Pratap Bhanu Mehta in the Indian Express offers the most devastating and scathing indictment of the prime minister's tenure so far:

Much has been made of his [Manmohan Singh's] personal financial integrity. But in political terms this idea of integrity is of secondary relevance. A deeper idea of integrity, more relevant to politics, is the willingness of a politician to stand for something, to ensure that basic values are not sacrificed on the altar of expediency, to broker compromises that lead to performance, not merely power. The PM’s tenure did not show minimal integrity and performance in this sense.

...Financial integrity and the fig leaf of the imperatives of coalition politics cannot disguise the fact that his performance in office became a testament to the idea that the only way to hold high office is not to have minimal political integrity. In some senses, he comes off even worse than his colleagues like Arjun Singh and Kamal Nath: they at least did as they said. The prime minister on the other hand was such an exercise in cumulative evasion that it is a legitimate question to ask: exactly how did the prime minister of India matter?

More on the comparison with LK Advani and why he thinks "Manmohan Singh is right: beyond the Ram Janmbhoomi movement, Advani does not have a record to run on" and that it would be good for public reason if they debated a bit in public : Mirror to each other.

***

For a bit of perspective: Pratap Bhanu Mehta and noted sociologist, Andre Beteille, were the only conscientious objectors who resigned from Manmohan Singh's hand-picked National Knowledge Commission in protest against the government decision to extend quotas for OBCs in central institutions.