ENGLISH SHORTHAND DICTATION-241

 

Sir, I have great sympathy for the hon. Finance Minister because this particular Bill is the final event in a series of events. So, this is really the last of the hurdles for the Finance Minister, and the journey on which every Finance Minister starts in the month of February quite often goes on till the middle of May. We are, therefore, keeping occupied a very important Minister. This is not a subjective or a personal observation. All Finance Ministers have had to do it. For about six months in a year, the Finance Minister of this country has to be engaged with the piloting of a variety of parliamentary legislations. Of course, the Parliament is supreme. Of course, it¹²⁰ is his responsibility, but it makes me wonder if this is really the most efficient or the best way for¹⁴⁰ (1) us to manage the whole structure and system of Finance Ministry's functioning.       

Sir, I will not go into many specifics.¹⁶⁰ I have some broad observations to share with the House as also with the hon. Finance Minister. All of them are my personal observations. They are not my Party's considered viewpoint or position. I do not claim that I am an economist or a specialist in this complex subject. I think the problem is that there are too many economists. I really sympathise with the present distinguished incumbent of this portfolio because the Finance Minister's job is possibly the most²⁴⁰ thankless job, particularly in our Government. It is thankless because everyone wants something from the Finance Minister and quite often the Ministry of Finance, instead of being a Ministry for the management of the country's economy, really becomes a Ministry²⁸⁰ of grants. I say this seriously because it becomes a (2) very sad devolution of the great importance of this Ministry.

Sir, it is astonishing to see how we are attempting to manage and govern the economy of the country. The³²⁰ hon. Prime Minister is himself an economist. He has a committee chaired by a former Governor of the Reserve Bank of India. It is called the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee. The Prime Minister has the Finance Minister. That is the³⁶⁰ system. I am not questioning why a Prime Minister should not take a decision, but when you take a decision and have a variety of committees to keep feeding information to only one source, which is the Prime Minister's Office, the buck does not go any further than that. In this particular situation that we have, it might travel a⁴²⁰ little bit of geographical distance from a particular address in Delhi to another address, but the responsibility really is theirs.

Another anomaly is the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission seriously (3) requires a re-look and re-definition of its functions. It has really become a kind of pasture where you send out either some inconvenient politicians or some retired civil servants. So,⁴⁸⁰ in that process, a lot of people find their way into the Planning Commission. It does not do any planning. There is an annual battle that takes place between the Ministry of Finance and the Planning Commission. The Prime Minister is the Chairman of the Planning Commission. It is not a good policy for Finance Ministers to keep arguing with the Prime Minister for almost 15 days. I sincerely think we have to re-address this whole thing. You have all⁵⁶⁰ these committees. I share this because I think every possible Ministry in the Government of India has changed or reformed itself. The Ministry of Finance has the same system which the British left behind. The whole structure was oriented towards⁶⁰⁰ meeting an imperial requirement, and, therefore, this system and the (4) accountancy method has been there. I made an endeavour to address this question. But before I could arrive at any conclusion, I requested the distinguished economists to address this question⁶⁴⁰ and give us proposals.

We need to convert the Finance Ministry into an instrument which is fit to meet India's requirements and the challenges of economic management in the 21st century. How are we going to do it? We had a broad structure and a principle. But before we could go any further, the electorate had decided otherwise and we⁷⁰⁰ were out of the Finance Ministry. This is the other thing that happened. On fundamentals, the structure or the⁷²⁰ system of management of the Finance Ministry does not really change. I could find many differences with the present Government. This is one aspect on which I will share a few thoughts a little later, but I do think that this is important.

Sir, as I said, the organisation, the (5) methods of working, and the systems are struck with structures and systems of early 20th century. We need to address this seriously, and we need to reform it and convert it⁸⁰⁰ into an instrument which is fit to meet the country's federal polity and federal requirements. So, the first requirement, the first reform, the first need, is a reform of the mindset, no matter which Government comes into office. If⁸⁴⁰ the mindset of all of us does not change and we do not become result-oriented and accountable, we will every now and then come through a situation where we meet such obstacles and pitfalls.

Sir, there is one more thought that I would like to share with the hon. Finance Minister and the House. Sir, the country's economy has shifted gear and we are moving from an economy of shortages to essentially an economy of surpluses. The present situation is an interruption. It is a question mark. We are fundamentally (6) a country which has already arrived at an economy of surplus. Earlier, we had a system of extreme controls. We introduced these multiple controls, killed the entrepreneurial skill because every⁹⁶⁰ control generates with it an underground system. You cannot prevent the genius of India from finding ways. I think, the⁹⁸⁰ fundamental divide and the most painful divide is the rich-poor divide or the rural-urban divide.  

Sir, the hon. Finance Minister is a lawyer of great distinction, and he is also an expert in tax laws. What is crystal clear to him, is very muddy to a layman like me. But as I said, it does also show that an amendment was needed. That leads me to the substantial part. It is so complex. Our laws are so complex and the totality of our income tax and indirect tax laws are so complex that possibly, we provide huge incomes and huge¹⁰⁸⁰ benefits to all tax laws, and at huge costs, but citizens (7) were not given the benefit of tax laws. Now, I have not got a straight or immediate answer to this. But it is an aspect that all of us have¹¹²⁰ to simplify, irrespective of who the Finance Minister is and which Government it is, if we do really wish to become a 21st century economic power. You make it more complex and it becomes absolutely turbid. You would not be able to see into what is intended. It is no use having such laws.

Sir, I would like to congratulate the hon. Finance Minister for giving a core thrust on growth with an inclusive perspective. Sir, I am not going¹²⁰⁰ to deal with all the aspects, but I would like to express some concerns while highlighting the various efforts of the Government. I will do it by way of reflecting on the allocations made for different sectors in the Budget Speech and which are reflected in the Finance Bill. Sir, (8) the growth is the order of the day. Everybody talks¹²⁶⁰ of the growth. What is this process of growth and what is the pattern of this growth? Does it reflect¹²⁸⁰ the dignity and fraternity of all the members of this great country? Does it reflect justice to everybody? Does it reflect equality of opportunity, as was pointed out by the hon. Finance Minister? I am talking particularly of the vast sections of the poor in this country. The poor people are adversely affected not only by internal conditions but also by the adverse effects of globalisation. I am especially referring to some of the occupational castes and communities about which we have discussed in this House. They are mostly in the unorganised sector, comprising of various Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Minorities.

Yesterday, we discussed the textile sector in this House. We also discussed agriculture; we also discussed¹⁴⁰⁰ (9) the working of the Ministry of Rural Development. Some of the hon. Members rightly pointed out some concerns. This has been reflected in the allocations. Without money, these concerns cannot be addressed. I would like to emphasise these concerns because we need money and¹⁴⁴⁰ it should be qualitatively applied for the outcome which would result in growth. When you say 'inclusive', it is not merely the arithmetic expression. It has to be loaded with the dignity, justice, and equity. Sir, we are interested in these terms because each of these terms has a meaning in the lives of the poorest in this country. I am talking about these gaps because if you talk of any rural scenario, the occupational groups feel neglected. When we talk about the textile sector, we should actually call it 'weavers’ sector'. The weavers' community is scattered all over the country.¹⁵⁴²  (10)