Talk:Manmohan Singh/Archive 1


 * ARCHIVE 1

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: ; 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.

I agree with the point that Manmohan Singh is the first Sikh P.M. of India but saying that he is first non-Hindu P.M. is not appropriate. Sikhs are Integral part of Hindu community, without them Hindus are not complete so it should be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gujraniya (talk • contribs) 14:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not relevant to the Sikh!=Non-Hindu debate, he's also not the first non-Hindu PM because Jawaharlal Nehru was an Agnostic Atheist, not a Hindu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.131.161 (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

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. -- 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. -- 06:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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

Will the original poster of this query kindly see his signature? I think he has a right to decide how the name should be written, because its... oh wait, his name!59.180.73.150 (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The blue turbaned bandit strikes again - this time at this own people
<>
 * 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)

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)

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.

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)


 * Calling a person of such high rank and age by their first name seems to be a sort of sacrilege, no ?-- Jon Ascton    (talk)  00:36, 28 July 2010 (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)

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. . 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)


 * This article is about manmohan singh's life which includes the part in which he leads a corrupt government and in which he surrenders to corrupt ministers. These criticisms have been in the public domain and have been covered by most media including newspapers. Is this not a fact that he was reprimanded by the supreme court for his inaction in 2G Scam. How do you say it is speculation. Also reliable references have been provided most of which are newspaper articles. Also historical sources are not available since this corruption is happening right now.


 * 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, Tony Blair, and even Abdul Kalam.  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)

I strongly agree that we should have a fair critism section. People tried adding it, but some so called "Scholar" removed it saying "removing critism by 13 year old kid". This Scholar is a true Manmohan fan and I respect his opinions. But it is not fair to remove the section due to this reason. Mr. Scholar, I hope you are reading this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimic2 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 21 October 2007 (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)

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)
 * I also support this. List of Cabinet ministers is totally irrelevant to Dr.Manmohan Singh's bio. Veg  Puff   poke  06:40, 19 June 2009 (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 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

But does this matter. So many corrupt and selfish politicians have won elections. Manmohan Singh has worked in good faith for this country.

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)

Punjab state vs. Panjab university
Please be informed that the university in Chandigarh is spelled PAnjab University, yet the administrative state of India is spelled PUnjab. You may visit the university's website first, before changing back to the wrong version. Tomeasy 19:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I myself have set this wrong right maybe 50 times (on other Wikipages as well) : It's Panjab University and not Punjab University.  Jon Ascton    (talk)  00:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Twice bored "a self proclaimed scholar of wikipedia
The critism section has been removed many times by a scholar named "Twice bored". The reason he is giving is spelling is not correct. Even if we assume the spelling is not correct, can this be a reason of removing a valid section? If he/she is so concerned about spelling, why he/she is not correcting it? (If he/she is claiming the spelling is not correct, obviously it means he/she knows the correct spelling also. Why to remove the section. Also it is funny to see the spelling of "your" as "yoru" in his/her comment in history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimic2 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Degrees
Delete the honorary degrees from the "Early Life" section. If he was awarded them in the 2000's, it's not his early life, and they don't contribute much to our understanding of the man.

Second, why aren't there's edit tabs on the side of each section, as there are with most others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.242.42 (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

D.Phil should be changed to Ph.D!!
why the hell does it say "D.Phil" when it should be Ph.D?? This is deliberately misleading to the layman as Dr.Manmohan Singh is a Ph.D from Oxford! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.39.64 (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

fixed it Profitoftruth85 (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * He can't have a PhD from Oxford as Oxford uses the DPhil abbreviation. The Latin can go either way round - either Doctor Philosophiæ or the much more common Philosophiæ Doctor. See Doctor of Philosophy. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Education - what did he study?
We're told he has several degrees, but the article doesn't mention what he actually studied. This is a significant oversight - will someone with knowledge of the topic please correct this? Thanks, okedem (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Below is his full resume( I found it at http://speakindia.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/resume-of-dr-manmohan-singh-prime-minister-of-india/)

Resume of Dr. Manmohan Singh - Prime Minister of India

By Sanjay Sharma, Section Election 2004 News Posted on Wed May 19th, 2004 at 06:55:37 AM EST

Resume of Dr. Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India, and the original Architect of the Economic Liberlization.


