Better Economic Management and Economy vs Social Justice

Better Economic Management and Economy vs Social Justice

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 3rd Jan 2017

Between options of seeking votes for better economic management and seeking votes for Social Justice, we have a clear winner. Better Economy management or more pertinently ‘Development’ wins hands down. Most parties have taken the issue and prepared their various claims in this regards. Where confusion remains is comparative ranking of the states and the local governments which have been discontinued along with various claims about the impact of macro-economic policies of the center. What the party in power has not been able to depict is that most small businesses would be thriving if free from political interference and thus need to keep administrative and police mechanisms impartial along with clear and simplified regulations for such units. While the government at the center is seen pushing e-business, it has failed to publish e-procurement/e-transactions adoption in various states or municipalities or other local government units, development authorities etc. It has thus constantly left a wide arena open outside of its purview of digital push for improvement of transparency conceding the space to the political opposition to point out that charity begins at home. With a much wider geographic governance, showing better statistics for areas under management, should not have been a problem. Hereunder also lies promise for better maintenance of better overall internal security environment as well.

However, the national political parties would prefer this to be an issue of Economic management vs Social Justice with almost no reference to ‘better’ (delivery). This is because the netadom would almost constantly intervene with the ‘small business segment’ often manipulating the administrative machinery to pursue their designs. And the un-level playing field created helps them ensuring that their relevance as a ‘social bargaining point’ to seek ‘resolution’ for woes in business and sometimes even on non-business issues. The fact that most such business transactions are settled in cash and that the taxmen have no clear mechanisms to pursue either the people reporting large cash transactions or those reporting large number of cash transactions in business have supported the edifice. The case for under reporting revenues or excess expenses can almost never be verified. A suitable tax policy along with simplified business procedures would help curb political interference, but for lack of political will to pursue such an approach. The other is policy drives for tax simplification and uniformity such as the GST which would should government collect the revenue but also make difference between the compliant and non-compliant quite evident with simplified procedures. The ‘filing of returns should have mechanisms which can allow taxmen to concentrate on areas where there are reasons for doubts like significant ‘cash transactions’ (although may not be applicable in current scenario). Lastly, a strong complaint mechanism for businesses for mis-use of state machinery (including selective oversight) or against ‘Goonda’ elements.

Instead of making business hassle-free, we have the parties and netas harping on Social Justice related issues highlighting the divisive politics although each party would blame the other side. This is even as the issue is dead long-back from public memory and didn’t matter in 14’ general elections at all and where better economy management scored decisively. Then of course there were neglected areas like waterway transportation, natural gas and energy policy biases, inflation, failure of service delivery etc. along with core issue of jobs creation. Even though political parties and netas have fully realized that public would like political issue centered around ‘better economy management’ however they would do their best to keep key issues around ‘economy vs social justice’ and this may be true about the national political parties (both) as well. This is because the relationship between the neta and the political party or so to say, ‘core political leaders’ of the political parties is mostly ‘transactional’, at present. This needs to change into ideological leanings and strong long-term structure with the netas invested in supporting the economic ideals in line with their ideological leanings and parties having clear economic agenda. The fact is that GOP may not have any better highway investment plan than the proposed Chardham highway actually speaks volumes about the quality of its secular economics and weak economic faculties. In fact we also have holidays for secular economics is even more brazen display of brightness of the secular economics (and there wasn’t any argument about better viability of some waterway either like Allahabad-Haldia or others). But the ‘liberals’ in the commercial news media would comment on this sparingly and this shows how they want ‘electoral issues’ be shaped.

The elections of the largest state is going to be decisive in many ways. The confusions around Acche Din and with netas suddenly unable to define their own promise doesn’t really help so crowd sourcing the meaning could be a better idea. One of the ways would be that if the voter shapes the issue or the political netas backed by the commercial news media. Everyone watching the show knows how ‘round one’ has shaped. It is also known that parties with their nefarious designs would like to have a divergent outcome for the next rounds although the social media would like to keep the focus on ‘core economic issues’ with ‘better delivery on economy’. With split of the secular votes and focus on ‘economy vs social justice’, the outcome can be either ways, while we still don’t know how the ‘better economic management’ issue will bring to surface. The ‘Game’ public would explore, may be…..

