As always, the best insight comes from Sherlock Holmes. Readers will recall that in one story, the clue was the dog that did not bark. That Holmes said was the most remarkable thing about the case. Those puzzling at the vote on account presented by Pranab Mukherjee have missed the most vital point about the ?Budget?: nothing happened. There was no dramatic proposal. No vast scheme or package. Why would a government conscious of the growth recession facing the economy present a do-nothing Budget?
First, you need at least a suspicious, if not a cynical, mindset. When a central government becomes rule-abiding and even boasts about the fact that what it has done is in keeping with hallowed conventions, reach for your sceptical self. It clearly paid the UPA government not to break the rules which it does with impunity all the time. As Talleyrand once said about a rival of his who had just died. What did he mean by that?
The non-Budget is, in my view, a peep into the confidence with which the Congress approaches the coming election. There was a farewell-to-friends element in Pranab Mukherjee?s text. The coalition partners are being put on notice that there will be no pre-election deals. That was the reason why it was the Hand which did all the marvellous things. Lalu Yadav?s blatant electioneering budget was an index of his own anxiety. But the Congress is cool; it feels no need to bribe anyone.
The Budget says that the Congress is now confident it will get back into office after the next election. It thinks it has no need for pre-commitment because on its own it will get more than the 150 seats now, maybe even up to 180. If it does that, as BJP did in 1998, it can rule with ease and will be able to pick its allies. Thus, it breaks with Samajwadi Party, leaving Amar Singh surprised at someone even more opportunistic than himself. The Congress reckons Mayawati will do better than the SP; so why pre-commit.
Of course, the NDA made the same assumption when it was it?s turn to present the vote on account in 2004. It thought it would be back in six weeks? time. But the Congress has better reasons for being more sure of its game. The main reason is the BJP itself. For one thing, the BJP has no economic policy or philosophy to think of. The chaddiwalas have crowded out Bimal Jalan and Arun Shourie. The Congress is so overflowing with economics expertise it boasts that it can rest Chidambaram and the PM and produces Pranab who, with a borrowed bat, can still score a century. Inflation is coming down and the people?s main worry is incomes and jobs. In times of trouble, don?t change the captain is the message.
The UPA was smug before last December in thinking that India will not be affected by the global meltdown. The growth was slowing down due to internal reasons, as I have pointed out before. It abandoned Ratan Tata in the Singur case, thus signalling that for it hating the CPM meant more than the damage to India?s international reputation as a place for doing business. It misread the inflation signals until it was too late and then let RBI deflate until it was way past the necessary date. Indeed, when we all expected the UPA to whip up more reforms after winning the trust vote, it slunk away in confusion.
The explanation is simple. There is only one strategic thinker in the UPA, if not the entire Indian political tamasha. Sonia Gandhi thinks many steps ahead. But she is extremely risk-averse. In August/September she was not so sure of her chances and wanted the Left to be hurt; hence Singur. Come January, she knows the BJP has lost its footing since the Malegaon case and from then it was only a matter of reading the tea leaves correctly. So, she let Rahul Gandhi out more often but confirmed Manmohan Singh as PM. That is a notice to veterans like Arjun Singh and even Pranab Mukherjee that their turn will never come. Add the masterly non-Budget. If it works, it will be Manmohan who will get credit for winning a second term. If success is less than solid, Pranab will pay the price. If Manmohan has to go, then the way is clear for Rahul while he hones his skills in the opposition. But I would bet on her winning rather than not.
?The author is a prominent economist and Labour peer