 * Born on: September 26, 1932
 * Place of Birth: Gah (West Punjab)
 * Father: Gurmukh Singh
 * Mother: Amrit Kaur
 * Married on: September 14, 1958
 * Wife: Gursharan Kaur
 * Children: Three daughters

EDUCATION:

Stood first in BA (Hons), Economics, Panjab University, Chandigarh, 1952; stood first in MA (Economics), Panjab University, Chandigarh, 1954; Wright’s Prize for distinguished performance at St John’s College, Cambridge, 1955 and 1957; Wrenbury scholar, University of Cambridge, 1957; DPhil (Oxford), DLitt (Honoris Causa); PhD thesis on India’s export competitiveness

OCCUPATION:

Professor (Senior lecturer, Economics, 1957-59; Reader, Economics, 1959-63; Professor, Economics, Panjab University, Chandigarh, 1963-65; Professor, International Trade, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, 1969-71; Honorary professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, 1976 and Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, 1996) and Civil Servant

POSITIONS:


 * 1971-72: Economic advisor, ministry of foreign trade
 * 1972-76: Chief economic advisor, ministry of finance
 * 1976-80: Director, Reserve Bank of India; Director, Industrial Development Bank of India; Alternate governor for India, Board of governors, Asian Development Bank; Alternate governor for India, Board of governors, IBRD
 * November 1976 - April 1980: Secretary, ministry of finance (department of economic affairs); Member, finance, Atomic Energy Commission; Member, finance, Space Commission
 * April 1980 - September 15, 1982 : Member-secretary, Planning Commission
 * 1980-83: Chairman, India Committee of the Indo-Japan joint study committee September 16, 1982 - January 14, 1985: Governor, Reserve Bank of India
 * 1982-85: Alternate Governor for India, Board of governors, International Monetary Fund
 * 1983-84: Member, economic advisory council to the Prime Minister
 * 1985: President, Indian Economic Association
 * January 15, 1985 - July 31, 1987 : Deputy chairman, Planning Commission
 * August 1, 1987 - November 10, 1990 : Secretary-general and commissioner, south commission, Geneva
 * December 10, 1990 - March 14, 1991 : Advisor to the Prime Minister on economic affairs
 * March 15, 1991 - June 20, 1991 : Chairman, UGC
 * June 21, 1991 - May 15, 1996 : Union finance minister
 * October 1991: Elected to Rajya Sabha from Assam on Congress ticket
 * June 1995: Re-elected to Rajya Sabha
 * 1996 onwards: Member, Consultative Committee for the ministry of finance
 * August 1, 1996 - December 4, 1997 : Chairman, Parliamentary standing committee on commerce
 * March 21, 1998 onwards: Leader of the Opposition, Rajya Sabha
 * June 5, 1998 onwards: Member, committee on finance
 * August 13, 1998 onwards: Member, committee on rules
 * Aug 1998-2001: Member, committee of privileges 2000 onwards: Member, executive committee, Indian parliamentary group
 * June 2001: Re-elected to Rajya Sabha
 * Aug 2001 onwards: Member, general purposes committee

BOOKS:

India’s Export Trends and Prospects for Self-Sustained Growth ? Clarendon Press, Oxford University, 1964; also published a large number of articles in various economic journals.

OTHER ACCOMPLISHMENTS:


 * Adam Smith Prize, University of Cambridge, 1956
 * Padma Vibhushan, 1987
 * Euromoney Award, Finance Minister of the Year, 1993;
 * Asiamoney Award, Finance Minister of the Year for Asia, 1993 and 1994

INTERNATIONAL ASSIGNMENTS:


 * 1966: Economic Affairs Officer
 * 1966-69: Chief, financing for trade section, UNCTAD
 * 1972-74: Deputy for India in IMF Committee of Twenty on International Monetary Reform
 * 1977-79: Indian delegation to Aid-India Consortium Meetings
 * 1980-82: Indo-Soviet joint planning group meeting
 * 1982: Indo-Soviet monitoring group meeting
 * 1993: Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting Cyprus 1993: Human Rights World Conference, Vienna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profitoftruth85 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The bio is unpolished. I will work on the bio, and try to meliorate it. AdjustShift (talk) 04:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Education, and a broader point
Manmohan Singh was never at the IMF; he was at UNCTAD. This was corrected by me until someone has gone and made the same error again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seekers2008 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section Grammatical Errors
There are various grammatical errors in the criticism section. For example "Communist Parties (notably Somnath Chatterjee) have been criticising him since he got elected..." it should instead be "Communist Parties (notably Somnath Chatterjee) have criticized him since he was elected..." There are other errors as well. Please insure that someone looks into these and makes the appropriate corrections. "Please insure that someone looks" Hahaha, the irony... it should be 'ensure' and not insure.

