History has a way of doing justice that is as unpredictable as it is illuminating. It is now being reported that the Narendra Modi government plans to build a memorial for the late prime minister, P.V. Narasimha Rao, at the Ekta Sthal Samadhi complex. This move may be aimed at embarrassing the Congress but it does justice to the legacy of one of India's finest prime ministers. A party that prays at the altar of the dynasty can never appreciate how far-reaching Rao's accomplishments were.

Ironically, this news comes days after the another former prime minister, Manmohan Singh, was charged with corruption and criminal conspiracy for his alleged role in the scandal over the irregularities in the sale of mining rights of coalfields to private firms. Singh has been portrayed by the Congress as the real architect of economic reforms in an effort to marginalize Rao. In his 10 years as prime minister, Singh hardly found time to acknowledge Rao's contributions. In fact, he did not react when Rao's body was not allowed to be taken inside the All India Congress Committee building after his death in 2004 even as the Congress tried its best to deny Rao the credit that was his due as the nation's prime minister during one of the most difficult times in India's history.

The early 1990s was a time when a succession of weak governments had left India rudderless - economically, politically and strategically. The world was changing rapidly and the Indian economy was collapsing. India was facing a million mutinies, and there was no one of national stature to stem the tide. The Mandal-Mandir discourse - controversies surrounding caste reservation and Ayodhya - was threatening to take the country apart. It was at such a juncture that Rao assumed power. He had scant support from the senior leaders of his own party, all of whom had their own aspirations to become prime minister.

In spite of the caricature of Rao being indecisive, he was one of the most decisive leaders this nation has seen. On all crucial issues, he took decisions that have continued to shape India's rise over the last two decades. Singh may be touted as the father of Indian economic reforms, but it was Rao who fathered the process. Singh is an economic technocrat with little understanding of political constraints and hardly any ability to navigate them. It was Rao who shielded Singh from the left wing of his own party, a flank that had left no stone unturned in opposing the programme of economic liberalization.

Rao made economic reforms politically tenable at a time when his own party was out to scuttle his most ambitious undertaking. He effectively linked economic policy with foreign policy as he reached out to the United States of America. He recognized that India would need the support of the West if economic reforms were to succeed. His imprimatur is everywhere in Indian foreign policy today: Delhi's subtle balancing act in West Asia; its attempt to establish a stable balance with China; the outreach to East and Southeast Asia as part of India's 'Look East' policy; and helping India achieve enough economic heft to withstand the sanctions after the National Democratic Alliance conducted Pokhran II. In West Asia, Rao displayed courage no other Indian leader possessed. He established full diplomatic ties with Israel in 1992 and reached out to Iran, paying a landmark visit to Tehran in 1993. He was the first Indian prime minister to do so since the 1979 revolution.

Rao was also the initiator of India's 'Look East' policy. He understood early on that the centre of gravity of global economics was shifting to the East, and that India's economic future needed to be linked to the booming economies in East Asia. He expanded India's engagements with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations not only as a matter of India's economic revival, but also as a counterweight to Chinese dominance.On the internal security front, under Rao, the situation in Punjab improved markedly and the Indian security forces got a handle on the insurgency in Kashmir even as Rao revived the state's political process.

Therefore, it was distinctly odd the way Singh acquiesced to his party's decimation of Rao's legacy. It was only in his last years when the Indian economy - Singh's claim to fame - seemed to be unravelling that he suddenly remembered the role that Rao had played in making the reforms happen. Singh acknowledged Rao in his last speech from the Red Fort. In his speech, Singh said, "In the year 1991, under the leadership of Shri Narasimha Rao, we successfully negotiated a major economic crisis and embraced reforms for strengthening our economy. These reforms were opposed by many political parties at that time. But the reforms were in national interest and were therefore continued by all governments that came to power subsequently. Since then, the reform process has continually moved forward."

It was Rao's sagacious political leadership that sustained the economic reforms programme in the early 1990s. Today, the Congress leadership has little understanding of what is at stake. Neither Sonia Gandhi nor Rahul Gandhi had shown their mettle on the issue, leaving Singh adrift at a time of global and local economic turmoil. The Congress has, over the years, created this myth that Rao was a closet sympathizer of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. This allowed the Congress to absolve its rank and file of all the blame and make Rao a convenient scapegoat. It is neatly forgotten that it was Rajiv Gandhi's government that opened the locks and performed shilanyas at the disputed site.

The Congress may have given Rao a short shrift but a nation needs to recognize its true leaders. By honouring Rao after his death, the Modi government will only be giving Rao what should have been his due during his lifetime.

The author is Professor of International Relations, Department of Defence Studies, King's College, London