HVK Archives: Money politics
Money politics - Mid-day
Praful Bidwai
()
27 June 1996
Title : Money Politics
Author : Praful Bidwai
Publication : Mid-day
Date : June 27, 1996
Note on the author:
Shri Bidwai is a hard core Communist and is one of the
self-styled leader of the anti-Hindutuva brigade. He
thinks that his forte is intellectualism but his method
is the substitution of adjectives for logic. He works
very closely with the Communist party ideologoues. This
article has to be seen in this light, although there may
well be some things of the Swadeshi platform. Shri Bidwai
would like to see the erstwhile USSR model of industrial
/ agricultural development in India and not of indigenous
private entrepreneurship.
End note.
IT IS elitist to say that the United Front is an
opportunistic `rag-tag' combination in a hurry to grab
power, unlike the `principled' Bharatiya Janata Party.
Now, the UFs most carping critics are changing their
tune, conceding that it is likely to survive. But its
biggest virtue, they say, is its 'responsible' economic
policy.
The political part of this proposition is false. But the
economic part is partially true - and wholly
distressing.
To start with, there was competition among the LIF
constituents to stay out of power. V P Singh even stood
glorious in his renunciation. The way the UF handled the
leadership issue was incomparably smoother than the case
of the Congress in 1991, when there was shameless
bribery and near-abduction of parliamentarians.
As coalition politics goes, this is a qualitatively
better start than in 1977 or 1989. The UF has been a
model of restraint. We have seen little bickering, or
efforts to induce defections. Contrast this with the BJP.
Its plans to put together a government with 161 seats
were premised on inducing defections and buying up
parliamentarians. So much for its sanctimonious claims.
However, the UF's economic and social orientations are
far from satisfactory. The UF's common minimum programme
falls short of the policies we need to achieve
sustainable prosperity, in conformity with a self-reliant =
need-based model.
The programme may add up to nothing more than a
structural adjustment with a (fabricated and largely
symbolic) human face - unless corrective measures are
taken. Its political strengths are noteworthy. It makes a
commitment to a just and humane society', emphasises
secularism, and the vision of 'a strong, modern, forward-
looking, liberal and democratic society imbued with a
scientific temper'.
Its affirmative action in favour of women - 33 per cent
reservations - Dabts, advises, artisans and crafts
persons is welcome.'Re programme's strongest political
plank is federalism and decentralisation: a commitment to
amend Article 356, devolve economic power to states and
grant speedy presidential assent to their bills. However,
its economic policies start on a false premise. It says:
"It is growth which creates jobs and generates incomes."
This is incorrect. Certain types of growth do not create
jobs at all nor do they 'generate income' - for those who
lack them. The first principle of
modern development economics is that growth alone can
never abolish poverty. For that, you peed public action.
The programme thus follows a conservative economic policy
course, with a minor change of emphasis on the quantum of
resources to promote equity, without a qualitative
change.
It commits itself to 'continuing the process of
deregulation and decontrol'. It attempts no shift from
the post-1991 neoliberal policy towards industry,
agriculture, public sector or foreign investment. =
Nor does it try to recover economic sovereignty lost
through unequal globalisation. It wants to reduce the
Centre's fiscal deficit to four per cent. But it does not
refer to the far more vital revenue deficit, a true
measure of the government's profigacy.
There is no resolve to broaden our extremely narrow tax
base, punish tax-evaders, lower interest rates or prune
defence expenditure.
The June 17 exercise at austerity is largely cosmetic,
except for freezing government salaries from next year,
which has rightly drawn flak from trade unions.
On self-reliance, the programme mouths platitudes that =
self-rehance has been an article of faith since
independence'. There is no commitment to promoting
technological self reliance and defending =
the Patents Act against the World Trade =
Organisation (WTO).
Rather, the emphasis is on drawing in $10 billion in
foreign investment, which 'the nation needs'. The
programme commits itself to 'further reforms of the
financial sector'. This means free entry for foreign firm
in banking, insurance, foreign exchange and bonds
trading.
This is an invitation to the kind of predatory financial
globalisation which even liberal economists oppose. For
all its rhetoric on agriculture, the programme makes no
public investment commitment nor emphasises the need to
make a transition to low-input, low-intensity
faming.
It promises more rural credit and land reforms. But there
is no reference to ceiling laws, security of tenure,
abolishing absentee landlordism or giving women land
rights - a crucial task. On the public sector too, here
is no change of direction, no granting of functional
autonomy to managements and giving workers a stake.
Public sector units are defined as 'essentially
commercial enterprises', not the backbone of an
indigenous industrial-technological base. A new duality
is introduced: PSUs with 'comparative advantages' will be
helped to become 'global giants', but the sick ones will
be handed over to 'professional groups' (whatever that
means) or workers' cooperatives.
On inflation too, the programme is weak. It promises food
at half the market price to the poor There is no
commitment to expanding the public distribution system's
reach and providing pulses and other essentials. There is
also no mention of the right to work, only a feeble
reference to guaranteeing 100 days of employment for
every unemployed person. By official calculation, this
will be a 60 per cent improvement on existing targets.
That is, each poor person win get seven (instead of four)
days of work in a year. By emphasising a 'healthy market
economy', the programme beats a retreat even from the
concept of a 'social market economy' of the kind
prevalent in western Europe. Its authors do not wish to
make a sharp break from the policy of structural
adjustment (neo-liberalism) plus a little more social
spending.
These major weaknesses cry out for correction. This can
only be made if there is pressure on the government from
within (through its more left-of-centre components) and
outside (trade unions, non-governmental organisations,
the intelligentsia and media).
Back
Top
|