The recent spate of words you had against 'feku'(as your proponents enjoy calling) gives you no 'shobha'.You being a harvard educated lawyer took on a 'chaiwallah', challenging him on economic fronts.It is a completely different issue, worth ignoring(for you) that your opponent has proved time and again in administrative duties as well as economic reforms.You seemed to look-away the fact that 'feku' has turned Gujarat into a vibrant and model state,resulting in back to back electoral triumphs, despite all the vicious,degrotary remarks floated around in the media.I shall not bomblast you with various facts and figures supporting the claims,since it is evident that it shall bear no change of opinion from you.Well let us ignore his trackrecord and keep this letter clean, before you go into a verbal incantation of sluggish remarks against me.Let me instead turn your attention to the face of your campaign - 'pappu'(stop fuming!).Did'nt it cross your 'foreign-educated' brain of your's about his credentials.All he has been bantering around is -'Women empowerment', 'RTI', 'Opening the system'.However crude and sullied his claims are, let us for now assume his sincerity testimonials.But is that all that is to India and it's long running problems(which your 'grand old party', throughout history has promised to resolve).He never has spelt out clear-cut solutions or sometimes even has the faintest idea about the concurrent problems infesting the 'Aam Aadmi'. His acts of foolishness and disregard to ground realities has already created waves and is legendary in the social media(receiving wrath and 'video bans' from your government).I am well aver that your comprehension in no way resembles that of your compatriot 'Diggy chacha'.You do realise the incompetence of 'RaGa'.But you choose to disregard this fact to avail the electoral benefits his surname grosses.The sacrifice and greatness picture painted by your party about the 'Nehru-Gandhi' family,completely 'cherry-picking' incidents from history and beating it around to the 'ignorant masses' through nepotistic means has always bore fruits in your power quest.
In 2012 you took potshots at the 'Aam Aadmi'(not the party) and tried to cover your economic failures, coz you are too smart to fail.You have consistently blamed the system for not delivering rather than interrospect your party's policies viz. populist schemes.You even patted your back after the budget, despite all your failures.You hurled prejudiced chides against 'Namo' and his spelt out economic policies(which 'RaGa' has consistently frayed away from).Eventhough they have attracted good responses from likes of K.MAzumdar, R.Tata, N.Murthy and other numerous financial/corporate experts."In his hasty statement, unbecoming of a union minister, he betrays his party's incapacity and frustration to politically engage with Modi.Through his hurried statement, typically worded with pompousness and put-on sarcasm, Chidambaram has only rushed to cover up his failures to manage the economy. The minister has failed to check what was actually said by Modi. Had he checked the speech, Chidambaram would have known that 'aarthik sankat' were the exact words used and not inflation.All 'economists' are already taking due 'note' of Modi's performance vis-a-vis the worsening current account deficit (CAD) for which he and his party are solely responsible," Nirmala Sitharaman said of your potshots.
It is another thing that you have overlooked numerous occassions where Modi has clearly spelled out explicitly his grand plans on almost all sectors- Finance, agriculture, defence, external affairs.Whereas all that Rahul Gandhi has been beating his chest about are the revolutionary changes in restructuring his 'own party' and the bullying power he has on the government, be it the increase of cylinders or Anti-graft bill.Of course there is his mantra of - 'Women empowernment ,RTI, changing the system'.How he would achieve that is another issue altogether.And why these core issues are being given importance only during elections, well don't answer,it is preposterous.
You seem to have developed this palpable knack of dismissing the opposition's achievements and opinions,nonetheless 'fabricating' your success stories.You are consistently dismissive of your pathetic track-records.
The venom built inside you against your adversary compelled you to engage in Modi-mocking,abroad,forgetting the fact that you were representing India and not INC.Probably both are one and the same to you.
Next, moving on Modi's reference to you as 'recount minister' for which you retorted with typical call of 'murderer' 'fascist' etc.Even from a neutral perspective, Modi's remarks weigh nothing against the degrotary remarks assaulted against him.Moreover, they had some weight, did'nt they?I mean, there was a recount of your constituency votes, changing you from 'loser' to 'winner'.He did'nt fret nor cry foul.He merely pointed out the incident.I guess,you can learn one lesson from him-the act of facing unsubstantiated criticism,'political untouchability' and sluggish remarks(the Salman Khan,'Hindu nationalist and puppy remarks blown out of proportion are classic examples) in return to the economic lessons you try to profess upon him.
Furthermore, there are the brazen controversies of your family's corrupt involvement in Aircel-Maxis scam,2G,Indian Bank favours,Radia tapes. Your comments on Mullaperiyar,Kishtawar Hindu massacres Mumbai blasts, among others are testimony of your intelligence(pun intended).
I would like to end this letter by bringing your attention to your remarks on Modi:Everything that you know about economics can be written on the backside of a match box.
Fitting reply by Arun Jaitely:The greatest economic reformers of India-P.V.Narshima and Vajpayee 2 wernt economists, but they had a vision.A vision and a commitment to the motherland.You dont have to be an economist to realise the tremendous track record of Modi.
My reply:Everything that Rahul Gandhi knows about anything for that matter, can be written on the backside of a match box.
Note :- The gravity of my words is well explained by your adversary - Shri Arun Jaitely's blog.