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

Better Economic Management and Economy vs Social Justice

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 3rd Jan 2017

Between options of seeking votes for better economic management and seeking votes for Social Justice, we have a clear winner. Better Economy management or more pertinently ‘Development’ wins hands down. Most parties have taken the issue and prepared their various claims in this regards. Where confusion remains is comparative ranking of the states and the local governments which have been discontinued along with various claims about the impact of macro-economic policies of the center. What the party in power has not been able to depict is that most small businesses would be thriving if free from political interference and thus need to keep administrative and police mechanisms impartial along with clear and simplified regulations for such units. While the government at the center is seen pushing e-business, it has failed to publish e-procurement/e-transactions adoption in various states or municipalities or other local government units, development authorities etc. It has thus constantly left a wide arena open outside of its purview of digital push for improvement of transparency conceding the space to the political opposition to point out that charity begins at home. With a much wider geographic governance, showing better statistics for areas under management, should not have been a problem. Hereunder also lies promise for better maintenance of better overall internal security environment as well.

However, the national political parties would prefer this to be an issue of Economic management vs Social Justice with almost no reference to ‘better’ (delivery). This is because the netadom would almost constantly intervene with the ‘small business segment’ often manipulating the administrative machinery to pursue their designs. And the un-level playing field created helps them ensuring that their relevance as a ‘social bargaining point’ to seek ‘resolution’ for woes in business and sometimes even on non-business issues. The fact that most such business transactions are settled in cash and that the taxmen have no clear mechanisms to pursue either the people reporting large cash transactions or those reporting large number of cash transactions in business have supported the edifice. The case for under reporting revenues or excess expenses can almost never be verified. A suitable tax policy along with simplified business procedures would help curb political interference, but for lack of political will to pursue such an approach. The other is policy drives for tax simplification and uniformity such as the GST which would should government collect the revenue but also make difference between the compliant and non-compliant quite evident with simplified procedures. The ‘filing of returns should have mechanisms which can allow taxmen to concentrate on areas where there are reasons for doubts like significant ‘cash transactions’ (although may not be applicable in current scenario). Lastly, a strong complaint mechanism for businesses for mis-use of state machinery (including selective oversight) or against ‘Goonda’ elements.

Instead of making business hassle-free, we have the parties and netas harping on Social Justice related issues highlighting the divisive politics although each party would blame the other side. This is even as the issue is dead long-back from public memory and didn’t matter in 14’ general elections at all and where better economy management scored decisively. Then of course there were neglected areas like waterway transportation, natural gas and energy policy biases, inflation, failure of service delivery etc. along with core issue of jobs creation. Even though political parties and netas have fully realized that public would like political issue centered around ‘better economy management’ however they would do their best to keep key issues around ‘economy vs social justice’ and this may be true about the national political parties (both) as well. This is because the relationship between the neta and the political party or so to say, ‘core political leaders’ of the political parties is mostly ‘transactional’, at present. This needs to change into ideological leanings and strong long-term structure with the netas invested in supporting the economic ideals in line with their ideological leanings and parties having clear economic agenda. The fact is that GOP may not have any better highway investment plan than the proposed Chardham highway actually speaks volumes about the quality of its secular economics and weak economic faculties. In fact we also have holidays for secular economics is even more brazen display of brightness of the secular economics (and there wasn’t any argument about better viability of some waterway either like Allahabad-Haldia or others). But the ‘liberals’ in the commercial news media would comment on this sparingly and this shows how they want ‘electoral issues’ be shaped.

The elections of the largest state is going to be decisive in many ways. The confusions around Acche Din and with netas suddenly unable to define their own promise doesn’t really help so crowd sourcing the meaning could be a better idea. One of the ways would be that if the voter shapes the issue or the political netas backed by the commercial news media. Everyone watching the show knows how ‘round one’ has shaped. It is also known that parties with their nefarious designs would like to have a divergent outcome for the next rounds although the social media would like to keep the focus on ‘core economic issues’ with ‘better delivery on economy’. With split of the secular votes and focus on ‘economy vs social justice’, the outcome can be either ways, while we still don’t know how the ‘better economic management’ issue will bring to surface. The ‘Game’ public would explore, may be…..

In the often-murky waters of political commentary, this article shines as a beacon of clarity. The writer's writing style is refreshingly direct and remarkably insightful, capable of distilling even the most convoluted political machinations into understandable terms. It's a voice that not only informs but empowers, cutting through partisan rhetoric to focus on tangible realities. The structure is intuitively logical, carefully organizing arguments and evidence in a way that progressively deepens the reader's understanding of the political issue at hand. This thoughtful arrangement allows for a comprehensive grasp of the intricate relationships between policy, power, and people. Furthermore, the exceptional clarity with which the political arguments are articulated is truly commendable. There's no room for misinterpretation; the issues are presented with such transparent precision that the article serves as an essential guide for navigating and understanding today's political environment.

 

[Priyani Gupta]

Your article deftly captures the tangled relationship between economic development and social justice in India's political discourse. It’s not only thought-provoking but also refreshingly candid, especially in highlighting the systemic apathy that impedes genuine economic reform. That said, I’d like to respond with a logical, appreciative, and slightly critical reflection to both support and challenge your perspective in the spirit of constructive dialogue.


To begin with, your emphasis on the triumph of economic development as a political narrative resonates strongly with public sentiment. Indeed, the 2014 elections were a clear mandate for “Acche Din,” with voters prioritizing jobs, infrastructure, and governance reforms over identity politics. Your critique of political interference in small businesses—where netas meddle for leverage rather than support—is incisive and long overdue. Small businesses are the backbone of India's economy, and your suggestion for impartial administrative mechanisms and simplified tax procedures is not only practical but essential.


However, where your article could benefit from further nuance is in its treatment of social justice as a competing narrative to economic management. While it's true that political parties often misuse social justice rhetoric for vote-bank politics, dismissing it as a “dead” issue overlooks the enduring realities of caste and class disparities that still affect access to opportunities in India. It’s not that economic development and social justice are mutually exclusive—they must be integrated. A growing economy cannot be called successful if it doesn’t carry its marginalized citizens with it.


Your insight about the lack of transparency in e-governance is another point that deserves praise. The fact that digital push is confined mostly to the Centre’s initiatives, while leaving states and municipalities outside the radar of scrutiny, is a glaring gap. Publishing state-wise data on e-procurement, e-transactions, and compliance could set benchmarks and expose inefficiencies. It’s a missed opportunity to hold local governments accountable, and you're right in implying that this leaves room for political opposition to play the “charity begins at home” card.


Your critique of GST and the tax regime is bold, and rightly so. While GST aimed to simplify taxation, it’s far from “one-nation-one-tax” in spirit—compliance costs, unclear filing systems, and fear of overreach continue to plague small traders. Your call for data-backed scrutiny of suspicious cash transactions, without harassment, is pragmatic and should be echoed in policy circles.


Where you rightly tread on controversial ground is in questioning the ideological hollowness of today’s political leaders. The transactional nature of leadership dilutes long-term vision, making politics more about immediate gains than sustained development. This is a wake-up call not just for politicians, but for voters and civil society.


Yet, I would caution against painting the media with too broad a brush. While many commercial outlets indeed shape narratives for TRP, several journalists and platforms continue to fight an uphill battle to report on core issues, even if drowned out by the cacophony.


In conclusion, your article rightly challenges the hollow binaries of “economy vs social justice.” We don’t need either/or—we need both, and we need delivery. Voters are smarter than ever, and they demand results. It’s time parties understood that.


