However, as important as acknowledging the existence of a problem is the need to bring to bear on the problem the correct mindset. The prime minister has not helped matters for himself by first failing to come up with major decisions, which he or his cabinet colleagues had promised within a week when they had met business leaders in mid-October. This reduces the seriousness with which his future promises are likely to be taken. Mr Gujrals pronouncements at the Assocham meeting also do not indicate much fresh thinking. He has covered himself at both ends by expressing himself against the foreign swamping of domestic industry while also noting that such concern can become an obsession. He has also added that his vision is of a vibrant India capable of holding its own against international competition. It is not clear how Indian companies can compete internationally if they cannot do so even on their domestic turf. And as all are aware, under the present global trade dispensation, access to others markets is not possible without allowing them access to ones own. Platitudes from platforms might be all right for the moment, but faith in the governments seriousness of purpose, and its ability to address the issues, gets rapidly eroded when even a prime minister is seen to be getting away with some harmless waffling.
The prime minister has not helped matters either by declaring, obviously in the context of the Assam governments allegations about Tata Teas links with the extremist organisation ULFA, that national interest comes before commerce. But of course, isnt that obvious? Still, it rather begs the question. If Tata Tea or any other tea company has had to sup with the terrorist devil (of which there is as yet no proof, other than a medical aid programme), a gun was presumably pointed at its head. The obvious point has been made before, that the primary failure is that of the state government in not maintaining law and order. It is the duty of the central government, whose avowed aim is to further federalism, to ensure that its various state constituents create the right atmosphere for all to work and earn their living freely and peacefully. If a beleaguered state government tries to divert attention from its failure to maintain law and order by making companies scapegoats, then the Centre should point to the underlying problem, not the symptom.
Where Mr Gujral was undoubtedly positive was in asserting that he was seeking to free domestic industry from controls, increase domestic competition and invest in human capital formation to ensure growth. But his problem is that not all that he wishes to do can eventually be carried through the tortuous decision-making process that the UF government has come to depend on.
