National

‘Dr Singh Isn’t One To Trumpet His Successes’

Admitting he didn’t want to stir up controversies, the Planning Commission deputy chairman didn’t answer many of the questions

Advertisement

‘Dr Singh Isn’t One To Trumpet His Successes’
info_icon

Among the most trusted of PM Manmohan Singh’s ‘sherpas’ is Montek Singh Ahluw­alia, a long-time friend and colleague. As Planning Commission deputy chairman, he was entrusted with giving a contour to many of UPA’s flagship social development programmes and infrastructure projects. Admitting he didn’t want to stir up controversies, Montek didn’t answer many  of the questions posed by Lola Nayar.

Did Manmohan Singh fail to “trumpet the successes for which he rarely gets credit”, as Dr Amartya Sen recently said in Delhi?

I think we all know he is not the sort of person who ‘trumpets his successes’. 

What are the PM’s achievements?

Advertisement

Coming in as a coalition prime minister in 2004, he managed the system in a way that India saw an average growth rate of about 8 per cent in the first eight years—the highest ever over such a period. There was also an unprecedented reduction in poverty. For the first time, the absolute numbers in poverty declined. About 140 million people moved above the poverty line. These are phenomenal achievements. Unfortunately, they are being clouded over by the fact that the last two years saw a slowdown to less than 5 per cent growth. There are many reasons for that, both global and domestic. Of course, in an election year, it is the most recent year that people focus on, but we should not lose sight of the fact that we saw eight years of very good growth followed by two lean years. This still adds up to an excellent record.

Advertisement

What are Manmohan’s unfinished agendas, ones he had set out to do but couldn’t carry out successfully?

I can’t speak for what the PM’s personal list would be, but certainly there are many things that need doing. We have listed them extensively in the Twelfth Plan which he has approved both as chairman of the Commission and as prime minister. Certainly improving healthcare and education are objectives we will keep chasing even 20 years down the line. Even the US is not happy with its health or education system and we have a very long way to go.

But let’s recognise that there are important successes. The fact that polio has been eliminated is a very major gain and it was eliminated in 2011. We had to wait three years without a polio case for a who certification because that is the sti­p­ulation. A number of high quality edu­cational institutions have also been established but again it takes time to show results. The decision to set up IIT Guwahati, for example, was originally taken by Rajiv Gandhi as prime minister. It started functioning in 1993. But it is only now that it has figured among the 100 best institutions in the world that are less than 50 years old.

Dr Singh’s been associated with both, Amartya Sen and Jagdish Bhagwati. In the debate between the two economists, to which side does he tilt?

You have phrased the question in a manner that suggests that Sen is interested only in welfare enhancement and Bhag­wati only in growth. Both of them would deny that strenuously. Sen has always said he believes growth is very important, and if he doesn’t talk about it all the time it’s only because he knows Dr Singh is pushing it and doing quite well at it! Sen feels we are doing less than he would like on health and education, which is why he stresses these issues. Bhagwati is a strong advocate of growth, but he has also gone out of his way to say that health and education are very important.

Advertisement

The PM probably agrees with both these gentlemen, who are friends from his college days, in important respects. He has consistently said we need high and inclusive growth to ensure a broad-based improvement in the levels of living of the people. Inclusive growth is a better vision than simply saying we want both growth and welfare. Even those who want mainly welfare know that it can’t be sustained without high growth to generate the revenues for welfare schemes. However, inclusive growth emphasises that we need the right kind of growth to generate a broader spread of income. For example, a high growth strategy which involves faster agricultural growth and strong growth in labour-intensive manufacturing will be much more equalising than the same growth arising from highly capital-intensive industries.

Advertisement

The experience in the past 10 years shows that growth has not only been faster than ever before, but also much more inclusive. The so-called bimaru states are growing much faster. Poverty is coming down faster and the gap bet­w­een different social groups is narro­wing. Also programmes such as in health and education should not be called welfare programmes. Welfare brings to mind pure income transfers. There is a role for even such transfers, eg the existing old-age pensions, or the maternity benefit programme. But investments in the hea­lth and education systems are actually investments in the quality of the labour force which feeds back into growth over a longer period. They are also essential social expenditures. Dr Singh has consi­stently supported this rounded vision of inclusive growth so he could legitimately say he’s struck an appropriate balance.

Advertisement

What were Dr Singh’s views on the Planning Commission reforms being studied? Does he want the Com­m­is­s­ion to be reformed or abolished?

His farewell remarks are in the public domain. He had many positive things to say about what the commission has ach­ieved, including new initiatives like pus­hing ppps and reforming centrally spo­nsored schemes. He also asked us to look ahead to see how we sho­uld restructure ourselves to meet new challenges. There’s no doubt we should reinvent ourselves, as indeed sho­uld all organisations from time to time. We have done some thinking on this matter and I will leave some specific suggestions to my successor. Those who want to see the commission abolished will find little cheer in his remarks.

Why did key reforms like GST (goods and services tax) fail? Did the UPA fail in not taking along the states?

Whether it was the UPA that failed to carry the states, or the states were being unreasonable, is difficult to determine. I was not part of the process so I can’t say. However, we know that many states were reluctant to accept that the benefit of GST can only be realised if rates are uniform, or almost uniform, with very few exceptions. They were reluctant to cede their sovereignty. It is also possible that as the general elections approached, it became more difficult to agree upon. How­ever, the good news is the efforts were not wasted. All the major parties now seem to be ready to implement GST. If the new government is able to do it, it will be a major reform of the system even if it should have come earlier.

Advertisement

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement