What apparently were steps to tackle the balance of payments crisis, quickly shaped into reform. It would seem that Chandra Shekhar did not expect this development. It is not known if PV Narasimha Rao, or his finance minister, Manmohan Singh, consciously opted for reform or were pushed into it by the TINA (there is no alternative) factor. We had rupee devaluation, external liberalisation and industrial de-licensing.

The Rao-Singh duo may have wanted to do as they did. But they projected no stirring vision of reform. Planning, as shaped by the Second Plan, wanted to make Indiaa great industrial nation: this country would make a million-tonne steel plant every year. The vision, was elitist. Planning offered nothing to the poor. It treated agriculture as the bargain sector (noted by Sukhamoy Chakravarty).

There was no national debate on planning, except in the pages of newspapers, English language newspapers, that is. No wonder the demise of planning has gone unmourned, unsung. This could well be the fate of economic reform. True, it holds the promise of trickle-down growth. But do the poor think that all they deserve is trickle-down!

What does reform offer to the poor in terms of jobs--roti, kapda, makan? Little. No wonder reform remains stalled. Like planning, reform does not involve the ordinary man. So how does it matter to him if customs duties are raised or lowered, excise duties are vatted, foreign capital shut out or let in? Talk of level-playing field for domestic industry, anti-dumping duties, high interest rates et al are like Sanskrit to the barely literate in thevernacular.

Reform without economic democracy is unsustainable. The Swadeshi Jagaran Manch can get away with its protectionist battle cry to return to the closed economy and, thus, to pander to the vested interests which thrive on shortages. In the absence of economic democracy, the man in the dusty hamlet does not know what is going on, and does not give a damn.

So what is the vision being pursued under reform? And how does the strategy of opening up the economy, of deregulation, and of getting in foreign capital give life to that vision? The crux of reform is decentralisation in decision-making. Decentralisation must reach the common man, starting with the decision to allocate (as Kerala has done) 40 per cent of state funds to the panchayats. The Centre can no longer treat certain states as pariah. Every state can get investment, domestic and foreign, to create jobs for people within its boundaries.

Chandra Shekhar may or may not be in sympathy with reform. But he is right in saying that economicreform must be debated on a national scale. Is reform about making the rich richer? Does reform necessarily mean that India too will collapse like the tigers? The reform policy and what it spells, must be discussed threadbare.

Facile promises abound. Reform will boost GDP growth to 7 per cent. This will bring down unemployment in a matter of years. But this high growth will need foreign capital supplement domestic investment. More importantly, it will need a 14 per cent growth in exports to broadly cover the import requirement. Such high export growth seems a pie in the sky.

But even a 5 per cent GDP growth will require imports to rise by 8 per cent; and correspondingly exports to rise by 8-10 per cent from 4 per cent currently. So what are the choices? With the foreign aid regime in retreat, can India turn its back on reform and shut out foreign capital?

What is at stake is economic growth, its shape and its reach. There must be a national debate: in the print media, including the vernacular press; onAIR and Doordarshan; and in fora accessed by voluntary agencies at the grass roots. There must be pressures from below to shape reform and assert its priorities. Chandra Shekhar is right. Economic reform cannot be left to jargon-bound economists of the Right or the Left; nor the IMF, nor the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch.