When will it fly?

The Tata airline project should hold the record for the sheer range of government bad behaviour it has single-handedly come to symbolise. To begin with, in unashamed thumbing of his nose at the notion of rule-based functioning, C M Ibrahim was allowed by two successive governments to play fast and loose with the Tata-Singapore Airlines joint-venture proposal. Merely to scupper that one project, he was allowed to get away with a foolish civil aviation policy that welcomed foreign equity up to 40 per cent in domestic airlines from any quarter but a foreign airline! With the self-assurance of a feudal lord, the Minister did not even feel obliged to camouflage his move as some other concern, though vague noises were heard about Indian Airlines. He never once felt obliged, and was never asked, to explain which principles of economics were urging him on to his ridiculous policy. Certainly, there were never any prizes for guessing that the hearts of Ibrahim and cronies were really bleeding for the domestic airline lobby. So what has changed after seven years of reform when the urgings of lobbies can prompt Ministers to such brazen behaviour, and when they still have enough discretionary power to hold up a Rs 1,475-crore project for years?

For this shabby treatment, the Tata8217;s airline proposal was remarkable enough. But what makes it truly extraordinary is the exceeding of their powers by not one but two authorities. No sooner is Ibrahim done obliging the Tatas to rework their proposal to meet his absurd guidelines, than along comes the Election Commission to fish in troubled waters. This authority, as this newspaper has had occasion to remark before, has been going overboard in its enthusiasm to curb real or imagined excesses by government in the run-up to the election. Now, the EC is believed to have informally said that a No-objection Certificate for the project by a lame-duck government will not go down well. Why not? The proposal has been in the works for some years. It has had to be resubmitted because of the new guidelines. The guidelines, such as they are, do not lack clarity. Albeit wrong-headed, they do establish the rules of the game. The proposal meets these rules and has been given the go-ahead by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board. Had there been no guidelines, there could have been grounds for the EC8217;s objections. Since there are, the Election Commissioners would be well advised to leave the matter well enough alone.

Indeed, it behoves this government to show a deal more spunk than it has done. There was precious little need for the Ministry in question to sound out the Election Commission. If authority is being served up to it on a platter by a weak-kneed government, the EC has little incentive to decline. The EC has already conveyed its 8212; wrong 8212; opinion informally. It is to be hoped that it will have second thoughts before sending its formal reply. Else a stage could soon be reached when someone called its bluff. As to this trouble-prone proposal, who is to say what nasty surprises another Minister who considers himself unaccountable might have in store for it?