Sonianomics an ‘occult’ form of economics?

by FP Editors Mar 30, 2013

Instead of economics, are Congress president Sonia Gandhi‘s pet welfare schemes drawn from the occult?

In an Indian Express column that evaluates 15 years ofSonia Gandhi’s leadership, Chairman of Oxus Investments Surjit S Bhalla says that the Congress chief’s economic policies, which were aimed at helping the poor, but ended up hurting them the most, defy “pure reason” and dubs them “occult economics”.

Her policies have their origin in the creation of the Congress in 1885 by the Theosophical Society, an occultist movement, he says.

Is MNREGA a form of occult economics? Reuters

“Sonia UPA’s alchemy raised procurement prices of food grains beyond reason, helped a few rich farmers (say 20 million) and massively hurt ten times as many landless agricultural workers. And by generating super-inflation for four years, transformed the Indian economy beyond recognition,” says Bhalla.

Bhalla also analyses the economics of MGNREGA, a UPA pet scheme aimed at giving employment to the rural poor.

According to Bhalla, as per the NSS data of 2009-10, of the Rs 1,70,000 crore spent on MGNREGA, only a fifth reached the intended beneficiaries. In other words, about Rs 1,40,000 crore went to the non-poor. The scheme has helped nothing but corruption, says Bhalla.

Another example of ‘occult economics’ is the 2013-14 budget, in which the government aims at 13 percent GDP growth and 16 percent expenditure growth, which is to be financed with a 19 percent growth in tax revenue.

A third example of this brand of economics is the Food Security Bill, which is slated to be presented in the current Budget session of Parliament. The bill seeks to provide subsidised food grains to 67 percent of the country’s population.

According to a recent report in The Hindu, the bill would burden the government with a subsidy bill of about Rs 1.35 lakh crore.

Such economic policies have already halved the GDP growth, doubled inflation, depreciated the rupee by 20 percent and widened the current account deficit to 6.7 percent of GDP.

For the country to come out of the economic rot, Sonia has to change her occult spots by resorting to economic reforms, the Bhalla says. Otherwise, the Congress—and with it the country—will perish.

Read the complete column by Bhalla here.

Evaluating Sonia, the black box leader
Surjit S Bhalla Posted online: Sat Mar 23 2013, 03:43 hrs
Should Sonia Gandhi, ruler of the Congress party, be congratulated for finishing 15 years in Indian politics? It is not a sign of expertise if an heir becomes king. So why should it be different with her?
What does her political record look like? She formally assumed power in April 1998, but a year earlier (March 31, 1997 to be precise), the Congress party under her leadership (or the formal head Sitaram Kesri?) had withdrawn support to the United Front government. As the table shows, the Congress obtained the same seats as 1996, but 3 percentage points less votes than the P.V. Narasimha Rao 1996 election. The next year, after a full 18 months in power, Sonia’s Congress obtained the lowest seats ever, 114, but kept its vote share equal to the 1996 level.

The same story continues for the next two elections. In 2009, the vote share remained just a notch below the 1996 level, even though the Congress won 206 seats. Note that vote share is an important indicator of a political party’s popularity; the seat share an important indicator of coalition politics. Note also the joint vote share of the Congress and the BJP was the lowest in the coalition-era world, post 1984. Thus whatever the causes, it was not Sonia’s or the Congress popularity that led to its outsized win in 2009.

After the 2009 election, it was quite apparent that Sonia and the party were targeting 272 seats on their own. Given that the vote share had stayed broadly constant and below the 1996 level, this belief in the Congress’s invincibility is not suggestive of political prowess. Thus, the bottom line is quite straightforward — there is nothing in the record to suggest that Sonia has been a successful politician — except (and this is an important but), the vital fact that she is the glue that keeps the Congress together.

There is one other aspect of Sonia-politics that deserves emphasis. As is commonly believed, the strongest threat to the Congress’s popularity and continuation in power is the threat from the BJP’s Narendra Modi. The Congress and Sonia have recognised this threat for several years, which is why, in the 2007 state elections, Sonia coined the phrase “maut ka saudagar”, or merchant of death, to describe Modi’s alleged involvement in the 2002 Godhra riots. Despite losing the Gujarat election in an overwhelming fashion, the Congress has kept up the pressure on the BJP and Modi. Questions are asked by the press of Modi at every forum — why don’t you apologise for the Godhra killings, it happened under your watch as chief minister, so at least admit the responsibility, etc.

