Sitaram Yechury

There is considerable attention and anticipation regarding the forthcoming parliament session where the United Front government will place its first budget before he country. Various reports suggest that hectic pre-budget exercises are going on in the finance and other concerned ministries.

Anticipation is there not only from the big business and the commerce circles but also from the vast spectrum of the people. The people expect the budget to provide relief from the mounting economic burdens that have accumulated over the past few years. In that sense his budget should mark a departure from the earlier Congress budget that the country and the people have been used to. The departure ought to come in the spirit of the Common Minimum Programme on two major counts.

Over the years the Congress government had virtually reduced the budget to a mere statistical exercise. The major decisions regarding the revenue accumulation were taken through the pre-budget and post-budget administrative price hikes. This is a word that came in for severe criticism from he CPI(M) as well as professional economists who saw this as a blatant exercise in deceiving the people.It was hoped that the United Front government would put an end to this practice and make the budget he major economic policy instrument for the relevant financial year.

However, with the announcement of the hike in petroleum prices just a week before the parliament was to convene underscores the fact that the U.F government is adopting a similar approach as that of its predecessor. Notwithstanding the hard economic facts of an accumulated deficit which the Narasimha Rao government for its opportunistic and populist reasons did not bridge in the last two years of its rule, this was not the method expected of the United Front government to bridge this deficit. Further, the UF government has betrayed its class bias by targeting the common man whose earnings are to be depleted in order to breach this deficit. The hike in diesel and LPG gas cylinders hits those very people whose well being continues to be the so-called attention of the rulers. Instead of targeting the affluent sections and the corporate sector who have amassed unprecedented bonanza of profits during the last few years, the burden is shifted on to the shoulders of he working people, a measure that will surely be resisted.

This runs contrary to the spirit of the common minimum programme adopted by the United Front where the protection of the livelihood, in fact its improvement was considered to be the hallmark. It is indeed strange that there are huge corporate houses and companies that figure in the top 20 in this country that go scot free without paying even a paise of tax. It is these that ought to have been targeted to pay for the deficit of petroleum imports as they are in fact the biggest beneficiaries of these very imports.

Apart from this aspect of the administered price hike the actual budget out to highlight the many aspects that the common minimum programme has underlined before the country and the people.

There were essentially two basic policy directional departures in the CMP from the economic policies pursued by the Rao regime. The first relates to reversing the government’s abdication of its social obligations to the people. This refers to the reversing of the trend of he government’s withdrawal from fulfilling the basic requirements under pool of food security, health and education. The second directional change was sought to be made in preserving the self-reliant basis of Indian economy by strengthening he public sector and protecting it from indiscriminate privatisation. This budget it is hoped would reflect these two important aspects.

The Common Minimum Programme had certain long term objectives for which the initial steps must be taken in this budget. For example, poverty alleviation, 6 per cent o the GDP to be spent on education, a primary health centre for every 5000 people etc. Thus while taking measures to be implemented with immediate effect, measures also should be initiated for achieving the long term goals. Towards this end, as described in the CMP and accepted by all constituents of the UF, the budget must reflect the following :

1. Special plan for infrastructural development in rural areas for the most backward and poorest districts of the country. In this budget, the poorest district of each state has to be chosen for this year.
2. Special plans for promotion of small and cottage industries.
3. Incentives to increase allocation of new industries in backward districts.
4. Devising policies for stimulating domestic savings and capital formation.
5. Formulation of credit and tax policies to channelise domestic and foreign investment and to infrastructural sectors.
6. Creation of an investment fund to strengthen public sector undertakings that fall in the third category of the demarcation made in the CMP.
7. Rehabilitation of sick or potentially sick PSUs through avenue of options. Indication of some initial steps must be given in the budget.
8. Supply of essential articles through the PDS to families below the poverty line at half the normal issue price and restructuring of the PDS.
9. Subsidy in social sectors should be closely targeted to benefit the really needy and the poor.
10. The CMP had promised access to potable drinking water, a primary health centre for every population of 5,000 people and a public housing programme to be achieved during the 9th five year plan. The budget must indicate the beginning of this process.
11. Implementation of the mid-day meal scheme.
12. The common minimum programme promised that 6 percent of the GDP would be earmarked for education by the year 2000. Further 50 percent of the funds would be spent for primary education. A beginning on this score must be made in this budget.
13. The CMP had promised investment in infrastructure sector to be stepped up from four to six percent of the GDP. A beginning must be made in this budget.
14. Right to free and compulsory education must be made a fundamental right and enforced through suitable statutory measures.
15. Eradication of child labour and special programmes to take care of children and the disabled.
16. Special programmes for skill development, supply of tools, credit facilities and marketing for artisans, craft persons, weavers, fishermen etc.
17. Ownership rights for slum dwellers, civic amenities and assistance for replacement of `kacha’ houses.
18. Setting up of special courts for justice for victims of atrocities in the Scheduled and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act.
19. Finalisation of a package of financial assistance to state governments to take up the responsibility of conferring ownership rights in respect of minor forest produce to SCs, STs and OBCs who work in the forest.
20. CMP promised a massive programme for afforestation waste land development and revegetation of degraded forests.
21. Rehabilitation of displaced families to be made integral component of any development plan.
22. Special programmes for the economic development of Assam and North-East region.
23. Provision of adequate funds to improve R&D and strengthen the national and other research priorities.

In keeping with its commitment to the people and the sincerity to fulfill the peoples expectations of this government it would hope that the United Front will reflect the above issues in the forthcoming budget.

Finally it must be noted that it is only through a concrete package of economic programme that alleviates the living conditions of the poor and improves the standards of overall life can the scourge of communalism and its efforts at diverting the popular discontent among the people be checkmated. This is an aspect that the United Front government can ill afford to ignore.