There is a difference between government and governance and one should perhaps review UPA-2?s first year in governance, rather than in government. The best contemporary book on the Indian economy, by a long shot, is Arvind Panagariya?s India, The Emerging Giant, published in 2008. In that book, Panagariya wrote, ?But the resolve within the UPA to move the reforms forward has also been at best weak… Once the UPA publicly embraced the view that the reforms had not helped the poor, its ability to push the reforms was greatly undercut.? Let us have another quote, this time from Sherlock Holmes in The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle. ?You fail, however, to reason from what you see. You are too timid in drawing your inferences.? Contrary to evidence, a hypothesis floats around that the UPA is a party of reform, reform interpreted as reliance on market mechanisms. This belief, predicated on faith rather than facts, is based on the inclusion of many 1991 vintage reformers in the UPA government. From that belief stems the proposition that UPA-1 couldn?t reform because of the Left and constraints of NCMP (National Common Minimum Programme). With these out of the way, we will have a flurry of reforms, barring opposition to privatisation by allies like DMK and Trinamool.
Hence, there was talk of 100-day agendas, reminiscent of 1991, although few ministries or departments bothered to articulate their agendas. Instead of NCMP, there was the President?s address to Parliament on June 4, 2009. Since this was drafted by the government, and based on UPA-1?s experience, it should be construed as the UPA?s interpretation of what could be done, rather than what should be done. There was stuff on security, including the Naxal issue. There was also stuff on the global crisis and inclusiveness of growth. While some of this was vague, we were specifically promised the Unique Identity Card, Right to Education, Food Security Act and GST. There was also a paragraph 32 in the speech, setting out a 100-day agenda?women?s reservation (in panchayats and urban local bodies, too), a National Mission on Empowerment of Women, a voluntary national youth corps, restructuring of Backward Regions Grant Fund, a public data policy, strengthening of Right to Information, an Independent Evaluation Office for public expenditure, assorted annual reports, a Voluntary Technical Corps of professionals through JNNURM, scholarships and social security through accounts in post offices and banks, a model Public Services Law, a National Council for Human Resources in Health, a ?brain gain? policy to attract talent into 14 universities, a roadmap for judicial reform, decentralised BPL identification through gram sabhas and urban local bodies, a delivery monitoring body in PMO and quarterly Bharat Nirman reports.
Some of these are impossible to accomplish in 100 days. But then, the country didn?t draft paragraph 32, the government did. Therefore, it is entirely legitimate to hold the government to task for failing to live up to its promises. Notice everything doesn?t require legislative changes and looking for a scapegoat in parliamentary legislative hurdles isn?t warranted. Much can be accomplished through executive action and we are now well past 100 days, indeed beyond 365 days. Where are we? There has been fiscal consolidation and subject to what happens in 2011, the tax (direct and indirect) reform agenda is on schedule. We have a roadmap on judicial reform, although implementation is a different matter. Instead of decentralised identification, there is centralised identification of BPL and the Food Security Act (and Planning Commission) is going around in circles because of it. Education is partly a state subject and given the Seventh Schedule, HRD minister is struggling to push some things through. While constitutionally, health is similar, it isn?t obvious what the health minister is up to. The Naxal problem is hardly under control. While development has been recognised as an issue, beyond law and order, check out status of the MIS on the Planning Commission?s Web site on developmental programmes in 33 worst Naxal-affected districts. There is a delivery monitoring unit of sorts, but it excludes several ministries/departments and isn?t independent. Big bangs have been about lobbying, twittering and fluttering (public squabbles between ministers).
This conveys an impression of a government that is bungling along, made easier by the lack of a credible Opposition. This is no different from UPA-1 and this isn?t the first year of Tweedledee, it is the sixth year of Tweedledum. Two other statements follow, the first mentioned by Arvind. UPA occupies Left of Centre and quite a bit to the Left. Those original architects of reform can?t believe there is an economic dividend there. But they perceive the political dividend. Second, the engine during UPA-1 was NAC, witness RTI and NREG. With NAC-2, UPA-2 may now have some drive and a locomotive. That locomotive won?t necessarily take us in the direction we want, ?loco? also being a slang for crazy. But the government should seem less directionless.
The author is a noted economist