THE EXCHANGE. Well begun, but is it half done?

Halfway into the Government’s tenure and 25 years from the beginning of economic reform and liberalisation is a suitable time to reflect. Just as the reforms were momentous, so was the 2014 shift to a development-led agenda. The question before us now is: Have we kept our eyes on the ball, overcome inertia and generated sufficient momentum to make this last?

Let’s try to analyse some circumstances, events and expressions to identify some gaps that at least business must address.

There is broad concurrence that, while the nation has improved incomes and growth, and a huge number have been pulled out of abject poverty, disparities between rich and poor have increased. This last factor has many overt as well as concealed implications.

The core agenda of 2014 was to enhance creation of livelihoods (including agriculture, industry, self-employment, infrastructure and services) and good governance. Is it still so, some wonder, as articulation is subdued ?

Regularly communicating a national agenda with clear prioritised plans (as against broad-brush or motherhood statements) will enhance impact and not allow detractors to pinprick at whim. Leadership articulation will help foster a broad-based acceptance by the masses for economic reform and some necessary pain along the way; this can also bridge some trust deficits between society, government and business, which are provoked with great regularity by critics. The largest part of the population is still engaged in agrarian activity with its disproportionately low share of GDP and where recent pain has been high. An expert no less than Arvind Panagariya has acknowledged what Ficci has said for long that under-employment (earning below acceptable or sustainable levels) is as serious a problem as unemployment.

The realistic view expressed by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley (of no contradiction in being simultaneously pro-poor and pro-business) may today find less resonance in the face of ground realities. But in my opinion, balanced long-term national development continues to lie in more forceful and explicit pursuit of this model.

People do not have unreal expectations such as becoming affluent overnight. At the same time only a continual increase in meaningful occupations and incomes can mitigate the needless ‘us and them’ syndrome.

It is also fair to say that a stream of events in the public space has the potential to distort a positive discourse which is needed to address development goals for society. A stern message in word and deed, for example, from the top leadership, that vigilantes or violence in any form shall not be tolerated (and will be swiftly punished) will yield positivity.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has told the NITI Aayog that transformational change must replace incremental change. This is encouraging. But it highlights what some analysts argue: Have changes essentially been incremental so far, delivering a restrained remedy for our ambitions?

That is water under the bridge. Let us now see how business can enhance its own involvement. There cannot be any quick-fix solutions to downsides — employment (as directly measured) is not growing, private investment is elusive and public investment has limits; broad-based revival of business profitability is absent and the global economy is dismal. So, the suggestions here are more behaviour-led by nature. Some issues can be addressed directly by businesses (industry and commerce) and some through collective and group cooperation.

Business bashing occurs everywhere — even in capitalist US. It is, of course, disappointing that sections of Indian business have by their conduct fanned negative sentiment both in public and lawmaker constituencies where being anti-private enterprise is almost a default mindset. So, any attempts by us to address doubts that entrepreneurs are undeserving of trust are valuable.

Business needs to proactively showcase its good governance, and this goes beyond ticking SEBI boxes and publicising good HR or CSR practices. It is a good value system that should be explicit to observers at large. In the US, some leading authorities have charted out commonsense principles of governance — no rocket science, just sound values and behaviour. The role of most owners and directors is upright — a few bad apples are exceptions by definition and cannot blot the class. Business must be more proactive in protecting its reputation.

It is obvious that even if the license raj has gone, a consent-control raj is omnipresent. Regulation is needed in a modern economy but implicit control in the guise of regulation is absurd. Enterprise must keep government focus on basic principles: that is, regulators are not controllers. They must be as responsible for development of their sector as they are for its disciplined operations.

We must boldly and rationally call for steps to take a multifaceted look into desired versus actual role of regulators (beyond just calling it “ease of doing business”) and how they are manned. After years of policies leading to control and intervention, such mental dispositions are natural. I welcome Jaitley’s appeal for government to curb a controlling mindset; this must also apply to the judiciary. Minister of State for Commerce and Industry Nirmala Sitharaman recently admitted that a lot remains to be done to encourage entrepreneurship, particularly on taxation, regulatory and compliance burdens. I, of course, am viewing entrepreneurship from a broader perspective than just startups or FDI.

Business needs to renew a call for rational balance between development and environmental concerns. We need to show that industry is responsible, but to renew this initiative is prime. To be reactive to activism or activist judgments is not enough. We must go past lip service in demanding rapid judicial outcomes. Judicial contract enforcement has a pitiable record in terms of speed. The courts in their wisdom are usually quick to entertain activist motions (and PILs) even where points of law are not involved. The litigation propensity of government must be curtailed (government gives signals for improvement that are necessary, yet not sufficient). Good faith decisions must be respected at all ends.

Parliament has taken up repeal of outdated laws. This is excellent as a principle. But out of 1,827 laws so far identified as obsolete I cannot say how many routinely apply. At the same time we are getting new laws and rules by the dozen, which are not drafted well or not fully thought through. We deserve precise framing and drafting. While GST is the best broad-based tax reform, it is essential that the logistics and rules to implement it be proven to be clear, comprehensive and efficient.

Well begun is usually half done, but we also need to ensure that halfway into the journey we are still pointed to that narrow gate which leads to the achievement of our goals.

This column explores ideas and opinions on Indian enterprise and economy. The writer is an entrepreneur and former president of Ficci. The views are personal

COMMENT NOW