Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman declared the Modi government’s intention to submit a “white paper” to the Parliament on February 1st while introducing the Interim Budget 2024. The White Paper provided a comparative analysis of the economic achievements throughout the ten-year tenures of the Dr. Manmohan Singh-led UPA government and the Narendra Modi-led NDA government.
The 59-page white paper describes how the Indian economy was in terrible form when the Narendra Modi government took over from the Manmohan Singh government in 2014. The UPA inherited a robust economy in 2004. By comparing important macro and microeconomic factors, it became clear how systemic corruption and policy paralysis plagued the UPA’s decade of governance—or lack thereof—and contributed to India’s designation as one of the infamous “fragile five” economies. It also documented the divergent outcomes of the NDA administration over its ten years in office.
In keeping with that, additional “White Papers” evaluate their performance on various other crucial fronts, such as the well-being of various communities – Sabka Vikas versus currying favour with Ganga Jamuni Tehzeeb, or the difference between politics of saturation and appeasement.
Concept of Sabka Vikas: Aim for conciliation or wise elevation?
Clear differences in the “idea of Sabka Vikas” and action plans along those lines become apparent with the abundance of policy measures implemented during the ten years of the NDA and UPA regimes. While the UPA administration faced constant accusations of having a communal bent and engaging in politics of appeasement, the Modi administration’s “Sabka Vikas” embodies welfare politics through “politics of saturation.”
The Modi administration aims to achieve 100% coverage through programmes like PM Awas Yojana, Har Ghar Nal Se Jal, and health coverage through Ayushman Bharat Yojana, and immunisation, among others, in line with its declared ambitious objective of “politics of saturation.” The goal of “Sabka Vikas,” or “development of all, appeasement of none,” is to elevate every Indian to lessen “Dil ki duri,” if any. Goals that can be carried out have been set, such as welfare programmes for everyone, including minorities, the building of roads and bridges in remote or hard-to-reach places like the Northeast, and “representation” for everyone, regardless of caste, religion, or region, through programmes like Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam.
During its 10 years in office, the Congress-led UPA government prioritised appeasement to such an extent that former Defence Minister AK Antony attributed the party’s success in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections to “its minority appeasement” policy.
People no longer trust the party’s secular credentials. After examining the factors that led to the party’s collapse, AK Antony emphasised that people felt the Congress looked out for a select group of populations, particularly minority groups.
Some instances of how the Congress party responded to the accusations of political appeasement
Just before the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, the Congress gave Waqf 123 properties in desirable Delhi areas in an attempt to win over more Muslim voters.
The Delhi Waqf Board received 123 properties in desirable Delhi locales in 2014 from the Congress-led UPA administration. The Congress government used its authority under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act of 2013 to designate 123 properties from the land acquisition process before the Lok Sabha elections that year. The Delhi Waqf Board was to get the aforementioned properties.
The Indraprastha Vishwa Hindu Parishad then contested the government’s announcement. The same year, a Delhi court issued a mandate directing the Centre to consider the complaints of the parties involved and reach a determination.
The Modi government overturned the UPA government’s decision on February 17, 2023, following the proper procedures. It put up signs outside these 123 Delhi properties declaring that they were no longer Delhi Waqf Board holdings.
Continuum of Appeasement Policy: From Bills to Rhetoric Pleasing Islamists
If the Communal Violence Bill—officially named the Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2011—had been passed into law, it would have been among the worst pieces of legislation ever. It simply ignored all ground realities and claimed that the victims of communal violence could only be members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes and religious or linguistic minorities. At the time, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley accurately stated that the measure was anti-majority and assumed that sectarian violence is always the fault of the majority community. This is an extensive report on the individuals assigned to write this ridiculous measure.
In addition to politically charged executive or legislative actions, the Congress-led UPA government used language that encouraged Islamists as part of its appeasement strategy. In anticipation of the 2012 UP Assembly elections, which are seen as a virtual semi-final before the Lok Sabha elections, the Congress sensed its diminishing political capital and made an utter capitulation to the Muslim vote bank. The party that does well in Uttar Pradesh is thought to have a greater chance of doing well in the Lok Sabha elections.
Salman Khurshid claimed during one of his rallies during the 2012 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections that Sonia Gandhi, the Congress President at the time, sobbed when she saw the pictures of the terrorists who had been murdered in the 2008 Batla House encounter. To sum up, on September 19, 2008, two terrorists from the Indian Mujahideen, Atif Amin and Mohammad Sajid, were eliminated during the Batla House incident.
It is crucial to emphasise that statements made by a sitting minister expressing support for terrorists cannot be written off as merely “slips of the tongue” or incorrect, harmless mischief intended to win votes. Rather, it serves as a tactical shield for Islamists, inciting radicalization and creating an environment where law enforcement is prohibited and security personnel feel intimidated.
