The year 2010 will close out as the first year after a long time when the Prime Minister and the industry had no dialogue on any issue. In a year when corporate India faced a tsunami of allegations, the silence from the government was a huge disappointment.

The only time industry leaders met Manmohan Singh was early this year in May when the reconstituted council on trade and industry met for the first time after the UPA-2 came to power. The meeting set up sub-committees to debate apparently earth-shaking topics like financial inclusion and backward area development! I will come to those later, but in 2010, Singh basically refrained from making himself available for a dialogue with the industry.

?Closed for business? is the impression one would take away about the role of government from this year. The distancing of industry issues from the top echelons of the government meant no one was listening to what industry wanted. The thinking is since the sector is presumably in an auto mode, it will continue to deliver a 9% and more GDP growth rate, year after year, despite getting kicked around at times.

Just compare the turn of events with the push for engagement from 2004 to 2006. The first council for trade and industry itself came into being just four months after the government was formed, in September 2004. The present one took nine months to get off the ground, in April this year.

These are, of course, the gross indicators. But getting deeper, the variety of engagement of the UPA-1 government after it came to power with industry is amazingly absent in the present government. This is why we are in the process of creating a record of sorts for non-engagement in 2010. In 2005 calendar year, for instance, Singh set up the National Knowledge Commission, gave his blessings to the Investment Commission and established the manufacturing competitiveness initiative that developed into a full-fledged council. In the same year, he made a memorable speech addressing industry asking it to think big and into the future and laid out detailed business plan for each ministry that included specific directions to expand foreign and domestic investment in each sector. He also found time to set up a committee on the information, communication and entertainment sectors. That pace continued into the next year, too.

Not many would now remember that at significant meetings of industry chambers, Rahul Gandhi was then a regular visitor. He listened attentively, though, of course, never venturing any opinion. In 2010, Rahul has not met industry leaders at any structured sessions, though he has found time to tell rallies in Jharkhand and Orissa; he is the sipahi of the tribals in Delhi.

Possibly taking a cue from there, the Prime Minister has used a reference to industry on only three occasions this year. At a speech in early January, telling industry that workers should be partners in growth; asking industry to partner in the rehabilitation of Leh after the flash floods; besides, of course, at the meeting with the council for trade and industry.

The meeting of the council on trade and industry that brings together the best of India Inc is in itself an example of how substantive issues were kept out of the agenda. The sub-committees do not look at land issues, the green challenge for industry, mundane but critical issues like direct taxes code or GST, or even worker management issues.

Government managers would say that institutional forums are not where substantive issues get sorted out. But there is no evidence other channels have been opened up meanwhile, at least if they have, few of us are aware of it. Making institutional channels moribund sure sets a bad precedent. The Investment Commission, in UPA-1, for instance, had a clear mandate to typically address the brick and mortar issues that plagued industry, but that one is history now.

That this ocean of silence creates a crisis does not need to be made clear. The Ratan Tata letter or the subsequent comments by Deepak Parekh and Kris Gopalakrishnan are good enough examples.

Erasing the channels does something else. It tells industry they are not welcome to the party, which is absurd. This is not about whether sections of the industry have or have not misused their money power to bend rules. Instead, closing of the government to an open dialogue encourages the entrepreneurs to cultivate favourites within the establishment. So this develops a very nice environment for sections within the government and industry to create a cosy club where only those invited can exchange approvals for money. Did someone say, crony capitalism?

When the leadership of the party sells this approach, others follow. If Singh or Sonia Gandhi do not have the time to speak to industry at any fora, ministers will also make it a point to avoid these appointments. To get a sense of this drift, just see the pace at which the National Manufacturing Competitiveness Council assiduously sought the views of the industry and the lacklustre way the department of industrial policy and promotion has now handled the debate on entry of foreign direct investment in multi-brand retail.

No wonder, industry is bending over backwards to figure out what the party wants. Some of those will come up when the pre-Budget meeting with the industry comes round in January. But making the industry play the fall guy for the government misadventures of half a century is not the best way to push the growth rate in the economy.

subhomoy.bhattacharjee@expressindia.com