 |
|
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Home | National | States | International | Business | Cover Story | Sports | Hot Tips | Third Eye |
 |
| Flash News |
|
|
|
Congress
Engages in Street Politics BJP: Atalji's throat on the line |
| Others |
| The DayAfter Story |
| SERIOUS DEBATE NEEDED ON DISINVESTMENT | |
| by M. K. Dhar | |
|
Vajpayee’s warning to those accusing the Government of selling national assets cheap to observe restraint in their utterances and not “cross the limit” set by him, has not silenced them. | |
|
The BJP leadership has suddenly woken up to the need to reconsider the policy because several public opinion polls have shown it in a poor light and cast serious doubts on its ability to return to power in 2004, singly or in alliance with partners. The government can make light of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s criticism of the Prime Minister’s "all round failure", but it cannot brush aside the hostile reaction of the RSS, the source of its roots and ideological orientation, to "mindless privatisation disregarding national interest". The parivar’s chagrin emanates from dedicated efforts of some of the ministers "to mortgage the country’s economy to foreign interests", which would eventually kill indigenous enterprise, big or small, and cause social unrest on a scale not visualised by those who live in extreme comfort and eat tandoori prawns and fried pomfret for breakfast. The NDA Government is today under criticism, not so much from the fragmented opposition, some of whose constituents are wittingly or unwittingly playing the Government’s game, as from the Sangh Parivar, be it the VHP, ABV, Swadeshi Jagran Manch or the RSS, whose Saranghchalak clearly stated that those who oppose the Swadeshi model and willingly swallow Western prescriptions should be removed from government. The RSS has cast its lot with the anti-privatisation forces in order to revive interest in its agenda of rural bases and agrarian based development. Even Vajpayee’s warning to those accusing the Government of selling national assets cheap to observe restraint in their utterances and not "cross the limit" set by him, has not silenced them. Having put on hold the disinvestment of the profit-making oil companies, HPCL and BPCL, Vajpayee is now forced to concede the demand for a mid-term review of the disinvestment policy, even while reiterating the Government’s commitment to it as such. However, he wants the debate to be conducted in a "constructive manner" with a desire to promote consensus. The realisation has dawned that the policy cannot be allowed to be implemented by an over-zealous minister, with his undiluted commitment to the World Bank and IMF prescriptions and the interest of foreign corporate entities or some government-friendly Indian monopoly houses. A measure of consensus across the entire political spectrum is a prerequisite for its successful implementation. The government will not find it easy to ride roughshod over the feelings of political parties, trade unions, the parivar and a large body of workers by implementing the policy in a reckless manner. The chorus has become louder with some Central Ministers also joining it, for whatever reasons. The government is required to resist external pressures for the sake of internal political compulsions, because its public rating has come down drastically. Polarisation of the Hindu vote in the northern belt gave the BJP an unprecedented tally of 182 seats in the Lok Sabha in the last election. Many in the party now feel that the Government has nothing much to show by way of achievements on the external and internal fronts and, therefore, communal polarisation is the only course left for it to retain its base. Narendra Modi is not alone in his anti-minorities crusade, but is backed by a solid phalanx of Central leaders, who project him as a hero, just a notch below Sardar Patel. His rath yatra was twice postponed but, ignoring Vajpayee’s advice, he has resumed it, post-Swaminarayan temple carnage, as part of his election campaign. Narendra Modi, who has promised victory for the BJP in the next election, has become as indispensable to the party today as Mayawati is to the BSP, its close ally in Uttar Pradesh. It all depends on how long can the parivar constituents hold out against the BJP central leadership, which has made all manner of promises to foreign interests for no visible or invisible gain to the country, to ensure that it retains power. One fears, therefore, that the motions of consultation will be gone through, some cosmetic changes made to make the RSS swallow the privatisation potion in order to keep the commitment to the U. S. A. and multinationals and some Indian monopoly houses. Ultimately, it may turn out to be mere shadow boxing to hoodwink public opinion that a revised policy has emerged after a debate nationally and within the parivar. The issues raised by the RSS are so basic that their acceptance will involve a drastic revision of policy, which the Government is disinclined to undertake. The BJP leadership’s alibi that lack of an absolute majority in the Lok Sabha prevents it from implementing the party’s basic agenda and it has been forced, therefore, to instead accept the NDA’s common minimum programme, has been and will continue to be accepted by the parivar constituents, which can ill afford the party losing power, however poor its record of governance. Disinvestment as a policy to get rid of loss-making PSUs in the non-strategic sector, or to help other enterprises to attract private capital for modernisation to increase their competitiveness and profitability, cannot be questioned on sound economic grounds. But, adopting privatisation as a means to raise resources for a chronically deficit Central budget to make up for reckless spending, often politically motivated, is certainly questionable for economic, as well as, strategic reasons. Even the Planning Commission,
dominated by privatisation enthusiasts, has assumed |
The
Vajpayee government’s flawed privatisation policy has got entangled in
the Sangh Parivar’s inner politics, which may not be conducive to a
dispassionate debate necessitated by the huge public outcry against it.
The merits of selective disinvestment of public sector enterprises were
not in question to begin with. But the manner in which the policy is
being implemented, without guidelines or a national debate, has cast
serious doubts about the intentions of those entrusted with the task of
selling PSUs across the board, regardless of their profitability or
strategic value. 