Inviting a broadside from the Prime Minister, finance minister etc have been those who have queried the efficacy of demonetisation, and have refrained from going ga-ga over Arun Jaitley’s budgetary formulation and proposals. Obviously, perhaps justifiably, the heavy weaponry has been used to blast political critics.
While the “debate” has been decidedly un-parliamentary, one message that needs learning is that invective can fly in all directions: and this government rejects the theory that “holding high office” requires an elevated standard of behaviour and choice of terminology.
Yet, what does not quite match up with the spitting of fire that the government clearly relishes is the conveniently “deaf” posture it assumes when the criticism comes from within. The RSS-affiliated Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh has not pulled its punches because the government’s top leaders belong to the parivaar. Have the questions posed by its secretary-general Virjesh Upadhyay proved too embarrassing for the finance minister to publicly answer, or are “other methods” being considered to silence the in-house criticism?
Jaitley’s “liberal” credentials are on test. In a missive to the finance minister the BMS chief has made the same point as other critics of the 8 November bombshell: “The poor and labour class supported the Centre’s historic decision to demonetise high value currency notes, and the same people had to bear the pain and adverse effects of the move”.
The letter emphasised that “around 2.5 lakh informal sector units shut down and their workers lost their jobs. The real estate sector that was largely thriving on black money has been deeply affected, because of which crores of workers have lost their livelihoods.”
To put it bluntly, the BMS has reiterated what many others have averred ~ the objectives of demonetisaton may have been laudable, the implementation was deplorable. Will the finance ministry and the RBI have the moral courage to “listen” to what the government’s own backers are saying? The budget also drew a lot of BMS flak.
“With lakhs of crores of currency coming to the banks it was being hoped that the government would give some relief to those rendered jobless, and provide more funds for social security and poverty alleviation schemes”; and the trade union leader termed the absence of such action as “disappointing.” The letter described as “astonishing” the abolishing of the FIPB, felt that it was “inappropriate” to announce labour reforms in a budget speech.
“In the name of labour law reform, rights and benefits of workers are being cut… There have been strikes and agitations against this in the country”. Had those sentiments been articulated by left-wing trade unions, the government would have “gone ballistic”, instead it has opted for a silence that actually “says” a lot.