were popular" Where is the reference? There have also been criticisms of his policies, none of which has been mentioned. This is a very biased statement.

• "Despite its economic liberalization policies, Rao's government was defeated in the next election because Rao and other top ministers were widely seen as corrupt."

I wonder what the above statement has to do with Manmohan Singh. To me it seems that there is an attempt to attack and blame everybody other than Manmohan Singh as corrupt". There were several top ministers which were clean and even Rao's story has two sides. None of this was taken into account and besides, this statement is not even relevant to this article.

• "His appointment is notable as it comes 20 years after India witnessed significant tensions between the Indian central government and the Punjabi Sikh community. After Congress Party Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the mother-in-law of Sonia Gandhi, ordered central government troops to storm the Golden Temple (the holiest site in Sikhism) in Amritsar, Punjab to quell a separatist movement, she was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards. The result was a tremendous nationwide crisis in which many innocent Sikhs were murdered in riots at the behest of Congress party heavyweights."

I do not understand what this statement is doing here. We must ask this? Was he made PM because he was Sikh? or was he made PM because he was competent? If his sikhness was a factor in him making a PM (and this means there were other candidates who were discriminated against becuase they were not sikhs) then it should added as such and reference should be provided. Otherwise the above statment should be removed.

• "Singh's image is of a formidable intellectual, a political leader of integrity (a prevalent stereotypical public perception denounces most national bureaucracies as corrupt and tainted)".

This is again POV. where is such a sterotype? why this is the sixth time a glorifying statement added.

Are we to add a glorifying statement on every single paragraph. is this an encyclopedia or a cheap tabloid which says "she is so sexy" " she is hot", "she is a bombshell" on every second line or a new starlet. Wikipedia has become a cheap tabloid with such edits.

• "Exchange visits by top leaders from both countries have highlighted this year, as has reduced terrorism and increased prosperity in the state of Kashmir." No reference again! Has prosperity really increased? What about continued genocidal wars against kashmiri hindus, what about Manmohan's government's steps to rehabilitate kashmiri hindus? What about major terrorist activities in India under his leadership? Absolutely nothing! This is a blatantly biased article.

• "The peace process has also been used by the government to build stronger relations with the United States, China and European nations. But the Government suffered a setback when it lost the support of a key ally, Russia, for its bid for a permanent membership to the U.N. Security Council with veto privileges."

Has this above statement anything to do with Manmohan Singh. besides, russia has supported not opposed India's candidacy and is one of the very few countries to do so. This statment is misleading and potentially fraudulant. On the other hand china continues to claim indian territory as its own and still occupies tibet, a foreign country.

• "While Manmohan Singh has a long and illustrious past as an administrator" This is the eighth POV statment which should be modified. Long and illustrious by whom? And where are the criticisms of his monetary and fiscal policies? This seems to be biased.

• "It is his highly respected image which is expected to make Singh an highly-regarded choice of Prime Minister for the Congress, its allies, and the Leftist parties for the full five-year tenure".

There you go, highly respected and highly regarded for the ninth time. The page 3 of wikipedia if there ever was one.

Criticism section is missing and is urgently needed

Now one last point:

• Why is there no criticism section at all? What about his governments' bad policies on nuclear agreement. Almost the entire top scientific establishment has raised grave concerns.

• Why no mention that he and his government have started a new wave of caste based reservations. Even caste based reservations in Private industry.

• Why no mention of radical increase in naxalite insurgency, terrorism in varanasi, Mumbai, calcutta, terrorism in North east under Manmohan Singh Government.

• Why no mention of grave security compromises like giving away Siachin as one of the proposals.

• Why no mention that he is one of the weakest prime minsters not only by BJP, but by left and even his own congress colleagues like Natwar Singh?

This article is one-sided attempt in the most juvenile fashion. Kill all the balance, fill it with POV, make it a cheap tabloid.

I urge all the readers to look at their conscience, introspect and please remove all this POV and add criticism section. I love Manmohan's honesty and his education and his economic initiatives, but this is an encyclopedia not a holy temple for Manmohan as its almighty god. Harryford 09:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, i support Harryfords suggestions. I would love to have someone who opposes his suggested edits. May be criticism section could be avoided per WP:BLP, but the rest are facts, and should enter the article.nids 10:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I strongly disagree with Harryford's suggestions. I don't find the other party's notions attractive either. While obviously there should be a criticism section, most of this is speculative stuff. The real problem with this article and this conflict is that there are no sources. External links are not good enough to be references or sources. One can clean up the article if one could lay hand on a book or two, and reputed publications. No propaganda sites. Rama's arrow 13:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, we are not to focus on what kind of prime minister he is. All stages of his life, be it as RBI governor, Finance minister, PM, scholar etc. must be given equal importance. This article is about his life, not the Manmohan Singh government. Rama's arrow 13:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that,

his government started the new wave of caste based reservations, and he as the PM has to take the responsibility.

terrorist insurgency increased during his reign as PM.

He has been accused of as the weakest Indian PM, not only by opposition, but also by his fellow party members.

I dont know about any security proposal for Siachen, but if it is properly sourced there is no reason to keep that away from the article.

