Finance Minister, Jaswant Singh, has more or less let the cat out of the bag in respect of the major focus of Budget 2003-04. Procedural reform is the mantra to be followed. New imposts? With the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party in the throes of the worst-ever bout of internal dissent and external pressure and with just two-and-a- half BJP ruled States in its kitty? Perish the thought!

Jaswant Singh may be new to the Finance Ministry but he has already learnt all the jargon and bromides that precede a budget. Thus, he says he will give topmost priority to push growth and contain the fiscal deficit. No surprises there; this has been the theme song for the last five budgets but the targets have never been achieved in these areas. Once the budget is put to bed (approved by Parliament) all the good intentions and promises of fiscal discipline are forgotten and the Government continues on its profligate path. Does anybody seriously believe that a ruling party, at the lowest ebb of its popularity and holding grave doubts of retaining its position at the Centre, will give two hoots for any fiscal measure that cannot produce results in its favour within the remaining two years of its rule? And what can bring in short term results except populist measures.

Jaswant Singh continues with his bromide-laden promises: "We are very clear in our mind we must enhance production, increase GDP, put more money in citizens’ pockets and housewives purses…Growth through reforms is Government’s priority." And all this is to be achieved not by strict control on non-Plan and administrative expenditure but by pushing reforms. The recent Government decision not to put on hold payment of dearness allowance increments and bonus to its massive staff is a clear indication that, till the next elections at least, populist measures will rule.

So, all right, one may argue, let’s accept the political imperative, but at least reforms will get a push. Yes, there will certainly be people-friendly reforms. Jaswant Singh has said as much. Tax refunds and tax deduction at source will be streamlined. Enforcement and penalties will give way to voluntary compliance. The capital market will be revived by removing its weaknesses and its bias towards the corporate and institutional investor may be reduced somewhat in favour of the retail investor. But these are not reforms in the real sense; they are all necessary attributes to an efficient, people-centric administration. Reforms consist of statutory limits on spending and borrowing, making it clear to ministers that their job is to minister their portfolios, not interfere in general governance, ensuring that the bureaucrats genuinely work for the public good and not just build administrative empires and feather their own nests. All these measures, and much more, have been mooted time and again by finance ministers, economists and others. Not one of them has been implemented.

And, whatever Jaswant Singh’s good intentions, how can he fight against powerful ministers (belonging to coalition partners whose support is essential to keeping the government in power) when even the Prime Minister is unable to push through the disinvestment agenda to which he is committed against the wishes of some of his ministers? The question is not whether disinvestment is good or bad; it is whether ministers can be allowed to pursue their own agendas to the detriment of the stated policies of the Government.

However, there is one area where Jaswant Singh has made a proposal that can probably be implemented and bring much needed credibility to the Government’s policy measures. He has declared that, unlike in the past, the budget exercise would be fully transparent except, of course, for a few strategic areas. Recommendations of the task forces, he said, would be put on the Internet for public debate. Implied in what he says is that the Government, unless it has forceful, declared reasons not to do so, will follow the recommendations of the task forces and not the ideological whims and self-aggrandisement programmes of its ministers or specific interest groups which have extremely powerful lobbies. But we will have to wait and see whether even this small consideration of the public’s status as the sector that ultimately pays for all the Government’s decisions will see the light of day. Our ministers prefer to work in an environment of secrecy and ‘national interest’; they do not like to be pulled up by anyone, even the people who elected them to office in the first place. Actors, professors, sanyasins, dedicated ideologists can all become ministers, and once they do so, they know best what’s good for the nation. No arguments, please.