What Ails The Prime Minister?
But do you know that you are committing a sin and will your family members, for whom you are committing this sin, share the burden of this crime?, asked the person. Ratnakar decided to check this out with his family. And to his dismay, he found that none of his family members agreed to share the burden of his sin. They all told him that it was his duty to look after them and he should not expect them to share his sin with any one of his family members. Ratnakar was stunned. What happened next is, of course, well known.
It is difficult not to notice the striking similarities between the problem Ratnakar faced then and the dilemma Mr Gujral is facing today. Mr Gujral believes that he has to take every decision after ensuring a consensus among all the United Front partners including even those who are supporting the government from outside. Therefore, he does not mind postponing crucial decisions, even though such delays may be very damaging for the economy.
Like Ratnakar, Mr Gujral also seems to be suffering from the mistaken belief that the UF partners and the CPI(M) which is supporting his government from outside will appreciate his concern for a consensus-oriented decision making process. How otherwise can one explain Mr Gujrals recent statements suggesting that the oil price hike decision will have to be taken, but only after obtaining a consensus from all political parties!
Mr Gujral may find a place in the history books for being the nicest prime minister. But history books will also blame him for not taking the full responsibility of governance and therefore of taking certain crucial decisions. The oil price issue is only one of such decisions. At the last UF steering committee meeting, the question of raising oil prices came up as expected. But no decision could be taken.
This was hardly surprising. Did anyone expect the CPI (M) to endorse Mr Gujrals proposal for an oil price hike ? Isnt it natural for the Left party to dissociate itself from the oil price hike decision ? If it does get associated with the decision, how will the Left party have the moral right to criticise the oil price increase in public? In fact, senior Left leaders are reported to have even told UF ministers that the government should not try to involve the Left in the decision on oil price increase.
Much of the present governments lethargy in decision making could actually be attributed to Mr Gujrals desire to evolve a consensus among the UF partners. While the desire to evolve a consensus may be a laudable goal in itself, this has caused other serious problems. For instance, the Disinvestment Commission has submitted as many as three reports recommending various actions in the last few months. But as of now there has been no government response to these recommendations, apart from the routine official pronouncements to the effect that the report has been accepted by the government.
Governments inaction on the three reports of the Disinvestment Commission can be gauged from one of the recommendations made in the third report, submitted last week. The report contained a recommendation to postpone divestment of government stake in oil companies in the public sector. Divestment of government equity in oil PSUs was recommended in the first report of the Disinvestment Commission several months ago. If the government had acted on the Commissions first report promptly, there would have been no need for the Commission to recommend postponement of Oil PSU divestment in its third report.
What is worse, the third report has now made it very clear that any divestment of government stake in Oil PSUs should take place only after the administered price mechanism (APM) for petroleum products is dismantled. In other words, the entire process of oil PSU divestment has now been subordinated to the question of raising oil prices and dismantling the APM. And with Mr Gujral keen on obtaining a consensus before moving even an inch further on this front, prospects for the economy do not look very bright.
In a way, Mr Gujrals problem is even more complicated than that of Ratnakar. The Prime Minister has not yet shown any sign of appreciating the need for quick and decisive actions on either the question of oil price hike or on disinvestment. None has told him bluntly that his desire to obtain a consensus on such decisions will not exonerate him from the charge that he sat on crucial decisions entailing huge costs for the economy. Nor will any of the UF partners or CPI(M) will agree to share the blame for such delayed action. Mr Gujral may do well to learn the lessons from the story of Ratnakar. It still may not be too late.