This, against the backdrop of increasing unrest, ipso facto, means that the controversies generated by Budget 2010-11 inside and outside Parliament will not end with the end of the Budget session. The nine central trade union organisations (CTUOs), which concluded their nationwide protest satyagraha on March 5, 2010, have come to realise that the UPA Government remains callous and unresponsive to the miseries of the impoverished working people. They already feel that a bigger massive nationwide industrial action may be necessary to shake the UPA Government out of its corporate-friendly attitude.

It is to be noted that involved in the controversies are not only the actual contents of the Budget but even more so the underlying intention of the Government. Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee can be said to have taken the controversies to a new pitch by outlining the “broad conceptualization” of his Budget. He has sought to give the ongoing practice of the policy-makers based on liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation a big push by giving it the shape of a concept.

Here are the outlines of Mukherjee's concept of the role of Budget 2010-11. “With the development and economic reforms”, according to Pranab, “the focus of economic activity has shifted towards the non-government actors”. He does not indicate who the non-government actors are but under the LPG regime key non-government actors are the corporate kings. This shift, he emphasizes, has brought “into sharper focus the role of Government as an enabler.”

Lest there be any misunderstanding, Mukherjee cares to explain the role of an enabling government: “An enabling government does not try to deliver directly to the citizens everything they need. Instead, it creates an enabling ethos so that individual enterprises and creativity flourishes.” The Government “concentrates on supporting and delivering (probably via the PPP model) services to the disadvantaged sections of the society.”

If the practice of the Manmohan Singh Government in the field of industry is taken into account, any regulation of labour-management relations has come to mean immobilisation of central Government's conciliation machinery so as to give a free hand to the employers to deal with the labour wherever they can. The recruitment of contract workers in violation of the Contract Labour Act has become the norm in public and private sector enterprises. The proportion of regular and contract workers even in many of the public sector enterprises has reached the level of 50:50. The less said the better about the state-of-the-art enterprises like automobile units where even unionisation is treated as a crime, not to speak of implementation of such minimum necessary laws as Minimum Wages Act, working day law, maternity benefit law, etc.

Does all this mean that an “enabler” Government is seeking to create an “enabling ethos” for individual (private) enterprises and their creativity to flourish? There is all the concern for the enterprises to flourish and little concern for the over hundred years of struggle of the working class for their rights during the colonial rule, later as part of the freedom struggle and in the post-Independence phase as part of economic development with emphasis on building a public sector “as part of the mixed economy” concept.

It is obvious that Mukherjee's Budget has given notice that economic development policies adopted during the post-Independence phase are now being buried; the private corporate sector will henceforth determine the future course of development in urban and rural areas. Only the other day, when there was a furore over the impact of global economic crisis and slowdown on unemployment, small and medium industries, etc Mukherjee had praised Indira Gandhi for nationalising the banks 40 years ago. Even the LPG policy-makers realised the significant role the public sector banks played in mitigating the negative impact of the crisis and slowdown on Indian economy. The same Mukherjee has now projected a concept that implies that as a consequence of reforms, the country's economy is to be guided by the private corporate interests which implies that profit-making will be the “be all and end all” of the post-Budget economic development and not the fate of multi-million working people.

Lest he is accused of deserting the people who voted the UPA Government to power or the Congress party, the Finance Minister has sneaked in a line for the poor people in his Budget conceptualization: “Government concentrates on supporting and delivering services to the disadvantaged sections of the society”. Just as he took care not to identify the non-Government actors, he has left it to friends and critics to speculate on who the disadvantaged sections are. This virtually amounts to cheating the nation of 1160 million people.

As expected, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described the Budget as “exceedingly good” and one which would help the economy to return to nine per cent growth. For him, it was a “job well done”. Home Minister P. Chidambaram described it as a “very balanced effort” marked by a mature assessment of the state of the economy and of measures required to “sustain a high and inclusive growth.” Commerce Minister Anand Sharma says that the Budget continues support and incentives for the SEZs “without any dilution”. He expected that a comprehensive FDI policy was likely to take shape in April. Much is said about promotion of labour-intensive units in this sector. This is the worst sector for unionisation of labour, and where labour disputes are handled by police and not by labour inspectors.

Interestingly, FICCI scheduled its national session on February 27, a day after the Budget was presented in Parliament. Finance Minister Mukherjee was an honoured guest at the session. He took care to assure them that though he had taken a few steps to partially roll back the stimulus package the necessity and timing of its withdrawal will be “gradual and calibrated”. He wanted the industry to go in for rapid investment to sustain growth over a long period. An enabler Government's Finance Minister could certainly be a guarantee for the non-Government actor kings of the private sector.

Will he now call the trade unions for a discussion on the Budget proposals as he had promised during the pre-Budget consultations with them? At least, the nine CTUOs should send a collective comment on the Budget to Mukherjee and seek a post-Budget review meeting with him.

Commenting on the so-called “pro-farmer budget”, P. Sainath of The Hindu says: “This is a Budget for, and perhaps by, the corporate farmer and agri-business.” (IPA Service)