Permanent links
Daily links
Journal sitefeed
Movies sitefeed
del.icio.us sitefeed
RSS
18 February 2005
Old faces, new hats and a rant on the Indian left-wing
The last time Congress was the ruling party, I was sixteen years old -- unconcerned with and ignorant of Indian politics. I do not claim to be in any better shape now but the appointment of Girija Vyas as the new chairperson of the National Commission for Women did bring back memories of those days and is yet again a strong reminder of how important fealty is in politics. The same old faces are back again -- Pranab Mukherjee, Kamal Nath, Girija Vyas, Jagdish Tytler and Arjun Singh, some rebelled and fell from grace -- N D Tiwari while some rebelled and fell from the face of the earth -- Rajesh Pilot and Madhavrao Scindia.The one thing that is relatively new to Indian politics is the heft the left-wing carries with the government. It has supported governments from outside in the past but this is truly the first time I can recollect when it has weighed in so influentially from time to time to determine the course of actions the government takes, especially in regards to the economic reforms the government is keen on pushing. Leaving aside the politics of being outside the government so as not to be liable for its actions, and its claims that it is the government's "conscience-keeper" I am increasingly inclined to believe that the Left is using its newfound stronghold to experiment with its archaic, quack philosophies of socialism and Marxism that it claims foster equitable growth. To this end, the Left has been increasingly edgy and critical of policies of disinvestment and foreign direct investment into many sectors of the Indian economy. Take for instance its opposition to the original proposal to hike FDI in the telecom and civil aviation sectors, to disinvestment in 35 public sector units and to the scrapping of Press Note 18. Fortunately, the government has prevailed and has succeeded in raising the FDI cap to 49% in civil aviation and Press Note 18 was indeed scrapped.
There has been much soul searching about whether as a Nehruvian socialist state, India has failed in its goals or has succeeded albeit moderately. While proponents of either sides will continue to hash it out in the open for generations to come, within the context of an increasingly globalised economy and a rising prominence accorded to both India and China the role of continuing state involvement in industry has become moot. For instance, for all the former prestige and glory they have accorded the country Air India and Indian Airlines no longer are economically viable and continue to thrive only due to the benefices the government accords them. While it is understandable that the government must continue to maintain a presence in some of the essential sectors like oil exploration -- where it is doing admirably well, and perhaps insurance I fail to see how it can explain running airports or cleaning up the garbage. In fact, the recent decision to curtail independent courier companies from carrying minimum-weight packages seemingly to protect the monopoly the Indian Postal Services once had is a regressive step.
To the government's credit though, the recent policy to ensure minimum employment for the poor for hundred days is a promising start towards the manifesto proposal of equitable growth. However, who is to define "poor" and how does one demonstrate that? Questions like these will attack any scheme that is more politically motivated than it is economically viable.
