|
Related Articles |
|
 Celebrating the 'Americanisation' of India?
There is no doubt of course that many in India have
gained from the economic reforms that began in 1991. There are now
countless opportunities to go and work in an outsourced call
centre
»
|
Considering that the Manmohan Singh
government's chief economic adviser Kaushik Basu had ruled out the
possibility of major reforms before the next general election, the
hike in petrol prices predictably pleased and angered the
supporters and opponents of reforms.
Was there a hint of the step in the prime minister's speech on the
occasion of the ruling coalition's third anniversary when he said
that "difficult decisions have to be taken" and that both the
centre and the states have to be "fiscally responsible"? In view
of the government's penchant for rolling back bold decisions,
usually under pressure from the Congress' own left-oriented ranks
rather than from the grumpy allies and perpetually obstructive
opposition, nothing definite can be said at the moment.
But two points can be made. One is that the present moment is the
last occasion when the government can break out of its widely
perceived "policy paralysis" and move ahead on the reforms front.
The present moment is opportune because the next round of state
assembly elections is still several months away. So, if a "shock"
is to be administered to the votaries of endless subsidies, this
is the best time.
The other is that if the government loses its nerve - again - then
it can say farewell to the possibility of success in 2014 and
prepare to sit in the opposition, as Law Minister Salman Khurshid
has hinted. From this standpoint, the UPA's third anniversary can
be regarded as some kind of a watershed when the alliance will
have to choose between taking the road to success or to failure.
It wasted its first year trying to uphold coalition dharma on the
basis of the flawed belief that remaining in power should be the
guiding principle rather than emphasising probity. As a result of
this skewed viewpoint which, not surprisingly, led to a virtual
explosion of scandals, the UPA spent its second year fire-fighting
the civil activists who seized the opportunity to corner the
government as few had done before Jayaprakash Narayan's movement
prior to the 1975 imposition of emergency.
To make matters worse, the government and the Congress alternated
between adopting the authoritarianism of the 1975-77 period and
showing a touching faith in democracy while dealing with the
activists.
It is another matter that the latter were undone by their own
pomposity and self-righteousness. But, by scaring the government,
they succeeded in ensuring that it spent its third year
demonstrating what P. Chidambaram once called a "governance
deficit" since no one was willing to take a decision lest the
activists jump on it.
The UPA's fourth year, therefore, is of crucial importance because
while the activists have scattered, the electoral defeats have
shown that the governance and ethical deficits have eroded the
coalition's support base. Far from expanding, as between 2004 and
2009, it is now shrinking.
Unfortunately, there are diverse explanations for the reason for
the decline. While Manmohan Singh seems to believe that reforms
are the way out to regain the support of the 300-million middle
class and create a sense of economic buoyancy with greater foreign
investments, preferably in the retail and aviation sectors, to
convince the other sections about the importance of growth, Sonia
Gandhi apparently reposes greater faith in welfare measures if her
espousal of the rural employment guarantee scheme, waiver of
farmers' loans and the food security bill is an indication.
Till now, the differences between the two centres of power, as the
Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) Arun Jaitley recently said, were
held responsible for the stalling of reforms. So, the big question
now, as the UPA shakily begins its fourth year in office, is which
of the two economic lines will prevail - reforms or populism. Both
have their backers.
While the supporters of reforms believe that market-driven
policies will bring prosperity, the other group thinks that the
state's paternalism through doles and subsidies will ensure an
inclusive development.
The two conflicting views are not unlike what prevails in the BJP
where the hardliners argue that adherence to the Hindutva
philosophy of cultural nationalism - one nation, one people, one
culture - will enable the party to return to power while the
moderates favour a more accommodating policy towards minorities.
For a winner to emerge from this clash of ideologies, there is
need for the proponents to articulate their cases forcefully and
consistently. Unfortunately, the Indian political tradition is
seemingly allergic to following a straight line. Instead, it likes
the Leninist tactic of taking one step forward and two steps back
to create a smokescreen about policy formulations so that no one
can be pinned down to a specific viewpoint. It is all a game of
allusions and subterfuges. If the UPA persists with such evasions,
its future is bleak.
Amulya Ganguli
is a political analyst. He can be reached at amulyaganguli@gmail.com
|
Comments
|
Quick links