By Swapan Dasgupta
There is, it would seem, no place for gratitude in
politics. It took the presiding deities of UPA-2 less than 48 hours after he
left office to start the whisper that the ills of the economy are due to the
man who will be the next President of India. For Pranab Mukherjee, the
unkindest cut was the fact that the new revisionism seemed to be emanating from
people close to the Prime Minister—a man whose job he saved on a number of
occasions through his fire-fighting abilities.
Not that the calumny heaped on the outgoing Finance
Minister is entirely unwarranted. Mukherjee didn’t trigger the economic
downturn that is now contributing to the Government’s eroding popularity.
However, his Budget last May certainly hastened the larger erosion of
confidence in the India story.
Was Mukherjee, therefore, plain bloody-minded or
still dreaming of the halcyon days of Indira Gandhi when the Government
directed and capitalists bowed in submission? Alternatively, was Mukherjee the
archetypal pragmatist who believed that politics was the art of the possible?
The past record seems to suggest that Mukherjee
adjusted to the grim realities of coalition government far better than most
Congress leaders who still imagine they are in a one-party government. In
UPA-1, as External Affairs minister, he was berated for dragging his feet on
the Indo-US nuclear deal. It was then believed that he was just too dependent
on the CPI(M) to win his Lok Sabha seat. It was also suggested that he was too
stuck in old non-alignment ways to be enamoured of closer ties with the US.
Whatever the truth, Mukherjee always played
cautiously. I have always insisted that the over-arching philosophy behind this
year’s Budget was charmingly simple: to get it through the Lok Sabha without
too much fuss. He paid lip service to fiscal responsibility, genuflected at the
altar of the anti-corruption movement by promising GAAR, reiterated the
assurance of a Food Security Bill next year and waved the populist sword at
Vodafone. The Congress benches cheered, the private sector was muted in its
criticism and the Opposition didn’t quite find a specific issue to mobilise
opinion against the Government. Even Mamata Banerjee couldn’t find fault.
That the Budget was a monumental exercise in evasion
was undeniable. Yet, judging by the yardstick of political expediency, it was a
masterstroke and this is becoming apparent with each passing day.
For the past three weeks, there has been a frenzied
attempt by the PMO to suggest that the bad days are behind us, and that with
the PM at the helm the country can look forward to a bout of purposeful
reforms—the return of the proverbial “animal spirit”. ‘Just wait until
October’, the country is being told, presumably because the dust from the
presidential election and the monsoon session of Parliament would have settled.
Maybe we should wait until October to be told that
January 2013 will be more propitious because the Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat
elections will be over by then. Maybe we should wait for the next Budget in
February for big bang announcements that will set the Indian tiger roaring.
But maybe, and just maybe, it is entirely possible
that the PM is discovering to his cost that it is easier to talk reforms than
undertake them. Take the small example of the Forward Contract Regulating
Bill—permitting forward trading in specified agricultural commodities to ensure
better returns to farmers—that was supposed to have been cleared by the Cabinet
last Thursday. It was not even taken up for discussion because a Trinamool
Congress minister had sent a letter of objection. By this logic, neither the
Pensions Bill nor FDI in retail will be taken up because Mamata is opposed to
both.
What, therefore, happened to the promised purposefulness?
Why wait until Pranab Babu is ensconced in Rashtrapati Bhavan because the TMC
is, in any case, unlikely to vote for him?
With 20 Lok Sabha MPs, Mamata cannot be entirely
disregarded. But look at the alacrity with which Ajit Singh’s displeasure over
an extension to the Director-General of Civil Aviation was met. And the
Rashtriya Lok Dal has just four MPs and nowhere to go.
The reality which is gradually dawning is that the
UPA-2 is such a leaky ship that it dare not risk a bout of turbulence. Reforms
are not merely about getting more foreign direct investment and getting the
foreign funds to remain invested in the country. It is also about managing
government expenditure and lowering the quantum of subsidies. These involve
decisions that are potentially unpopular to both a venal political class and to
consumers, even if they contribute to the long-term good. Just look at the
proceedings of the National Advisory Council to see whether these priorities
are shared by Sonia Gandhi’s pet activists.
The over-politicised Planning Commission is trying
to help the PM out by doling out largesse to Uttar Pradesh and Bihar in the
hope of political returns. But put yourself in the shoes of Mulayam and Nitish
Kumar. What earthly political returns can accrue by being seen to be associated
with decisions that inflict short-term pain?
Sunday Pioneer, July 15, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment