The concept of SBU came to be adopted by business and industry over the last four to five years. As competition heated up both from domestic and global players, corporates could not continue to carry on in their old ways.

Earlier, it was quite common for strong players to extend their area of operations into new segments of the economy. The name of game was to have a finger on every possible pie. Investing in assets from equity and debt funds was the order of the day.

However, this asset-based approach became meaningless and quite often proved a death noose. The return on assets deteriorated as competition heated up or the economy slowed down. There was also overcapacity in many segments.

Holding assets also meant debt and interest burden. Faced with the threat of survival, several companies streamlined and brought in the concept of core competence. This is quite akin to the SBU concept at the corporate level.

The Government is not very different from a corporate. Here survival is counted in terms of ability to return to power and retain it. It is not, therefore, surprising that political parties are also not averse to collaboration with other parties, something similar to what is happening in the pharmaceutical industry. But there are sharp differences between how the SBU idea is practiced in the corporate sector and Government. In the corporate sector, you do identify departments to those that can only add to costs and those which can generate profits over their costs.

In the language of the Government, catering to vote banks would be a profit-generating activity. But to be viable, the Government also needs profits in hard cash. And that can come only from revenue-producing departments or activities.

The cost of the vote-retaining activity has to be funded out of the revenue activities. It is not that the Government is not aware of the dynamics of this equation. It is through its own democratic process. But what is missing is a consensus among the various constituents of the Government. Consensus becomes difficult as different political parties or even ministers for that matter have objectives, which are divergent from what could be the best objective for the Government as a whole, considered as an SBU.

Finance minister Yaswant Sinha has been trying his best to drive for a consensus, but he could still do better with the support of the Prime Minister. His aim should be to define the SBU objectives for the Government as a whole and then arrive at SBUs for individual ministries and the private sector.

The PMO has reconstituted the industry committee which will liaise with the Government. While the industry will keep the Government informed and educated of the ground realities, it is for the Government to ensure an enabling environment. It is interesting to note that while such a committee has been in existence earlier, the industry now complains that it has not been consulted or involved in matters relating to WTO. That clearly reveals that such committee-Government liaison has been working in a slip shod fashion and not comprehensively.

If India Inc has to take off in a sustained fashion, cooperation between the Government and industry has to be far more intensive and effective than it has been in the past. It has to move beyond just seminars, where the Government and the industry exchange views. It has to move on where each of the two players insist on parameters of performance from the other. The Punjab Chamber of Commerce and Industry, for example, has been constantly pointing out the need for the Government to have a fiscal discipline.

New threats are now emerging for the Indian industry. The Government spokesman has now expressed the view that the Government will have to move towards a regime where revenue from tariffs will have to be brought down and domestic (indirect) taxes will have to go up. This is the compulsion from WTO. The WTO prescription will have different implications for countries, depending upon how export oriented that particular economy is. Indian economy is not very export oriented as compared to others in the region. So, blindly falling in line with WTO prescription without a proper analysis and debate will harm the nation.

Since taxes will have a direct impact on industrial growth there ought to be more dialogue between the industry chambers and Government. It will have to cover the implications for the GDP growth rate, exchange rate and survival of the Indian industry. In an SBU framework for the nation, there would have to be checks and balances. The industry could well monitor the Government's past and present role in relation to WTO transactions. It has already been pointed out that, shockingly though, India has failed to join a group of developing nations, which have kicked off initiatives to protect the group from the marauding moves of the rich countries at the WTO in agricultural products. Looked at in this light, an assessment report card on the Government's handling of WTO is badly needed. And this would be a good place for the Congress-I to play a constructive and comprehensive role. By that, I mean not political noise and nuisance but really constructive action, which the nation can sit up and take notice of.

It is time that the industry-Government relations took on a more intensive, effective and meaningful shape. The nation building is a joint exercise. The role of the Government is now limited to creating an enabling environ. In reality, the Government is forced to give a major attention to its stake in terms of its revenues to manage its debt and running expenses. Development has become an unaffordable luxury as the Government has no surplus cash to spare.

What is on Government's table is only action on WTO, FDI, banking regulations, money supply and inflation. Given this situation, if the industry does not come to grip with its relations with the Government now, its fortunes will surely run into trouble in the not too distant future.