Society for Policy Studies in collaboration with India International Centre held a Round Table Discussion on “100 Days of the Modi Sarkar: A Review”
led by an expert panel comprising:
Neerja Chowdhury, Senior Journalist
Arvind Virmani, former CEA and former ED, IMF
Prabhat Shukla, Distinguished Fellow, VIF
Seshadri Chari, Secretary General, FINS
Mohan Guruswamy, Distinguished Fellow, ORF
moderated by C Uday Bhaskar, Director, SPS
Summary of Panel on 100 days of Modi Sarkar:
A panel discussion on “100 days of Modi Sarkar” was held by the Society for Policy Studies (SPS) on September 4, 2014 in collaboration with the India International Centre (IIC) . The Panel was chaired by Commodore C. Uday Bhaskar (Retd), Director of the Society for Policy Studies. In the opening remarks, Mr. Bhaskar pointed out that 100 days were too short a period to assess the performance of the government but the panel was to give a sense of the orientation of the current administration. The Prime Minister’s stop at Berlin hoping for a meeting with the German Chancellor, India’s stand at the WTO and the lack of full time Defence Minister were some of the issues that he flagged before introducing the panelists.
Ms. Neerja Chowdhary pointed out that there has been a general tightening of the system ever since Mr. Modi took office. On the positive side she highlighted that Mr. Modi has a resonance with the masses as evidenced by the response to his Independence Day address. There has been swifter action within ministries and that senior bureaucrats come to office on time. She noted that there is a perception within the country that the economy will be handled. However, he would have to contend with the Swadeshi lobby within the Sangh Parivar. This perception has lead to an unprecedented level of expectation from the government to deliver.
The flipside she pointed out was the increasing concentration of power in the Prime Minister’s Office. She noted that even the aides of the Home Minister are chosen by the PMO and that Mr. Modi seems to be following the Gujarat model where he was in direct contact with the bureaucrats while the ministers had limited say within their respective ministries. She noted that this was ironic because India has a cabinet system of government and not a presidential form of government.
Although the government has stuck all the right notes and has spoken about inclusive growth, there continues to be elements in the party and the RSS that have taken a different stand from the government. She remarked that there has been sullenness within minorities because of the Prime Minister’s silence on issues of communal tension right from Saharanpur to Love jihad.
Mr. Arvind Virmani was of the opinion that restoring growth and the creation of a non inflationary environment were pegs for evaluating the performance of the government. He pointed out that there is a need to restore investor confidence and to do away with the gridlock in government; the current administration seems to hit the right notes on both of these fronts. While explaining the trajectory of growth in the Indian economy post liberalization he pointed that the growth levels between 2004- 2010 were anomalous and merely a bubble.
While looking at jobs, governance and welfare, he pointed out that e-governance has the potential to transform the country. He also noted that malnutrition is not due to the shortage of food but due to lack of good sanitation practices. He commended the recent steps taken on judicial reform.
Mr. Prabhat Shukla noted the swiftness and ease with which Mr. Modi has taken up issues of foreign policy. On India’s stand at WTO, he noted that there were loop holes in the Bali declaration that made it imperative for India to take a stand instead of having to face the consequences four years later in the next trade round. On the issue of calling off of the Foreign Secretary level talks he noted that it indicated that India has taken a firm stand unlike the previous times.
He pointed out that there is a need to stress on civilization ties as seen in the visit of Mr. Modi to Nepal. There is a due emphasis on economics and economic diplomacy. A priority towards the South Asian region has been clearly articulated by the new dispensation. He noted that India needs to balance relations with great powers. The absence of a full time Defence Minister and the need to improve civil military relations on the policy formulation front were highlighted. There was also a need to understand the role of the States in matters of foreign policy. The lack of change with respect to the nuclear doctrine and the no first use policy he said has allied Japanese fears for civilian nuclear cooperation. He observed that there is a greater harmony between the MEA and PMO.
Mr. Seshadri Chari spoke about the historical evolution of the foreign policy and highlighted some of the most notable prime minister’s who left an imprint on it. Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Vajpayee were some leaders who left their mark. It is unlikely that Mr. Modi would follow is anyone’s footsteps. He also pointed out that India’s wars with its neighbours were symptomatic of a lack of proper strategic policy. Therefore, there is a need now for an Integrated National Security Architecture. While highlighting the importance of trade and development in foreign policy he noted that India should focus on energy security and that it should provide for the whole of Asia.
Mr. Mohan Guruswamy, the discussant in the panel noted that there was no big bang change as many were speculating. There has been no change in subsidies and capital expenditure except for the euphoria in the stock market. He also put into perspective the electoral victory of the BJP led alliance by pointing out that the total voter share was only 31%. On foreign policy, Mr. Guruswamy pointed out that India has its own place in the international system and that it does not have to be part of the power nucleus between China and the United States. Hence, it was important to have better relations with both China and Japan, because titling towards Japan would automatically mean aligning with the United States.
All panelists were in agreement that the period of a hundred days was too short a period to assess the administration. On the issue of Secularism, Mr. Chari pointed out that there is a need to assess it and not simply enforce western ideals.