A K Bhattacharya: Left turn or Congress of opinion?

Making manifestos is easier than implementing them. This simple truth must be dawning on those leaders from the Congress and the Left parties who are now busy framing a common minimum programme based on their respective pre-poll manifestos.

A manifesto is more like a wish list. A common minimum programme is much more real. It has to be an implementable agenda to which all the parties supporting a government must subscribe.

The more distant a party thinks it is from forming a government, the more specific and ambitious its manifesto. Thus, the Congress manifesto is more general and conservative in its approach to reforms and policy change.

The manifestos of the Left parties "" the Communist Party of India - Marxist (CPI-M) and the Communist Party of India (CPI) ""are quite aggressive and specific in outlining which law they want repealed or which policy they want scrapped.

Given these differences in nuance, it is reasonable to expect a common minimum programme that will entail a change of direction and a qualitative shift from that of the Vajpayee government. What can be expected? A comparison of the manifestos suggests the following.

Agriculture: The most significant signs of a change of direction lie here, though there are points of similarity. All three parties want land reforms, though the Congress has described it differently as "distribution of surplus productive land to the landless".

It also has no difference of opinion on the issue of providing subsidies to farmers or strengthening the public distribution system (PDS).

The Congress wants farmers to receive fair and remunerative prices with the help of procurement and marketing of farm produce by government agencies.

The CPI and the CPI-M are more direct in their demand for raising subsidies. On the questions of increasing public investment in agriculture and improved farm credit facilities, there is near-unanimity.

But the problem will arise when the Left and the Congress will fail to see eye to eye on the question of prohibiting the sale of agricultural land to companies "" Indian or foreign. Both the Left parties are opposed to the corporatisation of agriculture.

The Congress manifesto is ambivalent on this issue. But given its overall stance, the party would be extremely uncomfortable with this demand from the Left.

In his stint as finance minister in the P V Narasimha Rao government, Manmohan Singh had introduced the concept of agri-business consortiums, which have now gained a momentum of their own and are poised to change the face of Indian agriculture.

Prohibiting big business in agriculture will prove a setback for agriculture reform "" given that it can be a major source of technology, value addition and productivity improvement. The Vajpayee government made a small beginning by introducing contract farming, which could now face a bleak future under the new dispensation.

Infrastructure development: There are many areas of convergence here. The Congress will rely on public-private partnerships to expand the infrastructure sector.

The CPI believes in the use of resources both in the public and private sectors for increasing domestic investment in industries and infrastructure areas. The CPI-M does not mention the private sector's role in boosting investment, but it should have no objection because it is not averse to the channelling of foreign capital for investment in high priority areas.

The problem for reforms in this area lies in the details. The Congress is clear that growth in infrastructure investment can be sustained through initial public expenditure and subsequent private management.

What's more, the Congress thinks infrastructure subsidies should be made explicit and provided through state or central budgets. The Left is bound to be uncomfortable with any private sector role in infrastructure management.

The CPI-M, for instance, has insisted on higher public outlays for the sector. Will the Left parties agree to handing over the management of infrastructure services "" created through public funds and subsidised by the government "" to the private sector?

Similarly, the CPI and the CPI-M want specific changes in the government's policies towards infrastructure development. For instance, the CPI wants the Electricity Act to be repealed and the policies opening the insurance and the telecom sectors to the private sector to be reviewed.

The CPI-M is silent on the reforms that have already taken place in power, insurance and telecom. The Congress would like to move ahead with reforms in these areas. Thus, the CPI's reservations may have limited influence on the new government's reforms agenda on these issues.

Foreign direct investment (FDI): The new government is likely to maintain the same tempo as the Vajpayee government. All three parties have welcomed foreign capital with minor caveats. The Congress wants the system of approving foreign investment proposals to be made more transparent.

The CPI-M wants foreign capital to be channelled to high priority areas to be identified in advance. The CPI also wants FDI to supplement domestic resources, but it is against the entry of foreign capital in retail. How the Congress will overcome that opposition will be interesting to watch.

Labour: The toughest of the issues. The Congress is vague on this issue and content only with its reiteration that steps would be taken to increase jobs and a new law would be framed to provide guaranteed jobs for at least 100 days a year for every rural household.

The Left is far more aggressive and wants the government to reject the policy of hire and fire and guarantee every person the right to work under the Constitution. Given this, the proposed labour reforms will have to be put in the cold storage.

Taxation: Another possible problem area. The Congress is keen on the introduction of the value-added tax system, a further rationalisation of rates and a development rebate to encourage investment in rural areas to create more jobs.

The objective is to make the tax system more friendly to individuals and corporations. The Left parties? They have a firm one-point agenda here: more taxes for the rich.

The public sector: A surprising area of convergence. All three want to strengthen the public sector. But there are subtle differences.

The Congress believes in fostering public-private synergies by reviving the public sector through new managements and by allowing public sector units to be run commercially by the private sector.

The CPI-M wants the public sector to be strengthened with fresh capital and technology. The CPI believes that the revived public sector should entrusted to professional managers and freed from bureaucratic control and political interference.

Privatisation: The Congress is now closer to the Left. The Congress wants to pursue selective privatisation, which in effect means disinvestment of only loss-making unviable companies. But the Left has stronger reservations.

So disinvestment of government equity in the public sector could virtually come to a halt, while there might be reforms in the public sector that might free it from bureaucratic controls and political interference.

What does all of this indicate for the new government's reforms agenda? If those who are framing the common minimum programme remain honest to the party manifestos, the new reforms agenda will have no place for privatisation or even disinvestment.

Agriculture reforms will stop at redistribution of surplus land to the landless, and strict barriers to the entry of new business players.

The private sector could be allowed to invest in infrastructure projects in a big way, but the rules of the game might be made more restrictive.

Foreign capital would also be welcome, but only in high-technology and priority areas, leading to a resurgence of an avoidable and retrograde system of discretionary approvals.

Tax reforms would move at their own pace, but the government might be under pressure to raise the taxes on the rich. Labour market reforms? Forget about them.