Your policies are known for leaving behind a huge burden for the next government by giving away subsidies. "The PM had said in September 2012 that money does not grow on trees. If fiscal deficit is unchecked he said, it would be a huge burden on our economy. He said the last time we faced this problem was 1991. But when Rahul Gandhi wanted 12 gas cylinders subsidy, he promptly allowed it. Which led to a burden of 5000 crores on the government. Instead of implementing policies with the long run in hindsight, UPA is always keen in favouring policies to woo voters that are detterimental in the long run. Certainly an educated person such as you must be aware of that, but I guess you are compelled in doing so, under political pressure by your Italian boss.
Which government – UPA or NDA – has been better for India’s economic and social indicators? Dismiss the rhetoric and stick to the facts. In this analysis, I’ve chosen 10 key parameters. They cover both economic and social criteria.
1.GDP growth: Average GDP growth in 1998-2004 (NDA) was 6% a year. Average annual GDP growth in 2004-13 (UPA), up to June 30, 2013, was 7.9%.
Caveat 1: The Vajpayee-led NDA battled US-led economic sanctions following the Pokhran-II nuclear test in May 1998. It faced a short but expensive Kargil war in 1999 and the dotcom bust in 2000. When it took office, it had the lag effect of the East Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 to contend with.
Caveat 2: The UPA government, in contrast, benefited from the economic momentum of the high (8.1%) GDP growth rate of 2003-04 – the NDA government’s final year – and rode that wave. The global liquidity bubble in 2004-08 bouyed foreign inflows, helping UPA-I achieve a high GDP growth rate in its first term. The Lehman Brothers collapse in September 2008 did hurt the Indian economy but the ensuing US Federal Reserve asset buying programme attracted a steady flow of near-zero interest dollars into India from 2009.
Despite these caveats, the UPA government’s average annual GDP growth rate of 7.9% in 2004-13 clearly scores over the NDA government’s average annual growth rate of 6% (though high inflation boosted the former significantly). First strike to UPA.
2. Current Account Deficit:
2004: (+) $7.36 billion (surplus).
2013: (-) $80 billion.
The winner here is clearly NDA. It ran a current account surplus in 2002, 2003 and 2004. Under UPA this dipped into deficit from 2006 and has spun downwards since.
3. Trade deficit:
2004: (-) $13.16 billion.
2013: (-) $180 billion.
Again, advantage NDA.
4. Fiscal deficit:
2004: 4.7% of GDP.
2013: 4.8% of GDP.
Not much to choose between the two.
Caveat: This extract from the Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI) report, published in 2010, explains why and when the UPA government’s fiscal defict began to spiral out of control.
“The central budget in 2008–2009, announced in February 2008, seemed to continue the progress towards FRBM targets by showing a low fiscal deficit of 2.5% of GDP. However, the 2008–2009 budget quite clearly made inadequate allowances for rural schemes like the farm loan waiver and the expansion of social security schemes under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), the Sixth Pay Commission award and subsidies for food, fertilizer, and petroleum.”
“These together pushed up the fiscal deficit sharply to higher levels. There were also off-budget items like the issue of oil and fertilizer bonds, which should be added to give a true picture of fiscal deficit in 2008–2009. The fiscal deficit shot up to 8.9% of GDP (10.7% including off-budget bonds) against 5.0% in 2007–2008 and the primary surplus turned into a deficit of 3.5% of GDP.
“The huge increase in public expenditure in 2008–2009 of 31.2% that followed a 27.4% increase in 2007–2008 was driven by the electoral cycle with parliamentary elections scheduled within a year of the announcement of the budget.”
The recent announcement of the Seventh Pay Commission comes again, not unexpectedly, at the end of an electoral cycle.
5. Inflation:
1998-2004: 5%.
2004-2013: 9% (Both figures are averaged out over their respective tenures).
Advantage again to NDA. Inflation under NDA was on average half that under UPA, leading to the RBI’s controversial tight money policy, high interest rates and rising EMIs.
6. External Debt:
March 2004: $111.6 billion.
March 2013: $390 billion.
The UPA suffers badly in this comparision, a result of lack of confidence in India’s economy and currency following retrospective tax legislation and other regressive policies, especially during UPA-2.
7. Jobs:
1999-2004: 60 million new jobs created.
2004-11: 14.6 million jobs created.
Clearly, the UPA’s big failure has been jobless growth – a bad electoral omen.
8. Rupee:
1998-2004: Variation: Rs. 39 to 49 per $.
2004-13: Variation: Rs. 39 to 68 per $.
(Rupee rose from 40-plus to 39 between October 2007 and April 2008.)
The NDA government’s economic and fiscal policies, despite the various crises of 1998-2000 pointed out earlier, evoked more global confidence, leading to a relatively stable rupee (Rs. 10 variation) compared to the Rs. 29 variation during UPA’s tenure.
9. HDI:
2004: India was ranked 123rd globally on the human development index (HDI) in 2004, with a score of 0.453.
2013: India has slipped 13 places to 136th globally on the HDI in 2013 with a score of 0.554.
10. Subsidies:
2004: Rs. 44,327 crore.
2013: Rs. 2,31,584 crore.-
Here again, profligate welfarism, as the ADBI report quoted earlier shows, has led to a rising subsidy bill. Worse, a significant amount is siphoned off by a corrupt nexus of politicians, officials and middlemen.
Conclusion: UPA scores above NDA on one of the 10 parameters (GDP growth), is level on one other parameter (fiscal deficit) while NDA does better than UPA on the remaining eight parameters.
Note :- Source :Times of India
The next time you wish to stage an encounter with facts,be aware of those facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment