As Expected

Interim budgets are always interesting. They tend to conceal the aberrations in the incumbent government’s fiscal policies and create a hype about its fiscal prudence. The UPA government’s, presented yesterday by Mr Pranab Mukherjee officiating as Union Finance Minister, could not be any different. The outlook for the current year is dismal, yet the impression is of buoyancy and how the government has successfully bailed out the economy. As Mr Mukherjee said, the Congress-led UPA government’s fiscal policies ‘‘ensured a dream run for the first four years’’. But was that sustainable? Not at all. That said, even the ‘‘dream run’’ could not address the concerns of the aam aadmi, especially farmers. Therefore, when Mr Mukherjee said that ‘‘our real heroes are farmers who ensured food security’’, there was an irony about it: the government was refusing to accept the reasons behind the high rate of suicide among farmers. What has driven them to end their own lives? The government would not answer. While it might be trendy to invoke Nobel laureate Amartya Sen’s theory of market economy as Mr Mukherjee did yesterday in Parliament, populism does have a limit. The government was clever enough not to cross that mark, yet the message was clear. Take, for instance, the ‘‘highest priority’’ accorded to rural development. The government says, along with manufacturing, agriculture has been the main growth driver. But is there a tangible agricultural policy in place? How are farmers — ‘‘real heroes’’ — being treated? Is there any policy prioritization on agriculture? The budget speech was a mere restatement of policies that have gone terribly wrong but that must be defended because it is election time. In other words, the budget was a purely electoral exercise as expected.
As analysts said, the budget was a ‘‘poll platform’’, meticulously planned and with an eye on the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections. Therefore, there was a well-crafted aam aadmi touch — a constituency no incumbent government would ignore. The electoral factor is primary, and the appeal, naturally, must be wide and varied. The budget harps on the outlay for higher education that has been ‘‘hiked by 900 per cent’’ but is silent on the methodology behind the hike or on the many dimensions of higher education in the 21st century. The HRD Ministry’s desperation to do away with the autonomy of higher educational institutions runs counter to the UPA moral grandstanding. There is no mention of the National Knowledge Commission’s opposition to the government’s higher education project. And should we believe that the 27 per cent OBC quota in higher education has had no effect on the economy? Yesterday was also a typical Congress moment to propitiate the Dynasty. Sonia Gandhi found mention in the budget speech — sans any reason except for thanksgiving. We heard that she had laid emphasis on sustainable and inclusive development. But how does the Congress define inclusiveness?

The economy has sustained not because of any wise governmental intervention, but because of the private sector’s brilliant engagement. Even the government has admitted that it has been able to attract private sector investment in infrastructure development. But is corporate India happy with the scope and freedom it has been provided? This, let India Inc answer.
source: the sentinel assam