Manmohan Singh Death: Dr Manmohan Singh, India's former Prime Minister and a celebrated economist, breathed his last on Thursday, December 26, at the age of 92. He was admitted to AIIMS Delhi after his health worsened and was being treated in the emergency department. The Congress party mourned the loss of its senior leader and extended heartfelt condolences to his family. Continues below advertisement window.addEventListener("load", function() { let ad_unit_fire_time = 1000; if(ad_delay_time_abp > 0){ ad_unit_fire_time = parseInt(ad_delay_time_abp) + 500; } setTimeout(function () { googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display("div-gpt-ad-9167143-2"); }); },ad_unit_fire_time) }); Before taking up the mantle of Prime Minister, Singh served as the 22nd Union Minister of Finance from June 1991 to May 1996, a tenure that marked a transformative period for the nation's economy. Let's take a moment to look back. Continues below advertisement window.addEventListener("load", function() { let ad_unit_fire_time = 1000; if(ad_delay_time_abp > 0){ ad_unit_fire_time = parseInt(ad_delay_time_abp) + 500; } setTimeout(function () { googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display("div-gpt-ad-1253031-3"); }); },ad_unit_fire_time) }); 'I Didn't Take It Seriously' Singh was handpicked by then-Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao to helm the Finance Ministry during a time of severe economic crisis. Reflecting on his entry into politics, Singh once recounted how Rao had to personally ensure he attended the swearing-in ceremony, a role he initially did not anticipate seriously. In an interview with British journalist Mark Tully in 2005, Singh amusingly recalled, "On the day (Rao) was formulating his cabinet, he sent his Principal Secretary to me saying, 'The PM would like you to become the Minister of Finance'. I didn't take it seriously." Singh added, "He eventually tracked me down the next morning, rather angry, and demanded that I get dressed up and come to Rashtrapati Bhavan for the swearing-in. So that's how I started in politics" ALSO READ: When Manmohan Singh Scrapped 'Licence Raj' And Saved India From An Economic Crisis With His 'L P G Reforms' The Crisis At Hand Manmohan Singh's tenure as India's Finance Minister from 1991 to 1996 is widely regarded as a watershed moment in the country's economic history. Taking office during a period of profound financial turmoil, he played a pivotal role in reshaping India's economic policies and steering the nation toward liberalisation and globalisation. When Singh assumed office in June 1991, India was grappling with one of its worst economic crises. The fiscal deficit had ballooned to nearly 8.5 per cent of GDP, and foreign exchange reserves were critically low, barely enough to cover two weeks' worth of imports. The country was also burdened by a soaring current account deficit and mounting external debt. The severity of the situation compelled India to approach the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for financial assistance. Structural Reforms & Policy Overhaul As Finance Minister, Singh introduced a slew of bold and transformative reforms that redefined India's economic framework. Among the most significant measures were: Liberalisation of the economy : Singh dismantled the restrictive Licence Raj, which had stifled private enterprise for decades. This move reduced bureaucratic hurdles and empowered businesses to operate more freely. Reduction in import tariffs : By lowering protectionist barriers, he facilitated greater trade and integration with the global economy. Privatisation initiatives : Public sector enterprises, long considered the backbone of India's socialist model, were partially privatised to improve efficiency and attract investment. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) : Singh opened up various sectors to foreign investors, boosting capital inflows and technological advancements. Tax reforms : The tax regime was simplified, broadening the tax base and improving compliance. These reforms, although controversial, were instrumental in averting an economic collapse and positioning India on the path to becoming a global economic power. Challenges & Resistance Singh faced significant resistance, both from within the Government and his own party. Many in the Congress opposed deregulation, fearing the political repercussions of moving away from the socialist policies championed by leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi. However, with the steadfast support of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, Singh managed to implement these changes, despite the criticism. Singh’s reforms earned him widespread recognition, with many crediting him for laying the foundation for India's robust economic growth in the decades that followed. His contributions were often compared to those of Deng Xiaoping, who led China’s economic reforms in the late 20th century. 1992 Securities Scandal Despite his successes, Singh’s tenure was not without challenges. In 1993, his ministry faced criticism during a parliamentary investigation into the 1992 securities scam, a financial scandal involving irregularities in Government securities trading. Although he offered to resign, Prime Minister Rao rejected his resignation and reaffirmed his confidence in Singh’s integrity and leadership. Decisive Shift For The Nation Singh’s tenure as Finance Minister marked a decisive shift in India's economic trajectory. His pragmatic approach, visionary policies, and ability to navigate political resistance not only rescued India from the brink of economic collapse but also set the stage for the country's emergence as a major player in the global economy. His work during this period remains a testament to his intellect, resilience, and unwavering commitment to India's progress. Even decades later, the reforms he championed continue to shape the nation’s economic policies and serve as a benchmark for effective governance.top646 promo code 。

Freiburg survives late onslaught to beat Wolfsburg in Bundesliga thriller

Georgia police fire tear gas, water cannons at pro-EU protestersAs I See It: Why I really resigned from the Corvallis Planning Commission

Fed meeting outlook, Trump's economic team: Market Domination OvertimeFAAC shares N1.827trn revenue with federal, state, local governments in November

In his 2023 book, “Government Gangsters,” Kash Patel, whom Donald Trump says he intends to nominate as the next director of the F.B.I., named 60 people whom he classified as “members of the executive branch deep state” — a “cabal of unelected tyrants” who posed “the most dangerous threat to our democracy.” Mr. Patel has since said that the incoming Trump administration must deal with the “deep state,” be it “criminally or civilly.” The White House is reportedly considering whether President Biden should issue blanket pardons for many of Mr. Trump’s perceived enemies, such as the people on Mr. Patel’s list. The goal would be to pre-emptively protect them from groundless and vengeful prosecution. I’m on Mr. Patel’s list. I don’t want a pardon. I can’t speak for anyone else on the list, but I would hope that none of them would want a pardon, either. If we broke the law, we should be charged and convicted. If we didn’t break the law, we should be willing to show that we trust the fairness of the justice system that so many of us have defended. And we shouldn’t give permission to future presidents to pardon political allies who may commit real crimes on their behalf. This past spring, arguing in a brief to the Supreme Court that Mr. Trump shouldn’t have immunity from prosecution, Mr. Biden’s Justice Department reminded the justices that “the executive branch and the criminal justice system contain strong safeguards against groundless prosecutions.” Many former government lawyers — including a number of us on Mr. Patel’s list — were quick to publicly agree, stressing how dangerous and unnecessary such a grant of blanket immunity would be. We emphasized the importance of the rule of law and the trust we had in the jury system. Yet now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly we would accept total immunity from prosecution for anything we did during our time in government? Mr. Biden has made clear that he is comfortable with that sort of duplicity. Despite having his Justice Department argue against immunity for Mr. Trump, he pardoned his son Hunter on the unconvincing ground that his son was “selectively and unfairly prosecuted” by a special counsel appointed by the president’s own attorney general. But Mr. Biden’s hypocrisy should not be ours. A pardon would also let Mr. Patel off the hook. If he wants to prosecute everyone on his list, it’s going to require a lot of law enforcement resources. At a time when much of the American public wants the president to focus on inflation, crime and immigration, voters may not be pleased if drug cartels are a lower priority than prosecuting Liz Cheney for treason. And as Americans start to see his lack of evidence, Mr. Patel will look ridiculous. If anything, he may end up making heroes out of his targets, who would, in turn, be able to raise money for the exorbitant cost of their legal defense from outraged Americans until judges would predictably throw out these frivolous cases. If I accepted a pardon, Mr. Patel could also claim that it proved the “deep state” rigged the system. He could argue that he would have gotten convictions against all of us, without ever having to make his case — to a jury or to voters. In case you’re wondering: I have no idea why I’m on Mr. Patel’s list. I did work at the Justice Department during the investigation into the Trump team’s connections with Russia, but so did a whole lot of people who are not named. I’m hardly the only person whose inclusion is perplexing. Mr. Patel also names Kamala Harris, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. The whole idea of the “deep state” is a group of executive branch employees who work behind the scenes to thwart the president’s agenda. The past three Democratic presidential nominees aren’t the “deep state.” They are Mr. Trump’s political opponents.AP Sports SummaryBrief at 6:53 p.m. EST