The demand for consensus is well-intentioned. The trouble is that it is far from clear whethera commitment to reform, or its absence, will sway the fortunes of political parties. The high prices of foodgrains certainly do not commend reform; nor the slowing pace of public investment in agriculture;and the threat of downsizing government and the public sector only dims job prospects. The pace of import liberalisation means precious little to the rural poor. What does reform promise those whose votes are critical to get into power? The answer to this question holds the key to the consensus being sought. It is difficult to say that reforms will spawn roti, kapda, makan. To this day, rozgar yojanas are all the poor can look forward to; and yojanas have been hit under reform.

Yet it is true that reforms are necessary to raise the annual GDP growth rate to 7 per cent plus; this order of growth will ensure rapid employment expansion. Sure enough, private-led accumulation and investment (including foreign investment) must be brought centre-stage along with privatisation, etc. But there must be a perceivedlinkage between this strategy and employment growth across the land. Finally, what is the framework of policy within which reform is to be pursued? Yes, user charges must be raised; so must the quality of supplies of goods and services. Subsidies must be cut. But real incomes of people at base level must rise; high foodgrain prices result in just the opposite. There must be a public expenditure-switching strategy in favour of nutrition, drinking water,health and primary education. Let us face it. The focus of reform is on urban and rural better-off, hardly stuff of political consensus in the Indian context. Reform needs a public policy. Consensus can wait.