To say Manmohan Singh was a great man would be to state the obvious. He was a brilliant political leader, a visionary thinker, an outstanding economist, a superb academic, a fabulous leader of administration, a splendid husband, father and grandfather, and an immeasurably sympathetic human being.

For me personally, he was also the warmest of friends for nearly 70 years. From the time, 69 years ago, I went to see him in his undergraduate rooms at St John's College in Cambridge, I have remained immensely impressed by his wisdom, modesty and kindness.

We were extraordinarily happy at the Delhi School of Economics when we successfully persuaded Manmohan to join us. He was a terrific teacher and a darling of the students, but he also had time to talk with his colleagues.

I have been immensely privileged in having the opportunity of interacting with Manmohan in his many different roles: First as a fellow student, then as an international civil servant, then as a wonderful colleague at Delhi School of Economics, then as a senior civil servant, followed by the time when he was running the international South Commission based in Geneva, then as a statesman, including his time as the most innovative finance minister in the history of modern India, and finally as the prime minister of the world's largest democracy. We talked on thousands of subjects on what seem like millions of occasions. I always learnt hugely from our conversations.

I am glad, however, that Manmohan was less than successful in teaching me to be as modest as he himself was. I have many memories of the prime minister of India patiently waiting for others around the table to finish before speaking himself. Waiting for others to finish can take a long time in India.

Other than feeling good about Manmohan's failure to educate me to his level of courtesy, I wish he had been less educated in modesty himself and spoke more often. He had hugely important things to say to India and to the world. It would have been wonderful if some of the things that figured, with inescapable hesitation, in his private conversations had figured more—and in greater length—in his public statements.

Manmohan had the same well-mannered reticence everywhere, but he could be amazingly eloquent and profound when pushed. The only occasion I have had the privilege of dining next to Michelle Obama was when the Obamas gave their first ever gala dinner at the White House in honour of Manmohan—I had a wonderful placing as Manmohan's guest. Michelle asked Manmohan repeatedly to say what he thought on various subjects and got extraordinarily illuminating answers. I wish someone as brilliant as Michelle Obama had done a "one-on-one conversation" with Manmohan for sharing with the world.

Manmohan's understanding of the great need for unity and for social justice in India comes back to me whenever I think about these persistent problems. I know that Manmohan is mainly thought of as the architect of economic liberalisation of India (which he certainly was), but we must also note that he never lost sight of the need for equity in economic progress, and in particular of increasing employment and income of the poor. Cultivating rich—and super rich—plutocrats was never his priority.

I wish Manmohan could have done more on elementary health care for all and in expanding general education, and also more in removing the inequities of caste divisions. It is particularly unfortunate that he achieved considerably less than he wanted in these areas and could not get the practical politics of India more excited about these objectives. These are areas in which Manmohan could have fruitfully been less reticent, especially in making his private concerns more public. We often had discussions on Ambedkar's vision of India, but that vision did not receive as much attention in Manmohan's speeches, though his frustration did get airing.

To move to another area, Manmohan's focus on secularism was extraordinarily firm. Both his private conversations and his public priorities reflected that strongly. As the commitment to secularism has weakened in India, and religion has entered into Indian politics in a big way, Manmohan's secular priorities are especially important to recall.

His clear understanding of the necessity of unity in India remains strikingly important today. The distinction between religion and religious politics was important for Manmohan. In addition to keeping religion out of politics, there was another aspect to Manmohan's religious neutrality.

Religion was important for Manmohan, including religious customs. When I went to his room in St John's College in 1956, I remember stumbling against his freshly washed turbans which he had hung across his room in an attempt to dry them. But his Sikh identity was never in tension with his supportive acceptance of other people's religion and religiosity.

When, a long time ago, I talked with Manmohan on this, I remember thinking that this is quite a different aspect of religion-neutrality from the standard secularism of keeping religion out of politics. This different form of religion-neutrality reminded me, rather, of a remark of Gautama Buddha in one of my favourite Sanskrit books, Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra, which in its Chinese translation by Kumarajiva, done in 401 AD, had the distinction of becoming the first printed book in the world (printed in 868 AD). In the book, often known as the Diamond Sutra, Buddha told his disciple Subhuti: "Those who set forth on the path of bodhisattva know, see, and believe all dharmas but know, see, and believe them without being attached to the perception of one singular dharma."

Since Buddha included atheism and agnosticism among possible dharmas, I could inform Manmohan that I, too, could count on his support if he were to go along the path of bodhisattva, which his good behaviour indicated he had been doing.

The importance of Manmohan's recognition of the plurality that surrounds us remains as strong today as it has always been. I so much wish that his vision will remain an indispensable part of the understanding of what we are. We will not take Manmohan's modest hesitation as an answer.

This article was originally published in the Indian Express on January 15, 2025.

Amartya Sen, Nobel laureate, is Thomas W Lamont University professor and professor of economics and philosophy at Harvard University.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.