By Swapan Dasgupta
Subhash Chakravarti, a legendary Chief of Bureau of Times of India, recently recounted an
encounter between Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and the West Bengal Congress supremo
Atulya Ghosh in the early-1960s.
“I have heard”, Nehru told Ghosh accusingly, “that
you are a bit too friendly with Calcutta’s Marwari businessmen”. Never inclined
to kowtow to someone he regarded as a poseur, Ghosh’s reply was
characteristically blunt: “What you have heard is right. Our party needs money,
not merely for Bengal but for UP and Bihar too. Who do you think funds us?
Without that money you wouldn’t be wearing that rose on your lapel.”
Nehru was taken aback by this insolence and
complained to his old friend Dr B.C. Roy who was Chief Minister of West Bengal.
Dr Roy laughed it off but delighted in repeating the story to others. These probably
included S.K. Patil, the Bombay Congress boss with a reputation for being
pro-business and pro-US. Patil used to rue
that he was the target of unending radical derision except before elections and
when it was time to lobby Washington for food aid.
The tendency to look upon India’s corporate sector
as the proverbial ‘kept’ woman who could only be visited stealthily and in the
dead of night (I thank the late Pramod Mahajan for this imagery) has been an
undesirable Nehruvian legacy. If Nehru shared the upper-class English socialist
disdain for ‘trade’ and new money, Indira Gandhi was positively vengeful
towards Indian business following her battle with the Syndicate, and Rajiv
Gandhi was plain confused over how much elbow room should be given to the
private sector. However, there was one common dynastic consensus: business must
pick up the tab for political expenses. A highly regulated capitalism, it was
decreed, must underwrite India’s experiments with socialism.
It was an expedient arrangement that allowed
patrician socialists to serve the poor without being preoccupied with where the
money was coming from. One Nehru sibling who enjoyed global fame was, for
example, particularly forgetful about settling shopping and hotel bills.
When the private sector proved unable to deliver the
full booty—and this began to happen as the license-permit raj began to be excessively
suffocating for business—the necessary surplus was creamed off from state
funds. A breed of politically loyal but parasitic contractor class was created
by Indira Gandhi to offset the influence of old money. Additionally,
exceptional discretionary favours were doled out to business houses which were
considered ‘reliable’. Business, as Dhirbuhai Ambani famously said, became a
matter of “managing the environment.”
What we are today witnessing are big cracks in a
system whose principal objective was income generation for the ruling dispensation
rather than the economic growth of the country. The CBI clearly erred if its
reason for wishing to prosecute a former Coal Secretary and industrialist
Kumaramangalam Birla was the fact that Hindalco ate into a coal allotment
initially been made to a public sector unit. To treat the private sector as a
poor cousin or, indeed, a predator, makes no sense. However, the real reason
for widespread suspicion of influence-peddling and corruption is that the coal
block allotments were governed by discretion, the Prime Minister’s Office
having earlier rejected the more transparent process of auctions. It was this
flawed selection system which resulted in a large chunk of India’s coal
reserves being parcelled out to those who were either linked to the ruling
party or were willing to pay a political cess for every ton of coal extracted.
However, it is reassuring that the CBI’s
peremptoriness has generated a sense of outrage. In part the issue is all about
a senior bureaucrat being punished for following a political order and an
industrialist pulling strings to further his very legitimate business interests—there
was no other option. But the real rot stemmed from an ill-conceived coal
nationalisation that has proved an unmitigated disaster and which has cost
India dearly.
Sunday Times of India, October 20, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment