NDA vs UPA: A scorecard

The only area where Modi could have an edge is the economy, but Singh ran a more democratic government

One of the central themes in the Prime Minister’s Independence Day speech was the claim that India made better progress under his NDA government than under the previous UPA regime. The PM spoke with oratorical passion. But is he correct? Or was this braggadocio?

Let’s start with the economy. The recently released back series GDP figures show that percentage growth under UPA-1 (8.87) and UPA-2 (7.65) was higher than the first four years of NDA-2 (7.35). Twice during UPA years growth crossed 10 per cent (2007-08 and 2010-11), making growth in the UPA decade 8.12 per cent. Clearly, in growth terms the UPA performed better, if only fractionally when you compare NDA-2 to UPA-2.

However, when you look at the broader handling of the economy the story is different. The average current account balance under UPA-2 was — 3.3 per cent compared to just — 1.2 per cent so far under NDA-2. Similarly, the average CPI inflation under UPA2 was 10.4 per cent but it’s been kept at just 4.7 per cent by NDA-2. Finally, the fiscal deficit in the last year of UPA-2 was 4.5 per cent. At the moment it’s 3.5 per cent.

You see a similar story when you look at the reforms the two governments have undertaken. NDA-2 has delivered GST, the Bankruptcy Code, the Real Estate Regulation Act, the Monetary Policy Committee, the extension of fixed term employment to all sectors of the economy, the new health insurance scheme, electrification of all villages and free LPG for people below the poverty line. In addition, a few BJP states have amended labour and land acquisition laws. It’s hard to recall anything comparable under UPA-2. But Modi also gave us demonetisation, which is widely regarded as a disaster and set back growth by around 2 per cent. There was no similar self-inflicted goal under UPA.

A second issue is what’s happened to corruption under NDA-2? Whilst UPA was battered by 2G, Coalgate, Agusta-Westland, the Commonwealth Games etc, there’s no major stain of large scale corruption on the present government. Though there are serious questions regarding Rafale there’s no money trail leave aside a smoking gun.

Now, if you’ve formed the impression that in terms of the economy and corruption NDA-2 has scored better than UPA-2 the opposite is true when you look at the mood of the country and, in particular, what’s happening to dalits and muslims. Over the last four years we’ve had ghar-wapsi, love- jihad, Bharat Mata Ki Jai, rampaging gaurakshaks, child-kidnapping lynchings and controversies over namaz. Large numbers of muslims and dalits have been alienated and live in fear. Only a few would deny this is an area where we’ve seen serious deterioration.

The same is true of what’s happened to the media. Under NDA-2 there’s alleged self- censorship, stories of editors being sacked, ministers and spokesmen boycotting anchors and columnists asked to avoid sensitive subjects. We may not have irrefutable proof of governmental involvement but there are good reasons to believe this is happening at its behest. Nothing of the sort happened under UPA. Indeed, you have to go back to the Emergency for a comparison.

Next is the way important institutions have been handled. NDA-2 has been cavalier in its treatment of state governments (Uttarakhand and Arunachal) and the Supreme Court, whilst it’s accused of politicising universities, the Election and Information Commissions as well as organisations like the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library and the Indian Council of Historical Research.

UPA was clearly better. It created the Information Commission and largely respected the Election Commission. Its appointments to statutory bodies may have been controversial but did not undermine them. However, its attitude to state governments was equally cavalier (Bihar) and the people it appointed to governorships no better.

And then there’s Kashmir. Since 2014 terrorist incidents have increased by 160 per cent, the number of local Kashmiris joining terrorist groups has doubled and the number of active militants has gone up threefold. Today students and, more worryingly, young girls throw stones at security forces to prevent them capturing militants. These teenagers show no fear for their lives. Things were very different four years ago. The deterioration is irrefutable.

Finally, whose handling of foreign affairs was better? NDA-2 may have begun with great promise but today we have problematic relations with most neighbours and a lack of clarity vis-à-vis the USA. The horizon was brighter as the UPA decade came to a close.

So, in overall terms, who has given us better governance? It seems the only area where Modi could have an edge is the economy. On the other hand, Manmohan Singh ran a more democratic government, with greater respect for our freedoms and better protection for minorities.