Criticism section, link broken
Hanif should be spelled Haneef and link to the article on Mohamed_Haneef and not Hanif.

facebook profile - Manmohan Singh
Update with Manmohan Singh's | facebook profile. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Most Influential
"Dr Singh is widely regarded as one of the most influential people in the world"- No references, no explanation, no source. This shouldn't be in the intro of the article. --166.82.223.23 (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The only sources I could find were mirrors of this article itself. I have placed a weasel tag. Let it be there for a week before reomving a sentence. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement was so generic that I have gone ahead and removed it. If someone finds a source that makes a specific claim (such as Time magazine included him in X most influential people etc), it can possibly be added in the body of the article with proper attribution. Abecedare (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That has been included and cited in the lead-in to the article--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup of Criticism section
The criticism section was sounding like too much of a hatchet job and had some factual errors.

Reference removed - the link does not refer to the point of the PM depending on Sonia for instructions of national importance.

Reference to CVC by OP incorrect. Report was filed by the CAG - comptroller and auditor general.

Reference to "criminal case against PJ Thomas" is factually incorrect. Replaced with "investigation against corruption by the CVC" which is borne out by the original reference as well.

Controversies needs to be merged into article
The controversies sections has too many subheadings and it gives undue weight to the congress party's opponnets. This article needs to make an effort to be like other wikipedia articles on country presidents and prime ministers. In the template below you can see other leaders' articles and none have multiple subheading on criticism and the better articles don't have that at all.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right. The main problem is the dearth of "neutral" editors on politics related articles, so if you have the time please go ahead and restructure and trim this page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Done and done--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearing the misconceptions for once and all

 * Yes, Manmohan Singh is the first and only Sikh PM of India. V.P.Singh, was not a Sikh. Having Singh in name is no criteria for being Sikh. "Singh", infact, is almost as common among Rajputs (hindus), Gorkhas (hindus), Dogras(hindus). "Singh" literally mean Lion, so all fighting people in Indian background are Singh. And yes, Singapore historically means "place of lions" (long ago when the name came into being it was under Hindu control ) Jon Ascton    (talk)  00:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Caste
What is the caste of Mr Manmohan Singh ? -- Jon Ascton    (talk)  20:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As a Sikh, he doesn't have one. Lockesdonkey (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

His Excellency?
Indian Prime Ministers are never addressed as His/Her Excellency. This honorific is reserved for the President of India and the Governors of the States. I believe this should be removed from the article. Shovon (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox confusion
Hello, Why are u changing the infobox ? Let it be as it is second of all many info is being removed in the "Alma matter" section.-- Kkm010 &#124;  Talk with me   17:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because you're moving away from the standardized format and adding too much info into the infobox. Just because something happened, it doesn't have to get into the infobox. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But why U don't want to put the Alma matter, also didn't mentioned its nationality which is very important.-- Kkm010 &#124;  Talk with me   18:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to read the article before you make your additions. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I had read the article so what. If possible try to look at other articles like Barack Obama or David Cameron. So that at least u will get a some sense.-- Kkm010 &#124;  Talk with me   18:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The two of us who reverted you have sufficient sense, but you've got to tell us why you aren't "seeing" the alma mater! &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason is that many people hardly go through the article and just look at the infobox for accurate and specific information. In today's world many doesn't seem to read the entire article due to time factor, so its imp to mention both the "Alma matte" and "nationality".-- Kkm010 &#124;  Talk with me   18:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection. His alma mater is still there... Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point, I'm objecting to changing the format and including all and sundry college awards, plain and simple. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How would u understand? take a look at the previous "Alma matter" section and recent which u had put, you would get a clear distinctive idea.-- Kkm010 &#124;  Talk with me   18:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please for gods sake reconsider my appeal, it was their for last six months and now u are so keen to change it. And also removed the Nationality which is equally imp.-- Kkm010 &#124;  Talk with me   18:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And wasn't there for years beforehand. You personally referenced Mr Cameron's page for and example of alma mater and low and behold, it's just how it is here. The section is for the person's alma mater, not the degrees that come with them and it clogs the infobox in a confusing and unattractive manner. In regards to nationality, a person would have to be truly thick to not recognize that the Prime Minister of India is Indian. Nationality has frequently been a matter of contention in the infobox, as was seen on John Prescott's page and that was because the United Kingdom is composed of four constituent countries who each have strong national identities. That issue isn't even in play here, but the agreement was to remove the section from his infobox regardless. That fact that the redundancy appears in the pages for Obama and Cameron simply cannot be used for an argument because the section is as I've said--redundant. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Obama one was added during the course of this discussion :) &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also been there essentially since the article's inception, though. As with all American presidents. I made a half-hearted attempt to keep it out before but don't have the energy to do so. But I despise the argument used across Wikipedia that "the Americans have done it" as an excuse. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When both of you don't agree with me then there is no point of arguing. Let it be as it is, because I can't fight.-- Kkm010 &#124;  Talk with me   04:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)