Commentary/Ashok Mitra
It is as if those who argue against the reforms are agents of an alien, evil ideology, and it would
be less than patriotic to offer them space
Only a few would now remember those
halcyon days of 1955. A certain
expectation gripped the air; the country, there was widespread
agreement, was on the threshold of achieving great things. The
framework of the Second Five Year Plan dazzled both the cognoscenti
and the non-cognoscenti; co-ordinated economic planning, it was
assumed, would vastly accelerate the pace of national growth as
well as expand employment opportunities; it would, in addition,
narrow down inter-class and inter-regional inequalities.
Even the stodgiest machine politician perceived the necessity
to acclimatise with this new ambience. He too started mouthing
the standard cliches on the supposed wonders of a 'socialistic'
pattern of society. The Planning Commission became the cynosure
of attention. It had stature and, what was more relevant, it carried
conviction. But democratic manners and procedures were still very
much of a part of the environment.
The Five-Year Plan, emphasising the social imperative of developing
rapidly a heavy industry base, which in turn called for a high
rate of savings and investment, was ready in draft form. Jawaharlal
Nehru was sold on it. It, however, needed to receive the imprimatur
of approval of wise and sagacious men from society. The Planning
Commission, therefore, invited a panel of distinguished economists
to sit in judgement on the contents of the Draft Plan.
Conformism has been this nation's lode star. The panel had little
difficulty in going along with the targets and objectives enunciated
by the Commission or with the policy measures it had put forward
for the attainment of these goals.
A fabulous season for star-gazing, but the milieu was nonetheless
democratic. One of the members of the distinguished panel of economists,
Professor B R Shenoy, refused to endorse what his colleagues and
the Planning Commission had so vigorously argued for. Professor Shenoy
was a man of conviction; he was in principle dead set against
co-ordinated economic planning. He suspected the Plan document
to be an evil beginning of a collectivist era and therefore deserved
to be opposed tooth and nail. He was respectfully listened to.
The Planning Commission as well as the government went to great
lengths to ensure that Professor Shenoy's note of dissent received
the widest publicity. Was ours not a democratic republic, was
it not the duty and obligation of each and every one to listen
to the point of view of one's neighbours, never mind even if this
view seemed to be altogether otiose? It was the season of co-ordinated
economic planning; but it was liberalism's finest hour too.
The wheel has turned a full circle. Global developments have,
at least for the present, written the obituary of co-ordinated
economic planning. The Planning Commission exists only in name.
The spate of liberalisation measures since the midsummer of 1991
has transfixed the nation. The media supposed infallibility of
free market forces. The Left excepting, major sections of politicians,
have crossed over and accepted the doctrine of market-knowing-the-best.
The tribe of economists, going by appearance, have also converted
themselves into enthusiastic believers in the wondrous magic the
invisible hand is supposedly capable of performing.
Curiously though, the hour of liberalisation is anything but the
liberal hour. Even if, for argument's sake, it is granted that
the set of official policies put into practice since June 1991
have transformed the land and rendered it into an undiluted valley
of prosperity, those holding a different or contrary opinion,
one would have thought, must have the right to put across their
views. That is not how it has worked out.
The economic reforms have supposedly worked miracles, but it is
not civil to enquire what these miracles are, so much so that
the critics of the reforms are experiencing an extremely rough
time. The media have really gone to town to marginalise the dissenters. They
have merely followed the example set by the administration.
The regime of 1991-96 took pride as progenitors of the reforms.
The regime which substituted it last year has declared, with equal
fervour, to continue with the reforms.
Ask not what the reforms have done to you, ask what you can do
for the reforms; this about sums up the current environment. Neither
the Planning Commission nor the ministry of finance, for instance,
bothers to grant audience to individuals or groups who may choose
to speak differently.
Consensus is no longer enough, it has to
be undiluted, full-throated concurrence on each and every issue.
No quarters are to be given to cranks and malevolents who dare
to challenge the authorities on the authenticity of the thundering
success of the reforms or try to counter the data doled out by
officialdom by other data from equally unimpeachable sources.
In any event, once theology encroaches into the arena, facts become
an irrelevance. On matters of economic policy, the government
has decided to turn a Nelson's eye on opinions proffered by dissident
elements of all descriptions, including dissident economists.
The media have fallen suit. It is as if those who argue against
the reforms are agents of an alien, evil ideology, and it would
be less than patriotic to offer them space.
On the eve of this year's Budget, a group of economists, economists
with impeccable credentials and including quite a few who have
served the State in various responsible capacities in the past,
issued a press note suggesting a fiscal framework different from
what the finance minister was reportedly contemplating to adopt
for his Budget. These economists went into painstaking detail
to etch an alternative mode of a fiscal regime, which would be
people-friendly and yet not populist, keeping to the fore the need
to retain for the nation the prerogative of independent decision-making.
They could have as well spoken to a blank wall. Most newspapers
refused to carry even a summary version of the statement by the
economists as a tinny-winny news item even. To be fair, one newspaper,
while not bothering to print the text of the statement either
in whole or in part, carried a scorching editorial article inviting
the 'Left' economists to go and examine their heads. Otherwise,
it was a tremendously impressive conspiracy of silence.
Admittedly a minor episode; it nonetheless proves a point. Even
Adam Smith, the 18th century moral philosopher who was amongst
the earliest savants to dilate at length on the virtues of the
free market, was not an unmitigated believer in the creative contributions
of the invisible hand. He had observed from close quarters how
landlords and manufacturers gang up and oppress the workmen. There
is always the danger that the free market, if it does not work
according to what Smith described as the 'basic laws of justice',
might degenerate into an arena of crass monopolisation, where
the will of only a few dominant agents prevail.
That is precisely what is happening at this moment. Liberalisation
has killed off the liberal spirit. Those who are against the reforms,
it is assumed as axiomatic, do not deserve to survive; the privilege
accorded to Professor B R Shenoy four decades ago is not accordable
to the present lot of dissidents. The cue is taken from the appropriate
quarters, and inspiration is drawn from the unceasing efforts
of the US administration to snuff out little Cuba; the latter's
only crime is that she wants to be different.
Not that this year's Budget has not been forced to compromise
here and there with alien points of view. But these compromises
have been the outcome of short-term political compulsions and
not on the basis of economic rationale. The government suddenly
gave in on a number of issues and the media are disgusted at the
blackmailing allegedly indulged in by a bunch of Leftist politicians.
No question, the battle will resume once the silly reason of the
Budget passes. Dissidence, out, out; the polite days are over.
It will be a proper class war.
Ashok Mitra, the distinguished economist and former West Bengal finance minister, is now a CPI-M
member of Parliament.
Tell us what you think of this column
|