Appeasement politics are frequently promoted as a “qualifying criterion” for secular credentials or as a step towards the advancement or safety of the community. This strategy advances the notion of “development” for minority populations, frequently maintaining their standing as a “perennial vote bank” that these policies purposefully keep behind.
Judicious poverty alleviation as opposed to number-dressing
With a single stroke of the pen in 2012, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, eliminated poverty and lifted the poor collectively. The UPA received a lot of backlash for celebrating their efforts to reduce poverty by manipulating statistics.
Irrespective of the approach, Ahluwalia claimed that time that poverty had decreased. According to the Commission’s estimate, the poverty rate decreased from 37.2 per cent in 2004–05 to 29.8 per cent in 2009–10. It was discovered, meanwhile, that the ratio had been calculated using a contentious daily per capita consumption of Rs. 22.42 in rural areas and Rs. 28.65 in cities.
On the other hand, in the tenth year of the Modi administration, government efforts to enhance rural livelihood and lower the poverty rate to 5% of the population have been praised in recent research studies.
Notably, the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) conducted the Household Consumption Expenditure Survey (HCES), and the State Bank of India (SBI) released a study report on Tuesday, February 27, which supported the findings.
It highlighted the benefits of the Union government’s programmes in lowering poverty, containing inflation, raising monthly per-capita consumption expenditure (MPCE), and closing the gap in purchasing power between urban and rural areas. For example, poverty in rural areas dropped from 25.7% in 2011–12 to 7.2% in 2022–2023, whereas poverty in urban areas dropped from 13.7% in 2011–12 to 4.6% in 2022–2023. You can read the reports’ complete information here and here.
A further “White Paper” comparing the ten years of the NDA and UPA might address authoritarian, undemocratic, and unlawful means to maintain power, the system, and/or “money.” Democratic ways of functioning could be the focus of this paper. The UPA’s last policy initiatives will succinctly highlight how the party exploited unlawful, dictatorial, and undemocratic means to subvert the Indian democratic ideals and hold onto power, the system, and/or “money” for itself.
The departing Finance Minister, P Chidambaram, signed an order that benefited 13 corporations, including Mehul Choksi’s, on the day the UPA lost to the NDA in 2014. According to a CNN-News 18 story, former finance minister P Chidambaram hurriedly signed an order on May 16, 2014, allowing a limited number of enterprises to import gold.
According to the data, Mehul Choksi’s Gitanjali Gems was one of the 13 businesses that were permitted to import gold under the 80-20 plan by the RBI circular. The RBI circular, dated May 21, 2014, was signed on May 16, 2014, the day the results of the general election were declared and the UPA was no longer in office, by P Chidambaram, the Finance Minister at the time. Mehul Choksi’s Gitanjali Gems was one of the seven corporations that grabbed about half of the total benefit. Following the directive, it is estimated that Gitanjali Gems imported 400 kg of gold under the programme. Financial runaway Mehul Choksi is one of the defendants in the PNB Bank scam worth Rs 11,000 crore.
In a similar vein, the caretaker-UPA government also appointed people hurriedly to several important positions, such as Army Chief and PSU President (albeit this choice was overturned because it was taken at the last minute and was made by a caretaker government). It also encountered strong resistance when attempting to make specific acquisitions. It was said that the Congress party selected “preferring persons” to have long-term power in the system. Because Congress still has supporters in the system, it is frequently asserted that Congress still influences the system.
Dividing a state in an anti-democratic way to win over voters
The Congress-led UPA expeditiously divided the erstwhile Andra Pradesh to secure 17 Lok Sabha seats in the newly formed Telangana ahead of the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. The measure was hastily written, causing disturbances in the Lok Sabha and passing in an entirely disorganised and undemocratic way.
When this measure was introduced in the Lok Sabha in February 2014, the notorious pepper spray incident took place.
The Telangana and AP state governments are still at odds over the Act because it was written so terribly. Jairam Ramesh, for instance, neglected to provide a list of twelve institutions whose assets must be divided among the states, and now they are battling for them! The Modi government amended the politically crafted measure of the UPA after taking office.
In its very first cabinet meeting in May 2014, the Modi government had to redraw the boundaries of the two states due to the act’s faulty and negligent drafting.
Using the flimsy justification that they were passed in the din or were not referred to a select committee, extending the benefit to a section ‘without’ their request, as was the case with Triple Talaq or the Farm Laws, the Congress and its allies in the I.N.D.I. alliance have consistently opposed significant reformative measures and bills of the Modi government. Nonetheless, during its tenure as a caretaker administration, it implemented significant policy changes in an illegal and undemocratic manner.
If more “white papers” are made available, the country—and voters in particular—will gain a great deal. This is because they will be better equipped to make decisions at the polls and avoid falling victim to divisive agendas that disguise radical appeasement under noble themes like “unity, brotherhood, tolerance,” etc.
