Why do we have so much argument over just one term which is still not objectively defined. Economic reforms in true sense a contextual and relative term and varies from perspective to perspective. Marx idea to bring equality was also based on economic inequality but that is recent one. What could have economic reforms mean to Kautilya? What could it mean in Harappan society?
This may not be written anywhere but influenced the book of “Arthshastra”. Harappan civilization was modern and must have adopted reforms even the economic reforms.
What does it mean today or what does it mean post 1991?
A economist would definitely say it means reform in GDP numbers or improving the GDP figures. This may be countered by sociologist a high growth in GDP numbers is equivalent high inequality so economic reform is not possible without social reform so for her it would be efficient delivery of public services and changes in human behaviour by laws, advocacy and persuasion. In true sense new model focused to enhance output, efficiency, and distributive justice. A fancy traditional term would be definitely there “Social Justice” ;Then you ask what is social justice. This blog would be short to define this term. We can define this as a political gimmick which will be just kept in holy book of constitution.
Ask a economist about social definition she would say it means market economy definition version.
Why the question of economic reform in India focus around 1991?
Surprising after 43 years of Independent India and Indians were almost bankrupt or having no currency in historical & Cultural purse of India. This may sound critical but at least we learn to become risk worthy which suppose to be not in Indian Genome. The most pertinent question what we did to reforms during 1991 will be appreciated for till the next reforms will not come? When is the next reform no one knows what we know it is desperately required even by the sociologist and environmentalist who believes in fancy movement of Sustainable reforms and for sociologist the old cake with new toppings as “Inclusive reforms”.
Would it be appropriate to call it as 1st reforms as if Indian society has never reformed before. What was done in 1991?
Modern era of economics in India started from there.
- Foreign trade policy: We opened the window and thrown the existing trade policy of imports and exports while we opened the window it was bound to entered by new foreign players first time.
- Babu License raj: This was freed and ease of license ask a sociologist she would say before that if you produce one extra brush you would have to brush in Tihar jail learning the lesson of sociology.
- Regulator becomes actor: FERA becomes FEMA
- SEBI was born in this era along with new friend CCI
- Taxes reform was not economic rather social charging marginal taxes around 96% with people was extremely social and Lafer would have started crying use my suggestions become social rather than extremely social. Our favourite room of 10%, 20% and 30% started here.
- Using our own money through disinvestment would may sound unfair to trade unions since this was modified Taylorism in different perception removing the question of Surplus.
The result was worthy with so many jobs that a below average students gets a job offer monetarily better than Civil servant.
A sociologist or communist would say we bought pay commissions and achieved pay parity in its vedic seventh rotation of marriage. However the idea of reform was economic but results were social why do we have to look reforms separately.
Reform includes all the ideology social, economic, most important now environmental but off course the better the friendship between socio-economic reforms least are the chances of new terrorists. It is important that both of you marry each other so that you can survive in intolerant inflationary society where earners want to leave India for long vision of politics and finding birth in temple of democracy. There will be nothing social without economics and economics cannot be scaled up without social aspects. You will be always confused that banning alcohol is socio economic or socio-political.
Supreme court in its judgment declared that NJAC is unconstitutional as it distorts that basic structure of constitution i.e. independence of judiciary.
While many questions being raised on Collegium system so SC came up with idea to improve the Collegium system(2nd Judge case).
Is independence of Judiciary is there while a group of Judges appoint another judge: This question has to be answered, If there is problem with members from executive why not taking people who are not influenced by executive as well as Judiciary.
Parliamentary System and parliamentary democracy is also part of basic structure so that has been violated in this case. One set of thinkers suggest that the objectionable part should have been declared unconstitutional and thus could have been solved the entire issue as SC focused on the two members who has to appointed by a group of executive and CJI.
Collegium system has evolved from practice it has no constitutional place while NJAC was part of the constitution which could have been accepted by SC with some changes.
Some thinkers suggested to bring the bill again and put in schedule 9 but again SC has judicial review power in case of basic structure is altered.