Cong Drops Plan On Economic Policy Group

After mulling over thek idea of forming a group to fine tune its economic policy for over three months, the Congress has now shelved it altogether after reaching the conclusion that the party's election manifesto already reflects a policy which requires liberalisation to be carried out with a human face.

A senior Congress leader yesterday took out a copy of the party manifesto to underline a paragraph on page 14, which says "the Congress reiterates its firm commitment of faster economic reforms with a human face. Higher growth is possible only if we invest more and invest more productively in physical and social infrastructure and only if the pattern of public expenditure at all levels reflects pressing socio-economic priorities and needs of the poor, the unemployment, the deprived, the malnourished and the disadvantaged of India."

 

The party leader said that the manifesto clearly talks of maintaining public expenditure on pressing socio-economic priorities. Perhaps it is for this reason, that party has not only taken up the `roll back prices' cause in a big way and plans to continue to agitate over it in the future. Party MPs in both Houses have spoken against the manner of privatisation of some PSUs.

As far the controversy regarding the speech of former Finance Minister and CWC member Dr. Manmohan Singh is concerned, he said that Dr. Singh was only talking about the need for a consensus on non-merit subsidies. This itself implied that merit subsidies must be continued.

Manmohan Singh spoke on non-merit subsidies in the Rajya Sabha on a day when Congress president Sonia Gandhi led a march to Prime Minister's residence and presented a memorandum to him demanding that subsidy cut on essential food items, kerosene and cooking gas should be rolled back. This led to a feeling that Singh was in favour of cutting subsidies.

While it is true that the party differentiates between merit and non-merit subsidies, it is also true that Singh decided to talk about the need for a consensus on non-merit subsidies, rather than talking on maintaining merit subsidies. This led to the confusion.