| |
COVER STORY: BUDGET 2001
III
PRIVATISATION WILL LANGUISH
BECAUSE vested
interests are not ready to let go of their fiefdoms.
Achieving
less than 20 per cent of an income target is a good reason for sacking
a manager. For two years now, the Government hasn't attained even 20 per
cent of its annual disinvestment target. Of course, in this case Parliament
is itself the reason for the abject failure of the disinvestment programme.
In the past 10 years, successive governments have tried several methods
to speed up disinvestments, sometimes by bypassing the political system
and on other occasions by involving it. There have been at least four
committees on privatisation. There is now a ministry and the Cabinet Committee
on Disinvestment. Yet politicians continue to stall its progress, the
latest instance being the sale of 51 per cent government equity in BALCO
announced on February 21. The very next day the Rajya Sabha had to be
adjourned because of an uproar over the manner of disinvestment.
To be sure, the Government's handling of privatisation
has not helped build political consensus. In every privatisation move-BALCO
included-the procedure has been so opaque that allegations by conspiracy
theorists abound. "It's a loot with a capital 'l'," claims Somnath
Chatterjee, leader of the CPI(M) in the Lok Sabha. Mukherjee opposes any
disinvestments in profit-making PSUs and demands a white paper on the
subject. In fact, most politicians agree with the concept of privatisation
but oppose the process. Says Trinamool Congress MP Krishna Bose: "The
Government should leave hotels and automobiles to the private sector.
But disinvestments should be done in a way that does not hurt people."
But the real stonewalling comes from either the ministers under whom the
PSU is or the MP in whose constituency the company is located. For both,
the PSU is a fiefdom, not to be given away easily.
IV PROTECTIONISM WILL
CONTINUE
BECAUSE with an increasingly globalised economy, tools
of protection have lost their edge.
All political parties
are pro-protection when they are outside the government and anti-protection
when they are running it. So Manmohan Singh, the father of liberalisation,
is now being hailed by a section of industry as pro-Indian industry, while
it's the erstwhile swadeshi Sinha and Vajpayee who are warning the industry
of imminent competition. This being the last budget before India dismantles
import licensing completely, the protectionists have a lot to watch out
for and to demand. The Government not only has to satisfy the coalition
partners and the Opposition but also accommodate sections of its own fraternity,
like the Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
(RSS). That's because delicensing of imports from April 1, 2001 will threaten
the survival of SSIs which have been a long-standing support base of the
BJP. Admits Jagdish Shettigar, head of the BJP's Economic Cell: "There
is a fear that imports may destroy SSIs. One way out is for SSIs to become
ancillaries." For the time being, a group of ministers headed by
Home Minister L.K. Advani is working on a future policy on the SSIs.
Mukherjee, who as the then commerce minister
signed the WTO agreement on behalf of India in 1994, blames the United
Front government for cutting the customs duty rates too low. He advocates
periodic adjustments in customs duties and strengthening of anti-dumping
measures to ensure that an open import regime is not inimical to the domestic
industry. Therefore, expect some hikes in customs duty rates and resolves
to protect the interests of Indian industry in the budget.
But they would mean very little beyond rhetoric.
As the swelling imports of consumer products from China and east Asian
countries prove, even high tariff walls will not protect the section of
Indian industry which is way behind the global levels in quality and pricing.
Only an outright dismantling of SSI reservation will give efficient players
in the sector a chance to grow and compete with foreign companies. But
the politics of the day will not allow Sinha to dereserve the SSI sector.
 |
|
| BJP |
 |
 |
 |
| NO:
Economic nationalism is the last refuge of the inefficient |
 |
"If
dumping is not taking place, there is no question of protection."
Jagdish Shettigar |
|
|
|