Was Manmohan Singh judged more harshly over the rupee? The real currency crisis and what 2026 media coverage shows

A June 2026 Instagram reel by Piyush Semwal shows an old Aaj Tak-style animation of Manmohan Singh beside a falling rupee. The speaker argues that news media ridiculed the former prime minister for a weaker currency but failed to challenge Narendra Modi’s government when the rupee weakened further. His broader accusation is that journalists applied different standards to different governments.

The comparison deserves examination, but it includes an important factual error: India Today and Aaj Tak did report the rupee’s record lows in 2026. A serious assessment must separate whether news was covered, how it was framed, and whether journalists held leaders to consistent standards.

What happened to the rupee under Manmohan Singh?

India faced a sharp currency crisis in 2013. The government’s mid-year economic analysis recorded that the rupee’s RBI reference rate reached about ₹68.36 per dollar on 28 August 2013, after weakening rapidly from May. It identified global uncertainty, the US Federal Reserve’s signal that it might reduce bond purchases, the trade and current-account deficits, and capital flows as important factors. The Reserve Bank intervened, and the rupee recovered some ground later that year.

These were genuine economic problems, not simply a media invention. Reuters reported the sharp fall and investor withdrawals at the time. A cartoon could fairly criticise or satirise the government, but a cartoon alone does not establish whether its overall economic reporting was balanced.

Did India Today stop reporting the rupee’s fall in 2026?

No. India Today reported on 30 March 2026 that the rupee had crossed ₹95 per dollar amid foreign outflows and global pressures. On 15 May, it reported the currency crossing ₹96, describing the impact of higher crude prices and West Asia’s conflict. Aaj Tak also reported the currency’s record weakness on 20 March, citing concern among analysts. These articles directly contradict the categorical claim that the group was doing no reporting.

Nor was the rupee at ₹100 per US dollar in those cited reports. An October 7, 2026 market report put the closing rate at ₹96.78, near a previously reported low of ₹96.98. The reel’s prediction that the currency would reach a century should not be confused with a verified crossing of ₹100.

Reporting exists, but was the scrutiny equally tough?

This is the more substantial question. A factual article describing the exchange rate is different from an editorial blaming a government, a prime-time debate, or a mocking cartoon. Showing that the news group covered the rupee refutes an absolute claim of silence; it does not establish that the group’s prominence, framing, airtime or editorial criticism was consistent across the two periods.

The difference in treatment cannot be measured from one archival animation and selected modern articles. It would require a comparable sample of news bulletins, programme transcripts, cartoons, headlines and airtime, ideally around similar-sized currency moves and similar economic circumstances. A 2013 media column described how coverage of Manmohan Singh’s reputation had shifted sharply between 2009 and 2013. That is useful contemporary evidence of media attitudes, but it is not a quantitative comparison with 2026.

Singh himself complained in a 2011 discussion with newspaper editors that parts of the media acted as accuser, prosecutor and judge. His criticism deserves attention, but it is a participant’s assessment, not proof that all scrutiny of his government was unfair.

The economic comparison needs care too

A currency’s value against the dollar does not by itself measure a government’s economic performance. Exchange rates respond to global dollar strength, capital flows, interest rates, import demand, oil prices and domestic policy. The 2013 episode was an especially rapid fall, whereas a comparison with 2026 must distinguish a longer-run change in the level from the speed of depreciation and the conditions surrounding it.

The reel also compares petrol at roughly ₹65 per litre during Singh’s tenure with prices above ₹100 later, alongside crude-oil prices of about $110 versus $90 a barrel. Petrol prices depend on much more than crude oil alone: imported product prices, exchange rates, refining and distribution, central excise and state VAT also matter. A 2021 Petroleum Ministry reply explicitly identifies those factors. Without matching cities and exact dates, the reel’s simple price comparison cannot establish which government handled fuel better.

Similarly, the reel’s claim that Singh never used investigative agencies against critics and that contemporary leaders do so cannot be established from this currency-and-media comparison. Claims about deliberate propaganda, media loyalty and responsibility for a market fall need particular evidence, rather than an assumption based on tone. The claimed stock-market loss and international ranking require a date, index and method before they can be used as findings.

What survives the comparison?

Manmohan Singh’s credentials as an economist are well documented: the former prime minister’s official biography records Cambridge economics honours and an Oxford doctorate. But educational qualifications do not exempt any prime minister from criticism. The 2013 currency crisis warranted tough, evidence-based reporting, just as economic stresses under later governments warrant it.

The reel raises a legitimate democratic standard: news organisations should examine governments consistently, without turning critical scrutiny into personal ridicule or softening questions because the party in power has changed. The evidence here supports that standard and identifies a real 2013 rupee crisis. It does not support the reel’s claim that India Today entirely ignored the rupee’s fall in 2026, nor does it establish that the broadcaster’s overall treatment was equal. The defensible conclusion is narrower but important: comparable scrutiny should be tested through a systematic record of actual coverage, not declared from a viral contrast.