TMC says UPA-II Government is in disarray

The Trinamool Congress Party, which rules in West Bengal, on Wednesday said that the UPA-II Government at the centre is in a state of disarray after completing the fourth year of its second term in power.

TMC leader Sultan Ahmed said in Kolkata that the UPA has been pursuing anti-people policies.

"You can't call this government as UPA Government, because there is no unity, it is not united. DMK, TMC, MIM (regional parties) and many other small parties are not there. How can you call this government as the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) government? There is total disunity and disarray in the government. We left in 2012 on a people's issue and a people's demand. Not a single work has started on FDI and in the name of FDI and economic reforms this government has looted the poor people of the country," said Ahmed.

After months of dithering on the economy, India's beleaguered government roared back to life in dramatic fashion in September 2012, announcing big bang reforms as part of package of measures aimed at reviving growth and staving off a ratings downgrade.

The UPA Government won a second parliament vote on allowing foreign supermarkets into the country, paving the way for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to press ahead with more reforms, including freeing up a cash-strapped insurance sector.

While the Rajya Sabha vote was symbolic, the government's victory was a boost for its push to implement a controversial economic reform agenda seen as crucial to reviving growth and reducing a bloated fiscal deficit.

The government had already won a vote on retail reform in the Lok Sabha two days earlier. The policy will allow global retailers such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc to set up shop in the country's USD 450 billion retail sector, and is aimed at drawing more overseas investment and taming inflation.

The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA), currently ruling the country, completed the fourth year of its second term in power on Wednesday.

In defence of the UPA, Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Rajiv Shukla played down the opposition remarks against the government.

"UPA is not concerned about what the opposition is saying. UPA has done a lot of development work to help the poor people. Now, we want two more legislations to be passed. One is the Food Security Bill, where wheat will be provided at two rupees per kilogram, rice at three rupees per kilogram and millet and maize at rupees one per kilogram each to the poor people. That is what we want to do. Secondly, the Land Acquisition Bill under which, farmers will given land as per the market price. So, we want to benefit the farmers and the poor people of the country, and the opposition is trying to prevent it," claimed Shukla.

A series of high-profile scandals have eroded trust and stymied policymaking in Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's administration in recent months.

National Congress Party leader D.P. Tripathi said: "If the UPA 2 is that bad, then why does the opposition not bring a no-confidence motion against the government. The opposition is entitled to do so. Look at the actions that UPA 2 has taken against all scams and corruptions and compare it with the NDA government. Dr. Manmohan Singh has been very quick and effective as far as actions against corruptions are concerned. Secondly, in terms of economic, social, political and international achievements of UPA, I would say that UPA has really proved to be uniquely popular alliance and uniquely performing alliance."

Janata Dal-United leader Sharad Yadav, however, said: "During the regime of the UPA-2, we are getting to see inflation, suicide by farmers, scams, no solution for the rise in unemployment. Whether the court says or the opposition, they are not ready to take any concrete action against 2G, coal scam or the commonwealth games scam."

Information and Broadcasting Minister Manish Tewari said: "Well, I think it's extremely unfortunate that the Bharatiya Janata party has demonstrated to the entire country that grapes are sour for them. It would have been perhaps, better, if they would have waited for the UPA to present its report to the people and if at all, then they had a critique on it, in a democratic paradigm, they are entitled to that critique.