Rediff Navigator News

Commentary

Capital Buzz

The Rediff Poll

Miscellanea

Crystal Ball

Click Here

The Rediff Special

Arena

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

Ashok Mitra
E-mail


Home | News | Business | Sport | Movies | Chat
Travel | Planet X | Freedom | Computers
Feedback

Copyright 1997 Rediff On The Net
All rights reserved