Following the NDA’s surprising defeat at the hustings, Arun Jaitley says he has his plate full these days, what with Parliament in session, and party work to which he is totally committed. But he does intend devoting whatever residue time he gets in practising law. One of the stars of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Mr Jaitley feels the UPA coalition government has its work cut out in order to survive. In an exclusive interview with Sangeeta Singh and Shebonti Ray Dadwal of FE on the budget and other issues confronting the government. Excerpts:
What are your views on the Budget?
I think it was a budget which concentrated more on packaging than on substance. If I broadly split the economy into three parts, it doesn’t do much for the services sector. In any case, the services sector is growing in India and at a reasonably good pace.
On agriculture, there is a lot of sloganeering and packaging, and when you deal with the substance of what is offered, it is only the pilot schemes for which Rs 40 crore or Rs 100 crore is given. Since agriculture still remains dep-endent on the monsoon, one can’t just depend on it. A huge growth is possible in the manufacturing sector. And that is where the budget is silent.
 |
| Arun Jaitley, General Secretary, BJP |
So where do you think growth will come from?
If we are to touch a GDP growth rate of 7-8%, it is a safe presumption that an 8-9% growth rate in services will be maintained. In agriculture — last year you had a good monsoon, and I do pray that we have a good one this year also — so the growth was good. But the incremental effect will be negligible and the rest of the growth has to come from industry. But to give a boost to manufacturing, you need to take all kinds of steps. Manufacturing means jobs being created; it means a spurt in economic activity, you move towards a double-digit growth in manufacturing. Even the 6.7% growth rate in the manufacturing last year, I would say, is, at best, a moderately good growth rate. The curve must be steeper in manufacturing.
This budget is also silent on infrastructure. The NDA budgets — from rural roads to airports, to seaports to highways, to power sector reforms — used to announce a lot of infrastructure measures. The only infrastructure project discu-ssed in this budget is an ongoing proposal of the NDA government’s— the Kochi port in Valarpadam. It’s a 7-year old project for which even tendering had also taken place. So this Budget can’t even be called old wine in a new bottle, it’s old wine in an old bottle!
But what about the Bihar rehabilitation package?
Even that is an eyewash. It was a Planning Commission sanction under the National Shramvikas Yojana during the Vajpayee government, which has been repackaged as the Bihar package. It is the same money and that Rs 3,225 crore doesn’t come twice over. So, when you analyse the budget the packaging wears off and the substance exposes itself.
Do you, like your colleagues, feel that the Left will compromise the government?
Well, I thought the Left claimed that they were supp-orting this government on secularism. Today, I find that they are supporting them even on criminalisation of the council of ministers! Now, I’m waiting to see when they support them even on FDI (laughs).
But will the Left’s policies on FDI hamper the government’s functioning?
You see, the policy on FDI just lets you know as to how wide you are opening the doors. But merely op-ening the doors doesn’t permit FDI to come in. The entry of FDI depends on two other facts, and these are questions the investor will ask himself: Is the investment safe? And, will the investment give me returns? So, if you have partners of the ruling coalition demonstrating and burning effigies of potential investors, then even Mr Chidambaram’s investment board won’t succeed in attracting investmens.
What you are then saying is that the government may not last?
Well, we are not interested in the fall of the government. We want an element of stability in the country. But its a government borne out of contradictions and compromises. So, its longevity will always rem-ain in question. And it’s not only coalition, there was no pre-electoral alliance, no pre-electoral mandate for any individual. Therefore, you’ve com- bined together disparate forces. The PM’s prerogatives are being diluted, he doesn’t have a say in selection of ministers, individual agendas are being given predominance. We hope it lasts, but I’m sure our hopes will be belied.
Do you think the government will continue with the NDA’s stance in the WTO talks?
I do hope that that happens. Uptil now, that’s been happening. It’s been my experience also that there’s a larger national consensus as far as dealing with WTO issues are concerned. And I must say that the NDA government, both at Doha and Cancun, had a method by which we functioned. We protected our own interest, plus we catalysed the formation of a larger global alliance of developing countries. We also struck a good rapport with the least developing countries; at the same time, we maintained a dial-ogue process with important blocs like the US and EU. So far, I do see an element of continuity that’s being maintained.
What is your take on governors’ removal issue?
I think it’s a part of the UPA governments’ overall performance over the last seven weeks. It’s a government which is concentrating on patronage rather than policy. Normally, out of enthusism, you have new governments coming out with new policy announcements. This government has spent the first seven weeks only in patronage. The Constitution provides for a 5-year tenure of a governor, but a governor holds office at the pleasure of the President. You can cut down the tenure by withdrawing the pleasure, provided there are compelling reasons for doing so, such as if your performance has rend-ered you unfit to discharge the functions of the governor. The Shivraj Patil line of reasoning, that ideology is a compelling reason for destablising governors, is hostile to the spirit of the Constitution.
Have you worked out a strategy for taking on the issue of tainted ministers?
Well, it’s going from bad to worse. First, you had criminalisation of politics. Now, you have criminalisation of the council of ministers. There are a large number of ministers who have serious cases involving moral turpitude pending against them. The July 14 revelations have made the position still worse. You have a minister who, for the last 16 years, is a proclaimed offender in a murder case. Section 43 of the Code of Criminal Proce-dure prescribes that if there is a proclaimed offender in sight, even a private citizen can hand him over to the police.
You’re referring to Shibu Soren?
Yes. This man attends Parliament, attends the council of ministers, is sworn in by the President, attends cabinet meetings...What kind of example are we setting to the country?