These are legitimate questions and suggest that civil society, the media and the middle class are to be applauded for demanding this minimum from our politicians. But why is this analogous demand not made from the Congress leadership and the Gandhi family that was in power at the time of the 1984 riots? In response to a question about the Sikh riots, and at an election rally on November 19, 1984, Sonia’s late husband and then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi stated that “When a big tree falls, the earth shakes”. Not exactly an apology. While some of Modi’s political colleagues have been arrested and convicted for their involvement in the Godhra riots, some of the alleged Congress officials were rewarded with cabinet posts in several Congress governments, including her own UPA rule.

Why is there not a parallel demand for apology from Sonia Gandhi and the Congress? If she wants to be remembered for her political acumen, then one would imagine that she would go out of her way to apologise — and that if she didn’t, the middle class press would hound her, just as it is justifiably hounding Modi. Perhaps one reason the public goes easy on Sonia is because a Congress Sikh leader, Manmohan Singh, has apologised for the Sikh riots. He did it at an appropriate place, Parliament, where he stated on August 12, 2005, “I have no hesitation in apologising to the Sikh community. I apologise not only to the Sikh community, but to the whole Indian nation because what took place in 1984 is the negation of the concept of nationhood enshrined in our Constitution.”

This was an apology in every sense of the term. That it came 21 years after the event is problematic, as is the fact that it was tendered by a Sikh. Morally and politically, it is important that Sonia Gandhi apologise. On the 1984 riots, this is the closest that she has come to apologising, again at an election rally on January 26, 1998: “There is no use recalling what we have collectively lost. No words can balm that pain. Consolation from others always somehow sounds hollow”.

We have the matter of an average vote-getting record. We have the matter of the lack of an apology for the Sikh riots. Add to it the fact that Sonia Gandhi behaves uniquely with regard to politics, unlike any other political leader in the world, and the media behaves just as uniquely. Consider the following. Why is it normal to question the integrity and worth of all members of the Nehru-Gandhi political family, including and especially her late husband Rajiv, but not politically correct to question Sonia? Every political leader has been pilloried in India, and in most democracies. Pilloried for being stupid, unfit to rule and worse; yet, such questions are not raised with regard to Sonia. Our free press can make mincemeat of even decent politicians (Manmohan Singh has been variously described as spineless, a night-watchman following orders, Mumble Singh and worse) and yet the press has never even demanded that the chairperson of the Congress for 15 years hold a press conference in a language of her choosing — English, Hindi or Italian.

Consider this: Sonia Gandhi has ruled over the largest democracy, over a billion people, for nine years, and has yet to hold a press conference. Does anyone have a clue about her views and/or thinking on any of the major issues facing the country? Is she just a black box leader?

The writer is chairman of Oxus Investments, an emerging market advisory firm, and a senior advisor to Blufin, a leading financial information company

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/evaluating-sonia-the-black-box-leader/1092032/

Message to Sonia: reform or perish
Surjit S Bhalla Posted online: Sat Mar 30 2013, 03:15 hrs
This is the second, and final, part of an evaluation of 15 years of Sonia Gandhi’s leadership of the Congress party. The first part appeared last week (‘Evaluating Sonia, the black box leader’, IE, March 23) and dealt with the political aspects — this article deals with her economic leadership.
As we all know, an economic disaster has struck India for the last three years. A halving of GDP growth, a doubling of inflation rates, a 20 per cent depreciation of the rupee, and record current account deficits (latest, 6.7 per cent of GDP) are reflective of the deep rot the Indian economy is in.

The economy numbers are exceptionally bad and worse than most other countries. What, or who, is responsible for making the impossible possible? For sure, it is the Congress-led UPA government. But who within the Congress party? On economic issues, most fingers will point towards the prime minister, Manmohan Singh, an economist of international repute, and joint father of the economic reforms introduced under the leadership of non-Nehru-Gandhi Congressman Narasimha Rao in 1991. But this would be wrong.

For too long we have been made to believe that, within the UPA, the political decisions were made by Sonia and the economic decisions by Singh. This was the UPA’s contribution to an “Indian” model of governance! Thankfully, and at long last, a major Congress leader, Digvijaya Singh, has exposed this myth. In a recent interview, he stated, “Personally, I feel this model hasn’t worked very well. Because, I personally feel there should not be two power centres and I think whoever is the PM must have the authority to function.” So we needn’t indulge in shadowboxing any more — Sonia’s own senior party officials (Digvijaya is also a mentor to Sonia’s son, Rahul Gandhi) admit that all decisions, political and economic, have Sonia Gandhi’s authoritative (authoritarian?) stamp.

