“I guess we’ll have to wait 12 months for a Big Vision,” hdfc chairman Deepak Parekh said as Arun Jaitley finished India’s longest budget speech ever. My sentiments exactly. Stockmarkets didn’t quite know what to make of Mr Jaitley, and on Budget Day, the Nifty was all over the place, from below 7,500 to above 7,700. Closing at 7,570, the Nifty logged three straight days of losses. I hope the budget puts an end to the cheerleading that accompanied Narendra Modi’s ascent to power. Those who were expecting him and Jaitley to work magic in the budget proposals weren’t dealing with the reality of either the Indian fiscal situation, or of its politics. The fact is our government’s finances are stretched after 10 years of reckless populism. The first years were made easy by the global financial boom. The financial crisis and business downturn that followed created a piquant situation—on the one hand, financial stimulus was required; on the other hand, it was difficult to fund. Finance ministers and central bankers exist to deal with these trade-offs, but the Congress party did so with a hubris and ineptitude that took us close to the wall.
In the run-up to the Budget, Jaitley outlined his approach quite clearly. Firstly, he made it plain that his government is determined to tackle inflation. Secondly, that fiscal consolidation is imperative: unless the fiscal deficit is reduced, there will be both pressure on prices, and on interest rates, thus crowding out investment. Most importantly, he gave advance notice that there is no easy path to reducing the fiscal deficit. Though secure in its majority, the BJP knows that reducing government expenditure would be politically risky. On the other hand, increasing taxes would change the mood of support from financial and business circles. The FM therefore placed the burden of a more balanced budget on growth.
Such an approach can work. But it demands a huge amount of discipline, requiring that the government garner a higher share of taxes as the GDP rises, but manages political pressure such that expenditure does not rise to the same extent. Beginning with the largest ticket item, namely food subsidy, Jaitley said his government would target the expenditure more sharply. We’ve heard this before, in the UPA scheme of things direct transfers were supposed to achieve this, with the Aadhar card as an identifier. But banking hasn’t spread its net wide enough, and so we come back to the ability of the state administration to deliver what is logically incontestable.
The second major area of subsidy economics that we have been dealing with for the last decade is petroleum products, and despite various commissions and recommendations, the demon has not been licked. The upa’s decision to allow diesel prices to rise by 50 paise per month has worked well, chipping away at the size of the problem, but the massive hikes required in kerosene and lpg prices are proving to be a political touch-me-not. Perhaps Modi’s government will have to expand the gradualist approach of its predecessor into these two products. It will also require a measure of luck, and one hopes that the unrest in West Asia does not lead to another flare-up in crude oil prices.
As expected, Jaitley has flagged a substantial amount, Rs 43,000 crore, to be raised by disinvesting shares in public sector undertakings. This may help him hold this year’s fiscal deficit down to his target of 4.5 per cent, but this will be a one-off gain, and may not be available to bail him out the following year. This year, too, encashing this amount will depend on the state of the markets. Since the beginning of the year, they have been highly supportive, but moods swing fast.
The Modi-Jaitley budget made mention of various ambitious goals, such as metro services in all two million-plus population cities, smart cities and new ports. But these are more of a wish list than a shopping list. While they set out an intent, they will require garnering resources, whether by way of higher taxes, or the much-flogged horse, PPP. This highly favoured mount didn’t deliver under the UPA, but here is the BJP touting it again, saying it will have to rework the way in which such contracts are written. Finally then, it’s down to handling the tough grind of governance—controlling expenses and awarding contracts that work, of targeting subsidies, and selling stakes when the markets are supportive. Modi’s government is going to require tremendous focus and some support from the wheels of asset and commodity prices if it is to deliver on prices, growth and fiscal consolidation.
(The writer is an entrepreneur and economy watcher.)
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
The Vajpayee government had decided to dismantle the Administered Price Mechanism for petroleum products, but that was subsequently reversed, leading to huge subsidies, partly paid for by ONGC and the oil marketing companies. These subsidies will have to be gradually unwound, as has been more or less accomplished for diesel. If tough decisions are required, other things being equal, these are better taken in the early stages of the administration's tenure. The present trajectory of growth does not suggest that it will create the tax buoyancy needed to balance the fisc.
Don't wait another year for any policy changes or the big vision, Mr Parekh and Mr Satyanand. Nothing will happen then either, so mediocre are our leaders.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT