Vijay Kumar Gaba

 Three decades ago, on 24th of July, 1991, when Pallath Joseph Kurien, Minister of State for Industry in Government of India, tabled the New Industrial Policy (NIP) in the Lok Sabha, not many would have realized how big was the moment in the socio-economic history of Independent India. After six years of preparation and facing political challenges, the new policy, which sought to end the Nehruvian Socialism in the country, finally saw the light of the day.

The process of economic reform was set in motion by Vishwanath Pratap Singh, the finance minister in the government of Rajiv Gandhi (1984-1987). It gained further impetus when Ajit Singh, the MIT educated, tech savvy industry minister of National Front’s government assumed the charge (1989-1990).

The original draft of NIP was prepared by Amar Nath Verma (then Industry Secretary) and Mohan Rakesh (then Chief Economic Advisor to Industry Minister Ajit Singh) in 1990. The proposal to radically reform the industrial policy of India were patronized first by Ajit Singh & Vishwanath Pratap Singh (1990), then by Yashwant Sinha & Chandrashekhar (1991) and finally by Manmohan Singh and Pamulaparthi Venkata Narasimha Rao (1991).

The NIP was followed by supporting reforms in the financial sector and fiscal policy. The committees set up in 1991 under the chairmanship of Raja Jesudoss Chelliah and Maidavolu Narasimham for Tax reforms and Financial Sector Reforms respectively. The recommendations made by these committees and several follow up committees like Narsimhan Commmittee 2.0, Shome Panel, Kelkar Task Force etc. have formed the basis of the economic and fiscal reforms in the country in past three decades.

Indubitably, we have travelled a long distance from 50% corporate tax rate to in 1990 to 25% in 2021. The journey in indirect taxation has been even more spectacular. From a multitude of classifications and tax slabs in 1980s, we have achieved minimum number of tax slabs and a single Goods and Services Tax (GST) in three decades.

Financial sector has also seen a metamorphosis in past three decades. Capital controls have been materially relaxed. A developed national trading & settlement system for financial instruments has been established. Foreign trade is materially deregulated. Financial inclusion has progressed materially with liberalization of banking, insurance and pension sectors. After initial hiccups, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is now evolving fast.

The work of reforms though is still in progress and we have many more miles to cover. The reforms in two key sectors Agriculture and Industrial Labor have started by passing key legislations in 2020. The government has also outlined a clear policy on disinvestment of public sector enterprises. From the legacy process of reforms, The Direct Tax Code, The Indian Financial Code, Development of Retail Debt Market, Land Reforms, GST rates rationalization and coverage expansion, etc. are some of the areas where progress is still needed.

In recent years an entirely new economic development paradigm has emerged globally. Sustainability and Tech driven trade and commerce have emerged as the most dominant global socio-economic trends. India has the opportunity to adapt to these trends early by implementing a futuristic policy framework. The progress made so far appears patchy and reluctant. Comprehensive and constitutionally enforceable policies for sustainable development and digital commerce (including currencies) need to be evolved and implemented earnestly, at the earliest.

Backdrop of 1991 reforms

The reforms in 1991 were neither ushered voluntarily, nor enjoyed wider support. These were rather necessitated as the socio-economic milieu of the country had reached the brink of disaster. Four decades of pseudo-ness in post-independence policies had introduced numerous distortions in the society and economy.

The pseudo socialist model of development adopted post-independence in fact perpetuated the colonial feudal model. The private sector monopolies were protected through licensing controls & state patronage, and hugely inefficient public sector monopolies were created. Even implementation of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act and Foreign Exchange Regulation Acts in 1972, were misused to perpetuate the dominance of already well-established industrial families.

The entire development paradigm was designed to focus on the weaknesses (risk capital and technology) of the country. The strengths of the country (food, art, culture, religion, languages, etc.) were undermined and allowed to dissipate easily. The effort of the government was on discouraging and regulating consumption, rather than increasing production and productivity. Industrial and scientific knowledge and technologies were mostly imported. The term “imported” became synonymous with quality and prestige and “local” became a derogatory reference. Even to date, many companies of old era proudly include “imported” or “foreign” technology in their promotion campaigns.

The backdrop of 1991 reforms was set by convergence of many social, political and economic factors.

Firstly, the country was witnessing unrest on many counts, most notably - Implementation of Mandal commission and Ram Mandir movement had become major socio-political issues.

The Congress leader Rajiv Gandhi had just been killed by Sri Lankan Tamil suicide bombers. Regional socialist parties had risen to capture power in the Congress strongholds UP and Bihar. Having permanently lost West Bengal and Tamil Nadu earlier, the Congress party’s popular support was shrinking to a few states in central and western India.

The collapse of USSR and Berlin wall meant realignment of global order. The non-aligned India, which was in fact closer to USSR, was left vulnerable on many counts, especially geopolitical support and crucial defense technologies.

In the post emergency era, the efforts of various governments to catapult India to higher growth rate through fiscal expansion had culminated in significant balance of payment crisis. The ten years of fiscal expansion did manage to break the vicious cycle of the Hindu rate of Growth (3-4%). Briefly a higher growth rate (7.6% average during 1988-1991) was also achieved; but it was not sustainable for obvious reasons. The gulf war and two years of severe droughts further aided to the economic woes.

The multitude of crisis pushed the policy makers to adopt a pro market approach. The Congress Supported minority government of Chandrashekhar sought IMF help and committed to a radical reform in fiscal policy and industrial policy. A roadmap was prepared for disinvestment of PSEs, fiscal reforms and implementation of NIP. However the government fell days before the finance minister Yashwant Sinha could present, what could have been the first dream budget of Independent India.

Impact of reforms

There is little argument over the fact that the economic and fiscal reforms initiated in 1991, India were inevitable. These reforms did help in bringing the Indian economy back from the brink of disaster; even though the adequacy and efficiency of reforms has remained a matter of intense debate ever since.

Three decades of reforms have resulted in many structural changes in Indian economy. The contribution of agriculture has reduced to about one sixth, while services now contribute more than half of the GDP. The structure of foreign trade has also changed in favor of manufactured goods and services. The balance of payment has remained robust. We have faced three global crises (2000, 2008, and 2020) without an iota of problem.

Financial markets have remained an example to the world. India has perhaps been the only major global financial market that neither shut down nor imposed any trade restrictions during 2000 and 2008 market crisis.

Positives

In my view, the 1991 reforms made three most important contributions to the Indian economy:

1.    The process of reform dismantled the pseudo socialist mindset of the policy makers; unleashing the private enterprise which had remained constricted since independence. Consequently, the minority socialist government of United Front in 1996-1998 presented the second dream budget. Another minority government supported by socialists (NDA 1998-2004) divested numerous government monopolies like coal, ports, mobile telecom, roads, power, airports, etc. without much trouble. The response to global sanctions post 19998 nuclear test was not lower spending, but larger capex on building local capacities. The UPA-1 government supported by communists made a nuclear deal with USA and UPA-2 allowed foreign capital in retail trade. The final epithet of older policy regime was written by NDA-2 with dismantling of planning commission; permitting off the shelve banking licensing; and move to privatize two PSU Banks (NDA-3).

2.    Shifting of policy focus on increasing production & productivity rather than constricting consumption. This allowed the Indian businesses and consumers to globalize; aspire more and achieve more. We could become part of global alliances and treaties without much resistance. We could set up large scale capacities in automobile, pharmaceutical, textile, space technology, civil aviation, ITeS, and housing etc. Private enterprise could attract significant capital from global investors.

3.    The horizons of the entrepreneurs expanded materially. The post reform generation of entrepreneurs was not infected by the traditional constraints. The new generation could think about globally competitive scale. They were not constrained by traditional characteristics like complacency, frugality, austerity, contentment etc. Targtes were now being frequently expressed in “Billion dollars” terms rather thn millions. Dreams not only became larger but also started to get realized. Consequently, the Indian MNCs started to grow in diverse areas like metals, automobile, ITeS, pharmaceuticals, hospitality etc.

Not so positive

However, statistically speaking, the reforms have not been adequate in putting India firmly on the path to become a middle income economy.

On relative basis, the peer economies like China, South Korea, Thailand etc. have done better than India. Our share in global trade has only marginally increased to ~3%, while China more than tripled it share in global trade to over 17%.

 Not making national education & youth policy an integral part of reforms has perhaps been a grave mistake. The growth in India has definitely failed in ensuring adequate employment generation. Despite significant reduction in agriculture’s share in national income, the percentage of population dependent on farm sector continues to remain in excess of 60%. We have miserably failed in exploiting the demographic dividend.

Though, the financial markets developed a global scale infrastructure, we have not been able to implement a robust system for early detection of frauds and scams. Consequently, the investors continue to lose significant amount of money due to frequent scams and frauds in banking system and financial markets.

Many recent steps taken by the government indicate that the policy makers are full cognizant of the inadequacies of Indian economy. The new education policy, schemes and incentives to promote local manufacturing and exports, farm sector reforms, etc. are important steps that shall help in overcoming these inadequacies in the decade of 2020s.

The prime minister Narendra Modi carried out one of the largest cabinet changes today evening. Twelve of the incumbent ministers were asked to resign from their respective posts and 43 new ministers were sworn in. Most of the omitted ministers are senior politicians with vast political and administrative experience. Whereas many of the newly inducted ministers are young and relatively less experienced.

The media has been running live debates and discussions since evening to analyze the import of the latest cabinet reshuffle. A number of political experts, senior journalists and observers have been intensely discussing the inductions and omissions. The participants in debate include many of the so-called liberal intellectuals who have been critical of the Modi government performance on various parameters.

The most unfortunate part is that discussion totally exposes the bankruptcy of participating experts. Most of the participants are refusing to believe that India is a secular democracy that has afforded a fundamental right of equality to all her citizens. The experts are disgustingly analyzing the council of ministers through the prism of caste, community, gender, and region. None of the participant has bothered to run a google search on the newly inducted minsters to find out their ideas and vision of new India; their commitment to the constitutional values; their past track record of supporting innovation and enterprise etc.

The participants seem more interested in attributing the appointment to the loyalty to the party leadership and/or RSS and election winnability. The opposition parties’ spokesperson are also predictable in their commentary. Most have criticized the reconstitution, without offering any substantive argument.

The state of affairs is truly disgusting and frustrating.

Last week, the Parliament passed three important piece of legislation with stated objective to reform and liberalize the production, trade, and pricing of agriculture produce in the country.

The Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill

This law purports to allow farmers the freedom to sell their produce outside the regulated Mandi (APMC) framework. The idea seems to be enable development of a new ecosystem where farmers and traders would enjoy freedom of choice in sale and purchase of agri-produce; and the control of state over trade in agriculture produce would reduce to minimum.

It is important to note that this reform was initiated in 2003 with introduction of Model Act. Many states and union territories have already de regulated marketing of fruits and vegetable, trading on electronic platforms like e-NAM, setting up of agri produce markets (Mandis) in private sector, direct marketing of agri produce etc. The reason behind this new law therefore could be lack of adequate response to model law on part of many state governments.

The Farmers' (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020

This law aims to permit farmers to enter into supply contracts with large buyers. These contracts could be exclusive and long term and provide more predictability to income of farmers and help them plan better in terms of adopting better technology and inputs.

This bill effectively facilitates large scale contract farming, whereby large corporate consumers can engage farmers to exclusively produce for them as per given specification and at pre determined price. The bill provides for pegging of prices to the Mandi prices. The famers adopting this arrangement may not avail the protection of minimum support prices as they would be bound by the terms of the contract. All such contracts are proposed to have civil jurisdiction and breach of contract shall have no criminal implications.

Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill 2020

This bill essentially allows large business consumers to maintain stock of agriculture commodities, purportedly to meet the objective of price stabilization. This may also help in building post harvest infrastructure like warehouses and cold storages etc.

The opinion about the long term implications of these bills is vertically divided.

The supporters of the proposed regime believe that these changes would bring transformative changes to the agriculture and food processing sectors in India. The noted agriculture economist Ashok Gulati, equated these proposals to the industrial reforms and liberalization in early 1990s. It is argued that removing the shackles of state controls and allowing private businesses and farmers to collaborate will lead to significant acceleration in development of farm sector in India, and aid sustainable and faster overall economic growth of the country.

The people and organizations opposing the legislative changes believe that the proposed laws are ill conceived and are being enforced without adequate consultation with the stakeholders. In their view, many of these provisions are already present on the statute book and have not brought any meaningful change to the farmers' conditions in past decade.

It is also argued that these changes will bring back the pre independence colonial model in the Indian agriculture, where the large corporates will decide the crop and prices. The farmers will continue to be exploited; and the shield of MSP will also be removed.

In my view, the intent behind the proposed legislations is good. The farm sector in India definitely needs urgent and transformative reforms. But for reforms to have the desired impact, these needs to be comprehensive and holistic, not selective as proposed....to continue