Author: Surjit S Bhalla
Publication: Business Standard
Date: September 17, 2005
URL: http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage.php?hpFlag=Y&chklogin=N&autono=200413&leftnm=lmnu5&lselect=0&leftindx=5
By his bold actions, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee
has revealed the truth about the Congress' anti-reform nature
When asked about his government's record on
reforms, Mr Chidambaram, somewhat innocently but perhaps disingenuously, asks,
"If reforms have slowed down, how are we registering high growth?"
Interpretation: It is the great leadership of the Congress that has allowed
economic growth last year to be 6.9 per cent, and this year to be near 7 per
cent; that has allowed the Sensex to be higher, and Indians to be richer,
and for India to have a woman tennis player in the top 40. One might also
add, according to Mr C's logic, that if my temperature is normal today, I
will stay well tomorrow.
I would like to disagree with the finance minister, and document that the
economy inherited by the UPA in May 2004 was the best ever, especially by
Mr Chidambaram's (Mr C) standards of what a good economy is; that the record
of the present UPA government, to date, is the most anti-reform since the
Janata experiment in 1977-80; and third, that, surprisingly, true reformers
are to be found outside of the Congress and among the people it loves to blame
for its surprising anti-reform record-the Left.
"Reform, perform, or perish", not what Mr C said but what the leading
Communist of India has stated about what economic policies need to be followed.
And, unlike his colleagues in Delhi, aka as "coffee shop revolutionaries",
Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee (Mr BB), chief minister, is actually fast implementing
reforms in West Bengal.
The reason for the urgency-Mr BB faces the electorate early next year. If
the UPA were to also face the electorate, it might also put a fast pedal on
reforms.
An alternative view is that the anti-reform record of the Congress is precisely
geared towards elections next year-only Congress-style, they hope to get there
with populism under the leadership of an inexperienced First Family member,
Rahul Gandhi. So we might get a genuine choice soon: Rahul Gandhi or a non-Congress
Prime Minister, Mr BB or Mr Chandrababu Naidu?
But first, the record of the economy 1999 to 2004 (the NDA period). It is
useful to contrast it with the universally acknowledged reform period of the
Congress, 1991 to 1996.
In March 1999, the consolidated fiscal deficit was 10.8 per cent of GDP, thanks
to Mr C's agreement (albeit a reluctant nod) on more pay for bureaucrats to
produce less, this consolidated deficit catapulted to a record 12.3 per cent
of GDP in 2001-02.
At the time the NDA left, the deficit was down to 9.9 per cent of GDP, and
around 8.1 per cent in 2004-05 (before the Congress got a chance to make it
worse).
It has been contended, especially by Congress experts, that poor rural India
did not participate in the NDA era growth, and that jobs were created only
for the urban elite of Delhi and Bangalore.
A new aam aadmi deal was needed and that is why the Congress "won"-albeit
with the same number of seats (140+ in a 545- seat Parliament) as Narasimha
Rao in 1996! Long live Goebellian lies.
According to NSSO data, job growth between 1999 and 2003 was 2.2 per cent
per annum, higher than the 1991-96 Congress-delivered job growth of 2 per
cent per annum. Rural job growth in the two periods was equal-at 1.8 per cent
per annum.
Agricultural growth during the NDA period was about the same, despite worse
weather. Interest rates became considerably lower in the NDA regime, are in
large part responsible for the high growth economy today.
What has been the Congress's response to this booming, shall we dare say shining,
economy? Under the traditional Congress pretence of garibi hatao, the government
has launched itself into a traditional tax and spend programme.
Tax rates have been raised for corporations, populist schemes like the fringe
benefit tax and employment guarantee programme have been introduced; and ultra-populist
schemes like job reservations in the private sector have been suggested.
Anti-reform measures are across several fields. The education department is
just as ideologically bad as before, corruption is widely believed to be higher
despite Dr Manmohan Singh's presence as PM, bureaucrats get fired for blowing
the whistle on widespread corruption in Congress-ruled states, and "free"
electricity is provided to the farmers (read friends of the Congress) in states
ruled by the Congress.
The rot continues. The minister of petroleum brazenly and arrogantly believes
that the way to improving corporate governance is by appointing Congress party
officials to the boards of directors of public sector corporations (what bets
that this is the reason why major elements of the Congress do not, and never
will, want to sell the family (all puns intended) jewels?)
The rot goes on. Just witness what the Congress did in 1984 to the Sikhs -the
start of the institutional riot. And then the cover-up after the Nanavati
report implicated several Congress party members, including a Cabinet member,
for instigating riots.
And the secular badge of the Congress is demeaned by its activities in supporting
reactionary elements within the Muslim community-does nothing stop it from
attempting to gain votes?
But back to Mr C's assertion about reforms, and the anti-reform reality documented
above. The ad nauseam lie of the Congress has been: we want to reform, but
cannot, because the Left won't let us. But the leader of the Left is fast
implementing economic reforms.
By calling the Congress's bluff, Mr BB has left the Congress high and dry.
Just for that, he deserves our vote for PM.
ssbhalla@gmail.com
