Travesty of tokenism

In an election year, is it too idealistic to expect a Budget independent of political exigencies?

Could there be anything more cynical, self-serving, mean-spirited and opportunistic than a post-Budget TV debate involving members of opposing political parties, industry leaders and analysts? Why do they even bother to go through the motions - and more pertinently - why do we even bother to watch?

The members of the ruling party defend their effort with predictable fervour, members of their alliance partners try to use the platform to send messages of support or veiled threats, depending on electoral considerations. The representatives from the opposition present their argument with such a staggering display of narrow opportunism that it takes one's breath away, and of course the anchors seize upon the slightest comment or view to tease out controversies and dissensions.

Meanwhile, the less said about the economists and industry leaders the better: the judgments of the former seem to be dictated by where their next quasi-governmental appointment fructifies, and the latter by the bottom- lines of their own industries.

Recently, as I watched one news channel after another feature a dazzling array of talking heads, I wondered if there was anyone at all within the lot who spoke from a larger perspective, a selfless approach or a more public spirited agenda.

Many years ago in Mumbai, the country's leading jurist and economist Nanabhoy "Nani" Ardeshir Palkhivala's post-Budget analysis was something people clamoured for. Free from bias, personal agenda, grandstanding and cynical opportunism, it held the promise of cutting-edge analysis wrapped in the spirit of nation building and humanism.

It did not speak for interest groups from industry (even though he was a senior Tata executive), political parties or self-seeking gain.

In the words of his friend and peer, former Attorney-General Soli J Sorabjee, "His talent in expounding the subject was matched by his genius in explaining the intricacies of the Budget to thousands of his listeners. He spoke without notes and reeled off facts and figures from memory for over an hour, keeping his audience in rapt attention."

Sorabjee had seen Nani's Budget speeches evolve into something akin to a significant event in the life of the nation. His famous annual Budget speeches had humble beginnings in 1958 in a small hall of an old hotel called Green Hotel in Bombay, but later they became so popular throughout India and the audience for them grew so large that bigger halls and later the Brabourne Stadium in Bombay had to be booked to keep pace with the demand of an audience of over 20,000. It was aptly said, recalled Sorabjee, "that in those days that there were two Budget speeches, one by the finance minister and the other by Nani Palkhivala's speech."

And of course, unlike the specious standpoints of today's commentators, Palkhivala's audience knew that he spoke unfettered by bias or self-interest. "The audience in these meetings was drawn from industrialists, lawyers, businessmen and the common individual. Nani's speeches were fascinating for their brevity and clarity," says Sorabjee.

Is their anyone today who can claim the same following? Has the time for lofty thought and altruism passed? In an election-year-preceding Budget, is it too idealistic to expect a Budget independent of political exigencies? Those of us who see through the whole travesty of tokenism, party, self and industry interests are not holding our breaths for the answers to these questions.

Meanwhile, next year post-Budget, expect more of the same.

Malavika Sangghvi is a Mumbai-based writer malavikasangghvi@hotmail.com