The second novel of the French writer, Leila Slimani, bagged the coveted Prix Goncourt in 2016. It has sold 600,000 copies in France and has been translated into about 40 languages. It is called Chanson Douce, literally meaning 'sweet song'. Its English translation is titled 'Lullaby'. That's what Budget 2019 sounds to us: a lullaby to put a restless child to sleep.
It pretends to have something for everyone, but you needle it and the unmistakable stamp of BIG BUSINESS peers through. It is a budget made for big business by its Trojan horses in the Government, with a few crumbs thrown here and there.
The opposition is calling foul for all the wrong reasons. Indeed, the more they shout the more it sounds like 'sour grapes'. Given a chance their budget would not look terribly dissimilar: Big business has succeeded in making its interests appear synonymous with national interest.
The budget being presented by a 'stranger in the house' doesn't cut much ice. It is against tradition but the constitution allows it. Again, there is nothing that says a government cannot present a whole-year budget few days before its term expires. Besides, what makes them so sure PML-N won't be back in power? If they are presenting an irresponsible budget let them stew in their own juice; if another party gets voted in it can always revise it. Defence versus development is a pointless debate - we need both - and with the budget premised on greater growth there will be more for both in the coming years. Yes, it is important for numbers to add up but more important is the direction of the budget - does it seek the greatest good of the greatest numbers, or greater prosperity for the few.
The opposition will get greater traction if it manages to strip the budget of all its finery to show what it looks denuded: who gets the cake and who is left sucking the lollipop.
In its aid, the opposition should invoke the supreme law, the Constitution. Let the debate be situated in various articles of the Constitution. More particularly, Article 3 ['.... gradual fulfillment of the fundamental principles, from each according to his ability and to each according to his work']; Article 37 ['.... Promote, with special care, the economic interests of backward classes or areas']; Article 38(a) ['preventing the concentration of wealth and means of production and distribution in the hands of a few']; and Article 38 (e) ['reduce disparity in income and earnings of individuals'].
In short, does this budget do anything to correct the growing inequalities, both individual and regional? What particular parts of the budget can be labelled 'pro poor'? Would it curtail further concentration of wealth or accentuate it? Does it take from each according to his ability, or does it take more from those with less ability?
A national budget has to be more than matching receipt, expenditure, and deficit numbers. It has to be anchored in sound policy objectives: what are we setting out to achieve. The eloquent Finance Minister would have been applauded by more than the usual suspects had he told us more about job creation and cost of living reductions, the two things that matter the most to the bottom 99%. We heard him say about the highest growth rate in the last 13 years, and we heard his growth target for fiscal 19. What we didn't hear him say was how many new jobs were created by this growth rate that has been going up since 2013 and how many jobs the even higher growth rate this year will create. We heard him say that inflation this year was contained (below forecast). What we didn't hear him say was what the combined effect of projected borrowings, pass-through effect of devaluation, and impact of the increased petroleum surcharge would mean for the common man. Not even a word about minimum wage!
What we didn't hear him say was if there were any measures to reduce the disparities for Balochistan.
Many a song has been sung about the great joy that the lowered (individual) income tax rates will bring to the teeming masses. Sorry, wrong number. In the universe of those eking out an existence you have to walk several miles to get to someone making a lac a month. The tax cut is a gift to the better off, not the poor. The constitutional hymn of 'from each according to his ability' was left unsung.
Having got this gift (on top of the amnesty) big business raised the spectre of 'de-corporatisation'; how lowered income tax rates for individuals will put a brake on capital formation. Their men in government couldn't give them all that they asked for - the numbers game wont allow that - but gave a road map, with a down payment this year, for a roll back of super tax and reduction of corporate tax; plus some goodies on dividends. And if you are wondering why exports, and stuck up refunds, were left for a later date it is because big business finds the domestic market more lucrative. If packaging materials got included we have to thank Haroon Akhtar for not forgetting and for not giving up.
Agriculture is a sad omission in the budget. When will the sophisticated urbanites running the Finance Ministry realize it is not about input costs; it is about how potatoes are purchased at one rupee a kilo in Sanghar but sold in Defence at thirty rupees. It is about R&D. It is about supply chains. It is, most importantly, about water and how the per cusec value add in Australia's Murray Darling basin is four times ours.
And not a whimper about the recently approved water policy!
Somewhere between the impoverished and big business resides the great hope, the middle class. How the budget impacts it is for the next column.
Our intention is not to denigrate big business. To the contrary, we recognize its criticality to growth and national economy. We also know it is led by good people who have their heart in the right place. We only wish to caution them against the unintended consequences of over-reach.
Above all, we fervently hope the haunting opening sentence of Chanson Douce, "The baby is dead", does not come to pass.
shabirahmed@yahoo.com