Quite so, minister

An ordinance on private investments in insurance by a caretaker government? Well, why not? Even putting a fine point on it, Finance Minis...

An ordinance on private investments in insurance by a caretaker government? Well, why not? Even putting a fine point on it, Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha is right to point out that the Insurance Regulatory Authority Bill, incorporating private and foreign equity in insurance, was cleared by the Cabinet before the government fell. It was cleared by Parliament8217;s standing committee on finance. It was listed for the Lok Sabha8217;s business. So if the opposition is to be given the satisfaction of a caretaker government8217;s policy decisions not being valid, the moves on insurance are still technically valid. The Bill still will come up before Parliament as and when the new Lok Sabha is constituted.

The only real obstacle to opening up this sector have long been union-driven Left parties which have held the economy to ransom in a way totally unmandated by their numbers in Parliament and by sheer force of nuisance value. They thrive on fears that insurance jobs will be threatened. In fact, as the sector expands, jobswill grow. What will happen, of course, is the dilution of the Left8217;s and the unions8217; stranglehold on the sector when private capital seeks to utilise resources optimally, it will want to be rid of notoriously obstructionist elements. For the rest, and certainly between the two largest political parties, there is consensus on opening up insurance even if they may choose to speak with a forked tongue.

In any case the question is broader, even though insurance is particularly crucial for its cascade effect that would stimulate infrastructure projects and the economy at large. The question, as ministers are at pains to stress, obviously mindful of their own interests, really is that there is no such thing as a caretaker government. If a government is to be in place without working for months on end, why have it at all? That only adds to cost and more political friction. In a democracy, obvious limits are automatically placed on a government which has lost its formal mandate. It would be hard, for instance, tosee this government embark on foreign adventurism in its current state. On the economy, too, that argument would hold if what was being attempted was a reversal of policies pursued by the government during its 8220;legitimate8221; tenure. That would represent an attempt to reverse policies with an eye on the elections. Implementing policies already declared and debated, even if that has potential for helping the 8220;caretaker8221; government at the hustings, must go on. The country has paid enough for the peccadilloes of politicians. If the parties which toppled a government without reason are made to realise that they have a price to pay for their misadventure, how is that a bad thing? Hopefully it would inspire greater restraint in the future. The President will inevitably have a crucial role in imparting legitimacy to the government8217;s determination. And he obviously cannot be guided by this reasoning, no matter how valid. Let him decide the issue on its merit. Sinha is on solid ground both technically and on thenational-interest yardstick. The reasons for such an ordinance would be the same as those for passing the Budget. Did not the opposition parties have their eye on the electorate when they showed such surprising responsibility about that?. Insurance is a logical extension.