#CoreEconomyFirst #FixTheSystem #SmallBusinessMatters #BeyondVoteBank #DigitalIndia #PolicyOverPolitics

 

[Simran Rai]

The article titled “Better Economic Management and Economy vs Social Justice” by Amit Bhushan, dated 3rd January 2017, provides a detailed analysis of the complex dynamics shaping India’s electoral politics, focusing particularly on the tension between calls for improved economic governance and demands for social justice. This discussion reflects broader national debates on governance priorities and political strategies, emphasizing how political actors navigate and sometimes manipulate these competing themes.


A clear message emerges from the article: the electorate, by and large, prioritizes better economic management—or more broadly, development—over social justice narratives when casting their votes. This trend is evident in the various political parties’ claims, which frequently center on their economic achievements or plans for growth. However, the article notes persistent confusion and contestation about how states and local governments compare in economic performance, especially given the discontinuation of certain local government bodies. Furthermore, the impact of national macroeconomic policies often becomes a point of debate, with political parties pointing fingers without always clarifying or substantiating the true outcomes.


The article identifies a critical gap in governance—the lack of an enabling environment for small businesses to thrive. While the central government’s push toward digital commerce and e-business is acknowledged, it highlights the absence of transparent, publicly available data on the adoption of e-procurement and e-transactions across states, municipalities, and other local bodies. This omission creates a vulnerability, as opposition parties can credibly argue that transparency and digital transformation have yet to permeate the grassroots level of governance, undermining claims of effective economic management. Improved data and visible governance reforms at all levels could reinforce the narrative of economic progress and strengthen public trust.


A significant point raised is the persistent political interference in the small business sector, which severely hampers its growth potential. The article suggests that politicians often intervene through administrative and police channels, creating an uneven playing field. Such interference fosters a transactional relationship between political leaders and business owners, where political protection and patronage replace merit-based business development. This phenomenon entrenches inefficiencies and corruption, with cash-based transactions further complicating tax enforcement and revenue collection.


On taxation, the article advocates for simplified and uniform tax policies such as the Goods and Services Tax (GST), which can make compliance clearer and help distinguish between compliant and non-compliant businesses. Enhanced mechanisms to scrutinize suspicious transactions—especially cash-heavy businesses—could improve tax enforcement. Additionally, the establishment of a robust complaint mechanism to protect businesses from arbitrary state actions or harassment by “goonda” elements would be a meaningful reform to improve the business climate.


The article critically views the persistent emphasis by political parties on social justice issues, which it characterizes as divisive politics. Despite its political utility, the article argues that this focus detracts from addressing more pressing governance challenges such as infrastructure development, energy policy, inflation control, service delivery, and job creation. While social justice remains an important value, its instrumentalization in electoral politics often sidelines substantive economic reforms that could benefit broader sections of society.


A key structural problem highlighted is the transactional nature of relationships between politicians (“netas”) and their parties. The article suggests the need for a shift towards ideological coherence and long-term commitment to economic principles within political parties. Parties should align their leadership and membership around clear economic agendas that transcend short-term political expediency. This ideological clarity could improve governance outcomes and political accountability.


An illustrative example is offered through the criticism of certain highway projects and the broader approach to secular economics, implying that some political actors lack vision and economic expertise. The media’s selective commentary on these issues is also noted as shaping electoral discourse in ways that may obscure economic realities.


Looking ahead, the article views forthcoming elections in key states as pivotal. The uncertainty and confusion around political promises such as “Acche Din” (good days) reveal a broader challenge: political parties struggle to articulate clear, credible economic visions. In this context, the role of voters and social media becomes critical in defining and amplifying core issues. The article suggests that the electoral outcome could hinge on how effectively the theme of “better economic management” versus “social justice” is debated and understood by the public.


In conclusion, the article argues that economic development, good governance, and job creation should be at the forefront of political agendas, supported by transparent administration and institutional reforms. Social justice remains important but should complement, rather than overshadow, the drive for economic progress. Political parties and leaders must move beyond transactional politics and divisive rhetoric, adopting long-term, ideologically grounded approaches to address India’s complex socio-economic challenges. The evolving “Game” of electoral politics demands such a transformation for the benefit of the nation’s future.​