The Congress and reforms

AFTER A LOT of dithering and debate, the Congress has finally come out with a committee report on its economic policy. Even the composition of the committee raised a few eyebrows and put a question mark over the status and views of Dr. Manmohan Singh, former Finance Minister, credited with piloting most of liberalisation in the first half of the 1990s. The Pranab Mukherjee committee has finally handed in its report to the party president, Ms. Sonia Gandhi, but the last word has still not been said. One thing is clear; the Congress cannot go back on reforms which it initiated. Just because it is in the opposition today, the party cannot disown the measures it launched or the international commitments its Government gave on behalf of the country. The rest of it is political expediency. With elections being held almost every year to some State Assemblies and the country having witnessed three general elections since 1996, it is only to be expected that the main Opposition will have its finger on the pulse of the people and its eye on the elections. So, the Congress' latest exposition on reforms must be seen in that context - particularly the elections in the largest State, Uttar Pradesh, due next year.

Soon after the 1996 elections, a section of the party, which suffered major reverses, blamed the loss on the Congress Government's economic policies - meaning liberalisation. The debate began even then and came to a head earlier this year, when Ms. Gandhi decided it was time to get a committee to take stock of the situation and restate the party's position on reforms. Apparently, the leaders were evenly divided on what stand to take. Dr. Singh and his colleagues with a pro-reform attitude did not want to abandon the path of reforms. They were convinced that the Congress must not only own to initiating reforms but claim the credit for doing so. They saw the BJP and its coalition as usurpers of the reform platform. But the more politically minded Congressmen wanted the party to accept the fact that it was now the main Opposition and must therefore oppose some of the second generation reforms that were coming. The Pranab Mukherjee committee has therefore put in two face-saving clauses - the usual ``reforms with a human face'' and ``put the farmers first.'' It has been described as the document of a party which is in opposition at the Centre but in power in nine States.

There were 56 members on the committee and it has made 107 recommendations. But all that will mean nothing. What matters on the ground is how the party votes or behaves in Parliament and in the State legislatures where it is also in the opposition. The real question is whether all party parliamentarians and legislators will be ``educated'' on the policy statement and asked to stick to it. That is the real test. Having made out a policy, it will mean little if the party still opposes reforms at the Centre and in the non-Congress States, merely because it is in the opposition. For instance, the commitments to the WTO were made right from the Narasimha Rao Government's time and were being continued by successive regimes. The reforms in the power sector were initiated by the Congress administration, which even offered counter-guarantees for fast-track, mega projects. But what was the party's stance in Andhra Pradesh when the Telugu Desam Government introduced far-reaching reforms and the State Electricity Regulatory Commission announced a new tariff? If the Congress is still convinced it could be the ``Government-in- waiting,'' it must stick to the reforms agenda. The big question is: will it back the second generation reforms? The answer will come in Parliament on issues like insurance and banking reforms, disinvestment in public sector undertakings, labour laws and the agriculture policy - not from the policy document, which will remain a broad political statement offering to all what they want to hear.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : Why censor cinema?