History, Manmohan Singh, the former prime minister of India who died on Thursday, had hoped would be kinder to him. But history or perhaps posterity has an additional task when it comes to assessing his legacy. It must offer a corrective, unbiased image. Singh has for long been known, indeed admired, for his mellow, mild-manner self. Such attributes are rare in Indian politics peopled by leaders who seldom lose an opportunity to beat the proverbial drum. But the former prime minister’s gentleness was not all-consuming. When the occasion rose, Singh did not hesitate to display his frame of steel.

India can easily recall at least two such incidents when Singh bared his steely knuckles. The first among these was the case of historic economic reforms. Even though Singh — he was the finance minister then — had a supportive prime minister in the form of P.V. Narasimha Rao, the former was brought under tremendous pressure by the prevailing ideological and political cross-currents. But he stood firm, guiding the republic’s economic ship past those turbulent waters. Later, Singh revealed that he used to carry his letter of resignation in his pocket during those heady days as he was unsure about the shape of the reversals to come. This anecdote reaffirms the fact that Singh had the courage to fight for his convictions without caring for the perks of office. He was tested, once again — this time as prime minister — during the passage of the nuclear deal between India and the United States of America. This was an agreement that went on to redefine India’s relationship with the US and Singh, its principal architect, managed to sign the deal in the face of spirited resistance from the Left and despite — this is remarkable — leading a coalition government. This chapter offered glimpses of not just Singh’s mettle but also his political sagacity. The manner in which he resisted the Left’s intimidation, prioritised national interest over the political survival of his government and, tellingly, won the vote of confidence reveals a man who was definitely not an accidental prime minister. There is another imbalance in Singh’s legacy that needs to be corrected. He is quite rightly feted as an economist, a reformist, and a technocrat. Unfortunately, these descriptions have often eclipsed another aspect of Singh — he was not just a reformer of the economy but also of the social sector. Some of the landmark legislations that his government ushered in — the Right to Information Act, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and so on — are testaments to his government’s attempts to transform India’s social sector.

The disproportionate emphasis on some dimensions of Singh’s character — his gentleness and courtesy over, say, his dogged determination — in the public domain carries political undertones. Some of the unjust tweaking was necessary to varnish the character of the man who succeeded Singh as prime minister. But an objective and comprehensive analysis of Singh as a person and a leader would certainly prove that he, much like a polymath, was a man of many different — desirable — shades.