In addition, there is substantial evidence that the economic decisions made by the UPA couldn’t possibly have been made by an economist, let alone an economist of as much repute as Manmohan Singh. As an economist qua economist, he recognised, more than 50 years ago, the role that exchange rates played in generating exports, and did so when the fashion in India, and most of the world, was one of export pessimism. As an economic policymaker, he was the finance minister who helped initiate, and implement, the largest change in mindset reforms India has ever seen.

I have challenged, in every forum possible, whether in the last nine years of UPA rule there has been a single positive economic policy that the UPA has initiated. The answer is No; the “best” answer received is that UPA 1, and definitely not UPA 2, did no harm. It is logically not possible that the UPA’s economic policies have any relationship to Manmohan Singh, the economist. If they do, then I am a Bharat Natyam dancer. So let’s stop the charade — Sonia has been, and is, the boss on both economic and political policies of UPA 1 and 2.

Actually, Sonia’s economic policies have their origin in the creation of the Congress in 1885. It was founded by members of the occultist movement “Theosophical Society”. What does occultism mean? Occult comes from the Latin word “occultus” which means “clandestine, hidden, secret”. According to Wikipedia, occultrefers to “knowledge of the paranormal as opposed to knowledge of science. for most practising occultists it is simply the study of a deeper spiritual reality that extends beyond pure reason” (emphasis added).

It is impossible to better describe Sonia’s economic policies. Only something that defies pure reason would have led Sonia to promulgate policies meant to help the poor but which ended by hurting them massively instead. Sonia UPA’s alchemy raised procurement prices of foodgrains beyond reason, helped a few rich farmers (say 20 million) and massively hurt ten times as many landless agricultural workers. And by generating super-inflation for four years, transformed the Indian economy beyond recognition.

Or take Sonia’s self-advertised policy of providing employment to the poorest of the poor — the MGNREGA programme of providing backbreaking work employment to the poorest of the poor. To date, about Rs 1,70,000 crore has been spent on this occult programme. According to the detailed NSS 2009-10 data, the poor received only a fifth of this money as wages. Which means that about Rs 1,40,000 crore went to the non-poor. This is not economics, not even occult economics, nor even voodoo economics. This is alchemy economics a la Sonia.

A defining characteristic of this beyond-reason Sonianomics is “in your face populism”. The huge fiscal deficits run by her government are near universally acknowledged (near because not acknowledged by the alchemists within the party) as responsible for the destruction of the Indian economy. So what does the latest UPA budget for 2013-14 do? It plans for 13 per cent GDP growth, 16 per cent higher expenditure growth, financed by 19 per cent tax revenue growth! This is meant to bring sanity into the fiscal deficit sphere?! Heard a better definition of occultism lately? Or take the announcement that the DMK is leaving the UPA. Sonia’s Titanic response — have the cabinet pass her second favourite occult policy, the Food Security Bill.

A summary sequential view of Sonianomics is as follows. First, the policies have to be do-gooder in nature. Second, they have to have heavy state involvement. The first two are necessary and sufficient to achieve the third objective — encouragement of corruption.

More corruption charges have been levelled against Sonia’s government than any in Indian history. Her late husband, Rajiv Gandhi, lost the elections in 1989 (after obtaining three-fourths of the seats in 1984) in large part because of his alleged association with the Bofors gun scam. The alleged bribe paid for that contract, Rs 64 crore, or $40 million at the then exchange rates. Even a conservative assessment of the cumulative corruption associated with Sonia’s mistaken, misguided, and misapplied flagship MGNREGA job scheme — her universally acknowledged baby — is at least half of the Rs 1,40,000 crore estimated above. That is $14 billion, or an amount equivalent to 350 times the Bofors amount. Note that this is corruption in MGNREGA alone. Coal, telecom, foodgrains policy — the list is just as endless as the decline in India’s fortunes.

So what is to be done, or what can Sonia Gandhi do to reverse hers and India’s misfortune? She can start changing her occult spots — now — so that, by the time of the elections, the economy, and the poor, recover somewhat from the depths.

Or she can observe the wheels of history. Recall that Annie Besant became president of the Congress party in 1917. If Sonia Gandhi does not change, then she risks the following obituary of the party she heads: “It took a white, European, socialist, woman to help create the Congress party — and it has taken a white, European, socialist, woman to destroy it more than a hundred years later.”

The writer is chairman of Oxus Investments, an emerging market advisory firm, and a senior advisor to Blufin, a leading financial information company

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/message-to-sonia-reform-or-perish/1094989/1