Surjit S Bhalla: When Janus meets Magus

CALLING THE BLUFF

is a "strange and compelling" novel by John Fowles in which nothing is quite what it seems.

So much so that the author provided, perhaps for the first time in literary history, two separate endings "" the reader could choose the one of her liking!

Leapfrog from BC to the mid-1960s to the Congress party's attempt to rule India in 2004. Janus is today represented by the two faces of the Congress "" Ms Sonia Gandhi, the reluctant Roman leader ("when he perceived the common herd was glad he refused the crown", Shakespeare, Julius Caesar) and Manmohan Singh, the reluctant politician. Magus gets into the act because of the coalition government Singh heads and because of its bravura in posting the outlines of the Common Minimum Programme.

In my previous article ("Reforms by any other name, Business Standard, May 29/30, 2004) I had contended that the CMP was an ultra-visionary document whose contents were so bizarre that they could easily be relegated to elite cocktail chatter or equivalently the garbage bin "" and therefore, economic reforms would continue, compelled by the compulsions of globalisation. But a la Fowles, a second less happy ending is very much possible "" and it is this "ending" which I want to explore today.

Both politically and economically, the greatest dangers to the coalition are from within the Congress party. The Left's bark has always been worse than its bite and it is about time non-psuedo intellectuals, and the government, stopped taking their shouting (the shrillness matches that of the BJP diva Sushma Swaraj) seriously.

There are some problems that the coalition could face if the Supreme Court continues on its independently active path, and the CMP forbid, finds some of the tainted ministers in the government to be tainted beyond any reasonable doubt. This would cause some flurry but unlikely to bring down the government.

What can be troublesome is the two centres of power reality. We have just witnessed the flip-flop of whether Ms Gandhi can have access to government files, a precedent set by communist parties of China and the former Soviet Union. The constitutional question aside, the perception among the public that all is not what it seems (shades of Magus) in the House of Congress can lead to disillusionment and unpopularity.

Some hint about the trouble brewing can be gleaned from the rather unnecessary appointment of Mr Jagdish Tytler, as a minister with Cabinet rank. Now Mr Tytler shares something in common with Mr Modi, the Gujarat chief minister.

Both have been alleged to have been involved in alleged state-inspired "riots" (only in India is mass murder of innocent civilians termed a "riot" or a "public disturbance"). Mr Tytler is alleged to have been involved in the mass killing of innocent Sikhs in Delhi in 1984 and Mr Modi is alleged to have been involved in the mass killing of innocent Muslims in Gujarat in 2002.

I have tried to ask several people as to the compulsions that might have led the Congress party president to include Mr Tytler in the Cabinet; so far, I have drawn a blank.

If Mr Vajpayee were to appoint Mr Modi as a minister in 2009, would the human-faced liberals not object, should they not object? Then why the appointment? A convincing explanation is that it was intended to convey to the PM, a Sikh, precisely who was the boss. A more delicately sent message may not have gotten through.

It is not in the interests of the Congress party, nor of the coalition government, to have two centres of power. This problem will have to be resolved sometime over the next few months. It's resolution will provide one Magus ending.

Economic policy is represented in the government by either the "human" face of the CMP, or the responsible, albeit technocratic, face of the PM, Mr Manmohan Singh and the FM, Mr P Chidambaram. It is rumoured that the twosome might be joined by Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia, (the finance secretary when Manmohan was FM in the early 1990s).

If true, the threesome would most likely represent the most seasoned, and the most enlightened, economic policy makers ever in Indian history, and perhaps even contemporary world history (with Messrs Clinton, Rubin and Summers giving it some very close competition).

The bad news ending begins with the likelihood that the human face of reforms might suffer the same backlash as "India shining". Whose human face is the CMP representing?

There is mention of guaranteed jobs, of reservations for the backwards, of a cess to finance primary and secondary education. The Guaranteed Employment Scheme has been a much tried and tested jobs programme.

It has been in existence for decades; economists (especially with inhuman faces) have yet to find any real assets that have been created by such "lofty" expenditures. Which raises the obvious question "" who has really benefited from the tens of thousands of crores spent to transform faceless humanity?

The bureaucrats, the political parties in power, the politicians administering and advocating such programmes, the district administrators, the panchayat leaders or all of the above? If genuine assets have been created and corruption has been minimal, then why does not the cutesy human-faced CMP government present the "shining face" of these by the poor, for the poor assets?

A tax to fund primary and secondary schooling is touted as proof positive about the economically efficient, kinder, gentler, caring and pro-poor nature of the CMP. It is such an appealing concept that even to think of thinking about the programme makes one's face cringe and transform into Erik, of Phantom fame.

But consider the following facts, facts not unlike the phantom assets created by guaranteed jobs programmes. Between 1983 and 1999, the West Bengal government, that icon of "facially correct" pro-poor policies, more than quadrupled real educational expenditures.

Bihar, the other phantom, did the same, almost to the last digit "" the 1999 to 1983 ratio of expenditures is 4.19 vs 4.18 for West Bengal! The rest of faceless India only increased spending by a little more than half that registered by the BB twins "" up by 158 percent (ratio of 2.58).

But what about what really matters "" increase in percentage of kids enrolled in schools? West Bengal increased such enrolment by 18 percentage points (50 to 68 per cent of the relevant population), Bihar by 15 percentage points (34 to 49) and the rest of India by 23 percentage points (50 to 73 per cent).

One final statistic "" real per student spending increased by 160 per cent in communist West Bengal, 107 per cent in Laloo's Bihar and only 37 per cent in the rest of "faceless" India.

So which economic plan is Dr Singh and his team going to choose come budget day first, and the rest of the five years later? The one represented by phantom assets and expenditures which have a near certainty of not reaching the poor, or the other tried and trusted methods (which have worked and do work for the other 5 billion people in the world) of economic growth and prosperity for all?

The latter does involve "inhuman" practices of accountability of government and its politicians, and the citizens' checks and balances on the greed of politicians, bureaucrats, and other "in the name of the poor" phantoms. Mercifully, we don't have to wait long. Mr. Singh's time starts now.

ssbhalla@oxusresearch.com