For the rest of them there is not one, but many reliable sources.nids 21:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have references/reliable sources, you can use those to add the data you suggest. The point is, none of this info and no language in the article should sound judgemental - we are not to pass any judgement on Manmohan Singh - not as a "weak" or "good" prime minister. A biography based on facts, that's what this is about.Rama's arrow 23:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I was pretty clear that we will not be judgemental. We will merely mention that He has been accused of as the weakest Indian PM, not only by opposition, but also by his fellow party members. We wont be saying that he is the weakest. Similarly there is no doubt that his government, with him being PM started the new wave of caste based reservations. (we are not saying whether this is good or bad, just plain fact).nids 04:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I too strongly disagree with Harryford's suggestions. I strongly don't find the other party's notions attractive either. We are not to pass any judgement on Manmohan Singh. This an article about Manmohan Singh NOT HIS GOVERNMENT.--Indian50 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree about any accusations being including- its POV. One person who made that accusation has been accused of corruption is suspended from the congress party. RSS say BJP should not supported Natwar Singh, Outburst of the former External Affairs Minister against the Prime Minister has made Manmohan Singh more powerful since entire Congress firmly stood by him. Congress President Sonia Gandhi at a rally in Uttar Pradesh had proudly declared that "we are indeed proud of Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister" in an apparent rebuff to Natwar, Vaidya added. [2]. No accusations. --Indian50 11:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course this will be added to. Infact when we add both the oppostions allegations and this news report, the article will, in a way, support his stature.nids 16:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No I'm afraid I strongly disagree with about any accusations being including- its POV and potentially libellous material, must and will be removed immediately.--Indian50 21:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Are sources from the Indian political parties credible? I mean, does one expect the BJP to give an honest, factual assessment of Singh? There should be a generalized statement (with citation not from a partisan source) that India's right-wing think Singh is ... Specific criticism should arise from historical, scholarly sources. Newspapers are ok. Rama's arrow 01:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

However, when somebody becomes a head of state, what that person does in that official capacity is automatically more notable than whatever they did before or after. In all articles about heads of state, their actions during office are given much more prominence and many more words. This is even true, for example, for Stephen Harper, who has been in office for all of six months. Furthermore, it is absolutely relevant to include other parties' criticisms of Manmohan Singh-- whether or not they have an "axe to grind." There is even precedent for Harryford's suggested "criticism" section: see George W. Bush#Criticism and public perception, Tony Blair#Criticism, and even Abdul Kalam#Criticism. Fishal 15:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that we should have a criticism section. There can be no article on some leader without criticims (from at least some sections of society, if not majority). Abhask 01:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Cabinet again

This discussion has come up once again. It is tedious to maintain the list in both the places. Earlier Sukh and Sundar had suggested removing the list from the article and adding it to see also. I also support the idea. There was no one who objected to the idea. I will wait for 1-2 more days before removing the list if no one objects to it. Please give your views on the issue. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate more support for this idea. The cabinet is not directly relevant to Manmohan Singh himself. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Manmohan singh has never won a election

Dr Manmohan Singh has never won a direct election even a municipal electiom .He has never won a direct election .I feel it is a valid point by Natwar Singh that he never won even a muncipal election and became of the largest democracy in the world.I have put the references.Harlowraman

What's in a name?

Having read all the existing comments about this page, and realising that people are more concerened with the name of the person, such as: a) Why his name is also printed in Gurmukhi? b) Why is is a Sinh(as pronounced in Hindi) and not Singh?

Personality of Dr. Manmohan Singh is far beyond these petty questions. Quality of his work, as a Finance Minister in the 1990s and now as Prim Minister of India, speaks for itself. It is very evident to a follower of India's day-to-day happenings, that he is not looking for credits, as most of India's politicians do. He is focussed on making a stronger India. Results of his policies is not short term, but long term. Most of his policies of 1990s had immediate impact on India's economy, but many had long term impact that has resulted in India's growth rate of over 7% every year in the last 10 years.

In my childhood days in early 1980s, India lost its last of great leaders, Indira Gandhi. Dr. Manmohan Singh is a leader that I see has emerged after 20 years of show by politicians. Leaders lead, showing the way not only with short-term policies, but with policies that have impact over long term. Politicians while are concerned only with giving short happiness to the citizens, ignoring long term impact of their policies and ignorance. This is the difference between leaders and politicians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.255.30.168 (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

Honest politicians?

In "Tenure as Prime Minister" it states that he(Singh) and Sonia Ghandi are the two most honest politicans of post-independence India. This make me laugh a bit because while Singh has a reputation of 'clean', Sonia Ghandi does not. While not overly corrupt, Sonia Ghandi is still the leading politician of the Ghandi political family and president of Congress Party and thus a major power behind the PM. politics has always been dirty. I think it will be best to just remove that line. However, the rest of the article is very well written.

Ani 21:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Dr. Dr.

It nice and fine that he has a doctor title. But does it have to be mentioned in every single sentence? -- No. WP:NAMES. Pls remove the "Dr." and don't add more. Thanks. --Ben ^T/_C 09:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)