IPA Newspack
  • Home
  • now
  • politics
  • business
  • markets

IPA /

IPA Special

IPA Special

RBI Affidavit On Demonetisation Obfuscates Rather Than Clarifying

By Arun Kumar

In a vibrant democracy, critique of policy a) makes for a) better policies, and b) helps correct mistakes as they occur. Official spokespersons will always argue that the government is doing the best under given circumstances. But today, the world is changing so fast that mistakes will occur because the past may not be a guide for the future. Further, full information is not available even about the present. So, policies are made in an uncertain environment, leading to heightened risk of policy failure. Democracy provides the self-correcting mechanism when mistakes occur.

While genuine mistakes will occur, there is a class of decisions based on misperceptions and inadequate consultation that go horribly wrong. Demonetisation is an example of a needless policy which failed because of lack of consultation and inadequate understanding of the issues. It led to a policy-induced crisis that deeply impacted the nation: all because democracy was not allowed its full play.

Soon after demonetisation was launched many challenged the decision in the courts because it was patently unfair to the marginalised who suffered hugely from it. The Supreme Court has now taken up this case, when six years have elapsed and the policy cannot now be reversed. It will be no relief to those who died or lost out. Compensation cannot be given because it would be hard to estimate who lost how much. Even if compensation is ordered by the court, citizens will only pay themselves through the government. The permanent damage to the economy cannot be restored.

The government affidavit filed on November 16 justified demonetisation by claiming that it was a part of a bigger policy push to digitise and formalise the economy – in its view a beneficial step. Critics have pointed out that not only would it not be beneficial, but it was not a goal of the initial announcement. It was an attempt to shift the goalpost when it became clear that demonetisation would not achieve the initial three goals set for it. The affidavit, in its paragraph 15 justifies the decision to demonetise the large denomination currency notes by stating that it was a “well-considered decision” taken after “extensive consultation with the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) and advanced preparation”. The implication is that if the decision was wrong, it is the RBI’s (the expert’s) fault.

The lawyers representing the petitioners have argued that the process required to be followed for announcing demonetisation was not followed. So, even if the policy cannot be reversed now, at least it should be declared to be invalid so that this kind of mistake is not repeated in the future.

Formally, the step should have been initiated by the RBI, but it was ordered by the government. The fact is that the RBI Board simply recommended it within minutes and sent the resolution to the Union Cabinet, which also adopted it in minutes and the policy was announced. So, neither the RBI Board nor the Cabinet gave a `well considered decision’ based on a full deliberation.

The RBI’s affidavit submitted recently has countered this argument. It could not have done otherwise. Just as the Board complied with the government’s instructions to recommend demonetisation on November 8. 2016, the RBI cannot contradict the government’s position on consultation and preparations. But where is the evidence of `extensive consultation’ and `preparations being made’?

`Extensive consultation’ does not imply concurrence of the RBI with the government’s view. The government’s affidavit said that discussions were going on for eight months prior to the announcement. For most of that time, it was economist Dr. Raghuram Rajan who was the RBI Governor, and he is on record that he advised the government against the move. So, any opinion that may have been given during the consultation was not for demonetisation. Yet, the government went ahead. That makes it the government’s decision.

Further, for most of that time, from June to August 2016, an Income Declaration Scheme was in operation to unearth black money. It was repeatedly stated then that a lot of black money would be unearthed under the scheme. If that had happened, demonetisation was not required. By September 2016, it was clear that this scheme had failed to unearth any substantial amount of black money. So, only then the idea of implementing demonetisation would have firmed up.

Economist Dr. Urjit Patel took over from Dr. Rajan in September 2016. He also did not seem to be in favour of this step. So, it appears that even if there was consultation, RBI’s concurrence was not there. That makes it a unilateral decision of the political authority of the country.

Reports suggest that the full Board was not present at the meeting, and they had little time to reflect on the matter – perhaps a few minutes to take such a momentous decision. So, the Board’s recommendation could not have been based on any detailed considerations. Even on a small matter like the repo rate and monetary policy, the RBI’s Monetary Policy Committee deliberates for at least two full days. So, how could a few minutes suffice for this momentous decision? If the government demanded it, the recommendation had to be given, and for that a few minutes are adequate. Does the Board consist of independent people who can stand up against the government’s diktat?

Further, the mess-up that followed the notification of November 8, 2016 suggests that even if the preparations were made, they were totally inadequate. Banks were not prepared, ATMs were not ready, adequate amount of new currency notes were not available, among several things. Repeated changes in rules and regulations were announced and the public was harassed no end. All evidence suggests that preparations were hardly in place since the decision was sudden.

There is a contradiction between the argument that secrecy had to be maintained so few people knew about it, and that `extensive consultation’ took place. It does appear that few people knew of the decision, and the Prime Minister in his address to the nation on November 8, 2016 said as much.

