On the Occasion of the Passing of Former Indian Prime Minister

Manmohan Singh (September 26, 1932 – December 26, 2024) is a figure whose place in the reconstruction of economic and political discourses cannot be fully understood without analyzing his place in contemporary Indian history. From the perspective of Laclau and Mouffe's discourse theory, Singh was not merely a technocratic politician, but an "articulator" of a new discourse in India who was able to turn the 1991 economic crisis into a "moment of disjunction." This moment not only challenged the Congress's protectionist economic discourse, but also fundamentally changed the semantic structure of Indian politics. However, the structural contradictions in Singh's discourse, which were rooted in the representation of social and economic inequalities, gradually created space for the formation of "The Big Other from a discursive perspective"; the other who, in the form of Narendra Modi and the BJP party, by exploiting these very contradictions, was able to marginalize the Congress discourse.

1) 1991: A Critical Moment and the Redefinition of the "Central Signifier" of the Indian Economy 

From Laclau's perspective, every hegemony crisis acts as an opportunity for the "floating" of central signifiers. The economic crisis of 1991, marked by a sharp decline in foreign exchange reserves and the collapse of the state-planned economic system, created not only a financial crisis but also a "legitimacy crisis" for the Congress Party. At this moment, Manmohan Singh, as the Finance Minister, utilized the theory of "discursive articulation" to introduce a new central signifier: market-based economic growth. Singh was able to articulate three key elements in his new discourse:

1. Globalization: As a tool for integrating India into the international order.
2. Privatization: Facilitating private sector investment by removing state-owned industries from the political cycle.
3. Trade liberalization: Which not only reduced domestic restrictions but also transformed India from a closed economy to an open one.

These changes, from the perspective of Laclau's theory, established the central signifier of "economic growth," causing the previous economic discourse to be defined as a "marginal other." However, this new discourse, as Mouffe warns, faced an internal crisis due to the exclusion of certain demands (such as those from farmers and marginalized classes).

2)Singh's Premiership: Discursive Contradictions and the Emergence of the "Other" 

During Singh's premiership (2004-2014), his economic-political discourse was able, on one hand, to strengthen the urban middle class as the "subject of the central signifier," but on the other hand, due to its inability to integrate rural demands and the needs of marginalized areas, it gradually created contradictions that became crisis-inducing in the discursive space of India.

1. a) The Middle Class as a New Discursive Subject: Singh was able to define the Indian middle class as one of the key subjects of his discourse through high economic growth and the creation of major infrastructure. This class symbolized the success of Singh's policies, but at the same time, it became the "other" to farmers and marginalized workers.
2. b) Legitimacy Crisis from the Perspective of Lacanian Theory: Lacan recognizes the concept of the "big Other" as a structure that reveals inherent lacks in the discursive order. In Singh's second term, widespread corruption scandals, such as the allocation of coal resources and the telecommunications spectrum, reached a point where the big Other from a discursive perspective (BJP) was able to exploit these lacks. These corruptions exposed the gap between the central signifier of the Congress discourse (economic growth) and the floating signifiers (transparency and social justice).
3. c) Inability to Represent Rural Areas: Programs like "Gandhi NREGA" (MGNREGA), although designed to support farmers, failed to change the economic and social realities of marginalized areas. From Mouffe's perspective, this inability to articulate a new discourse for rural areas allowed the BJP to link these demands to its own discourse.

3) Manmohan Singh's Relations with Iran: Articulating Discursive Contradictions

During Manmohan Singh's premiership, Iran-India relations had two parallel levels: on the one hand, the historical and economic ties between the two countries, and on the other hand, the pressures of the international order led by the United States. These relations, within the discursive framework of Singh's government, functioned more than anything else as a "floating signifier" that had to be articulated between two opposing forces: strategic independence and alignment with global powers.

Singh tried to establish Iran in the discourse of Indian foreign policy as a source of energy and a geostrategic partner. The development of the Chabahar port, with the aim of strengthening India's access to Afghanistan and Central Asia, and support for the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline project, were manifestations of this articulation. From the perspective of Laclau and Mouffe's theory, these efforts sought to strengthen the central signifier of "strategic independence" and for Iran to act as part of India's "balancing chain" against China and Pakistan.

However, international pressures, especially after the widespread sanctions against Iran, caused this articulation to experience a crisis at times. India's vote against Iran in the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which was influenced by India-US relations after the 2008 nuclear agreement, was a "moment of disjunction" that highlighted the discursive contradictions of Singh. This decision, although ostensibly in favor of stabilizing India's position in the international order, led to the weakening of the discourse of strategic independence in the domestic sphere and, from Lacan's perspective, was a kind of "disclosure of lack" in the symbolic order of Singh's government.

4) The Rise of Narendra Modi: Redefining Discourse from the Margins

Modi and the BJP, taking advantage of the crisis of legitimacy and the internal rifts in the Congress discourse, were able to create a new discursive order by re-articulating the central signifier.

1. a) Redefining the central signifier; development for all: Modi, with the slogan "Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas" (Together, we grow; development for all), redefined the central signifier of "development" not for the middle class, but for all classes. This movement, from the perspective of discourse theory, meant transforming the "other" of the marginalized into the "subject" of the BJP discourse.
2. b) Creating discursive identity through othering: Modi and the BJP, by emphasizing Hindutva, were able to represent Muslim minorities and pro-Congress liberals as the "other." This strategy, from Laclau's perspective, was able to create new cohesion in the BJP's popular bases.
3. c) Responding to the rural crisis: Modi, with agricultural reforms and programs such as "Make in India," was able to strengthen his discursive position in rural areas that were previously loyal to the Congress.

5) Analysis of Singh's Discursive Rifts from the Perspective of Lacan and Laclau

From Lacan's point of view, the failure of the Congress discourse was the result of its inability to cover up the inherent lacks in the discursive order. In other words, Singh was unable to transform the "Real" into the "Symbolic" in the representation of all demands.

From the perspective of Laclau and Mouffe, this failure is due to three factors:

1. Crisis in comprehensive articulation: The inability to integrate the conflicting demands of farmers and the middle class.
2. Corruption as a point of discursive rupture: Corruption became a tool for producing distrust and delegitimizing the Congress discourse.
3. Insufficient response to floating signifiers: The Congress was unable to establish floating signifiers such as social justice and transparency within its discourse.

Conclusion: Singh's Legacy on the Horizon of India's Discursive Developments

Manmohan Singh, although in the position of a historical reformer, was able to save India from the 1991 crisis, but the internal contradictions of his discourse ultimately became an opportunity for the BJP and Modi. The analysis of his discourse from the perspective of Laclau, Mouffe and Lacan's theories shows that the success of a discourse depends not only on its articulation power, but also its ability to manage contradictions and represent various demands is the main factor in its survival or failure. Modi, taking advantage of these gaps, was able to build an alternative discourse that shattered the hegemony of the Congress party. This well illustrates the dynamics of political discourses in contemporary India, where the success or failure of a discourse depends on its ability to manage contradictions and gaps.

Omid Babolian, Expert at the Center for Political and International Studies

   (The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the IPIS)