A decade after the initiation of economic reforms, the former Prime Minister, Mr. Narasimha Rao, gives his reflections on economic liberalisation, and its future in India. These musings are contained in three articles, published by the Indian Express, April 6- April 8. His ramblings clarify at least one point – he cannot be credited with any parentage to the reforms he is accused of initiating. It would be highly misleading, as several of us have been doing, to call the economic reforms of the nineties as the Narasimha Rao-Manmohan Singh reforms. As Mr. Rao’s “reflections” make clear, the reforms had only one author – Manmohan Singh. Mr. Rao apparently was on board for political reasons, and being the good politician, he would do anything to keep his gaddi. This is supported by the observation that once Mr. Rao was able to obtain a majority in parliament, economic reforms became a liability and were given short shrift. So it wasn’t ideology, it certainly was not a change of a socialist mind (as apparently it was with Mr. Singh), it was plain simple political survival. How much better India would have been if Mr. Rao actually believed in any of the economic reforms his name is erroneously associated with.

The first reaction on reading Mr. Rao's musings is to dismiss them. Surely, politicians should be allowed to write from the mountain top, because that is the only vocation they have left after the handling of heady power. But should one read such apparent nonsense, let alone comment on it ? No, because the ravings are atrocious. Yes, because these muddled thoughts might form the basis of policy if the major opposition party, the Congress, was to taste blood again. Further, young impressionable minds may read Rao's wayward, albeit reflective thoughts. It is only fair that they be presented with an alternative viewpoint, and decide whether Mr. Rao is talking sense, or nonsense.

What does Mr. Rao actually say in his rambling style? Essentially his (Congress) view can be summarized as follows: right from Gandhi, to Nehru, and him, the idea of a middle economy - democracy with socialism - was, and is, the right one for India; the public sector is very necessary in all aspects of development in the early stages; the public and private sector co-exist and are inter-dependent; the public sector is needed to guide, mentor, and police the private sector; politicians like Mr. Rao always have the good of the people at heart and so should be trusted with decisions; politicians also know when mere mortals mature, and when they can begin to take care of their own economic destiny; when policies do change (acknowledging past mistakes is called "reforms"), they do so at just the right moment for the individual, God, and the poor; the government should always remain as the major player, but never, ever, should there be privatization of the public sector; the preferred Rao Congress path is when the public sector disinvests no more than 50 percent of its assets to the private sector.

Most readers (I hope) would respond to this summary with the comment "it cannot be true". Surely, this is not the same Rao as in Rao-Singh? But Mr. Rao knows that I am summarizing him correctly, and I will now quote the dinosaur for the skeptical others. Politicians like Mr. Rao are best exposed by their own words.

Rao: "When you wish to know if anything you want to do is good or not, imagine the face of the poorest man in the land and ask yourself whether your proposed act will be any gain to him".

It is sad, and offensive, after that fifty years of failed bis-mil-muflis policies, the Congresswallahs still think that such a statement is either politically, or intellectually, appealing. Mr. Rao should answer why, despite looking at the poor farmers face, all of the Rs. 12000 crore annual fertilizer subsidy goes to public and private sector industrialists, who make sure to unfurl the national flag every morning so that Mr. Rao and his ilk will keep suggesting that these fertilizer manufacturers, by being guaranteed a 12.5 percent post-tax return, are in the national interest. Note that the farmer does not get any benefit from this rich political "in the name of the poor" subsidy; the Indian farmer pays the same price for fertilizer as the cost of imported fertilizer.

Rao: "A system in which the big fish devours the small fish could not have been considered good for the country, which was still echoing the powerful patriotic songs that had aroused millions of people and created a pervading spirit of nationalism and swadeshi".

Now we know - the people expressed a desire for state control, rather than markets, because they were singing patriotic songs about getting political freedom from the British. What about fish - they should all be regulated. And what about the song

"Hum Lai Hain Toofan Se Kishti Nikal Kaye,

  Is Desh Ko Rakhna Mere Bacho Sambhal Ke"

That patriotic song means that when you go fishing, make sure you go in a boat made by the public sector.

Rao: "I learnt from the Prime Minister of Singapore recently that their policy too had all along been to keep huge infrastructure projects - in other words commanding heights - under State control, run them efficiently and to allow a free play of private enterprise in other medium or minor industries, in their thousands. It is only now, he said, that they are doing corporatisation. Curiously enough, this shows that Jawaharlal Nehru and Lee Kwan Yew followed the same route from two totally different ideological standpoints. "

Singapore and India followed similar economic policies. Certain musings speak volumes about the mind, and thinking of a former PM.

Rao: "So any decision of sale, or one amounting to sale, of our PSUs must have come as a rude shock to those with a background knowledge of India's economic policies since independence. Mixed economy was part of a package that epitomized an ideal combination of "middle path" policies. It was a wholesome balance between the world's contradictory economic ideologies of the time - and above all, the only viable guarantee, such as was feasible, for strengthening sovereignty and decision making in the conduct of our economy…. The nation's resolve of self-reliance cannot be computed in terms of money".

The logic seems to be that just because it is the middle, (and any middle is tautologically the center between two extremes), it is to be preferred. Equally, Mr. Rao will now advocate an "ideal" middle-sex. Though I am told that none of the characters in his soft-porn novel show these traits.

Rao: "It is most unfortunate that the government should be thinking of selling off Air India/Indian Airlines. I simply cannot think of India selling off her national carrier, which carries the national flag".

Do not be surprised if Balco, VSNL, State Condom Corporation, all start flying the national flag to prevent their privatization and satisfy Mr. Rao's patriotism

Rao: "The new thinking of 1991 did not fly in the face of our mixed economy. Government simply altered the mix, as required by circumstance. It is now clear that this policy outline is definitely about to be destroyed."

Rao: "Liberalisation in India, unlike in some other countries, did not ipso facto mean conversion of the Public Sector into private enterprise, although it did mean a vast enlargement of private enterprise…Government clearly told prospective investors not to be eyeing our existing Public Sector for take-over, but to concentrate on starting new industries to fulfill the large requirements not covered by the Public Sector"

Rao: "Whatever policies were used over the last 50 years, one thing is certain: poverty continues to rise... Quantifying poverty seems rather superfluous where poverty in its massive dimensions is there for anyone to see, except for those who do not want to see".

And Rao, and the Congress party, always wanted to see the poor, and are doing their best to blind them with prosperity.

Rao: Thankfully, the last paragraph: "A slogan has to be converted into an idea, the idea into a thesis, the thesis into a programme, the programme into implementational components, the components have to be related to human beings in a system called the administration".

No other control-freak ever said it any better, not even Stalin.

What Mr. Rao seems to be particularly clueless about (and he should know better!) is the strong link between the existence of the Indian style public sector, and corruption. Add to that the separate effect of an inefficient public sector. The two together have taken an immense toll on the polity, and its values. Yet Mr. Rao seems to be happy going to sleep over the fact that he, and others of his ilk, did it with good intentions, did it for the poor. Nor have revelations about systemic corruption (as opposed to personal) caused Mr. Rao to lose any sleep thinking about why the Indian economy stayed in the rut for the first forty years when the mixed muddled path was followed completely. Yet Mr. Rao never had nightmares, especially since he knew all along that India was following the same economic policies as the Singapore tiger. I, for one, cannot take it anymore. Let me, please, get out of this delusional train of ramblings of a man who sees only his own virtual reality. But, remember, he has a distinct political advantage - he does it because he is concerned for the poor.