Even if the RBI Board recommended demonetisation, the move was initiated by the government – just the day before the policy was announced. It is not that the RBI initiated the move. It could not have since it is no expert on the issue of black income generation or on terrorism. And, the RBI does not have an estimate of how much of fake currency is in circulation at a given point of time. It only knows how many fake currency notes are caught/detected and this is a negligible amount compared to the total amount of currency in circulation.

In none of the equations the RBI uses to make policy is there a variable called ‘black incomes’. In its analysis of prices or growth of the economy, the RBI does not take into account the black economy. That is because it has a limited assigned task – to take care of money supply and foreign exchange, and regulate banks, among other things. The expertise of the few RBI Board members present in the meeting on the subject was even less and they had to approve the decision in minutes.

So, the Union Ministry of Finance telling the RBI to propose the step a day before the announcement on a subject on which it has little expertise is neither consultation nor a considered opinion. Can the RBI’s affidavit then be taken to accurately reflect the correct picture? (IPA Service)

Courtesy: The Leaflet

IPA Special

After Yatra’s Success, Rahul Gandhi’s Main Task Should Be To Energise The Congress

February 7, 2023
IPA Special

Hate Crimes Have No Place In Any Country, Secular Or Religious

February 7, 2023
IPA Special

India Needs Fundamental Changes In Agricultural Policies

February 7, 2023
IPA Special

Non-Implementation Of Pending Government Assurances In Parliament Is Now Normal

February 7, 2023
IPA Special

Strong Kerala Economic Recovery Despite Odds

February 7, 2023
IPA Special

Starting As An Ambitious Army Officer, Pervez Musharraf Died A Lonely Man

February 7, 2023
Politics

Govt approaches Opposition to end parliament logjam

February 7, 2023
Politics

ED questions Rahul’s aide in TMC money laundering case

February 7, 2023
Politics

Tripura heads for triangular contest in assembly polls

February 7, 2023
Politics

BJP protest to seek Kejriwal’s resignation over ED filing

February 7, 2023
Happening Now

Siddaramaiah Hindutva vs Hindu remark sparks row

February 7, 2023
IPA Special

West Unlikely To Stop Fuelling Russia-Ukraine War Soon

February 6, 2023
IPA Special

BJP’s Reverses In Legislative Council Elections In Nagpur Is A Bad Omen For Ruling Alliance

February 6, 2023
IPA Special

Shocks That The Indian Economy Faced Since 2014

February 6, 2023
IPA Special

Nitish Kumar Is A Victim Of Trust Deficit Amongst His Coalition Leaders

February 6, 2023
Happening Now

Parliament adjourned amid Opposition protest on Adani row

February 6, 2023
Politics

Delhi Assembly fails to elect mayor even on third attempt

February 6, 2023
Politics

Another jolt to Bengal BJP as MLA joins Trinamool

February 6, 2023
Politics

Mann govt faces heat over sacrilege case

February 6, 2023
Politics

AAP to contest all seats in MP assembly elections

February 5, 2023

An appeal

The legacy of IPA, founded by Nikhil Chakravartty, the doyen of journalism in India, to keep the flag of independent media flying high, is facing the threat of extinction due to the effect of the Covid pandemic. Only an emergency funding can avert such an eventuality. We appeal to all those who believe in the freedom of expression to contribute to this noble cause.
Click here to learn more

Share

Reply

  • 0
More on IPA

After Yatra’s Success, Rahul Gandhi’s Main Task Should Be To Energise The Congress

February 7, 2023 4:35 pm | IPA Staff

By Kalyani Shankar How does one assess the impact of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s just completed Bharat Jodo yatra? Has he achieved his goal vis-a-vis...

IPA Special

Hate Crimes Have No Place In Any Country, Secular Or Religious

February 7, 2023 4:34 pm | IPA Staff

By Sushil Kutty The courts of the land should watch their words. The Supreme Court, especially. The top court cannot utter words that put a...

IPA Special

India Needs Fundamental Changes In Agricultural Policies

February 7, 2023 4:34 pm | IPA Staff

By Dr. Gyan Pathak While policies and institutional arrangements aimed at intensification and growth of the Indian agriculture sector are inevitable for the livelihoods and...

IPA Special

Non-Implementation Of Pending Government Assurances In Parliament Is Now Normal

February 7, 2023 4:33 pm | IPA Staff

By Chinmay Bendre The Budget Session of Parliament began on January 31 and will continue till April 6. While taxation policies continue to be a...

IPA Special

After Yatra’s Success, Rahul Gandhi’s Main Task Should Be To Energise The Congress

in IPA Special
Feb 7, 2023   ·  

Hate Crimes Have No Place In Any Country, Secular Or Religious

in IPA Special
Feb 7, 2023   ·  

India Needs Fundamental Changes In Agricultural Policies

in IPA Special
Feb 7, 2023   ·  

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow us on
Up Next: China’s Covid-19 Spread Is A Wake Up Call To Complacent West And India
©2020 -2021 India Press Agency, All Rights Reserved
Newspack by India Press Agency
logo
  • Home
  • now
  • politics
  • business
  • markets