The results of the recent assembly elections in five states have weakened the Congress, the principal party in the United Progressive Alliance (UPA). Some believe the party's poll debacle has snuffed out hopes of any economic reforms before 2014, when the next general elections are due. Citigroup Global Markets and Standard Chartered Bank, for instance, believe the government lacks the political standing to undertake major policy decisions.
However, it is worth recollecting that in the past, some far-reaching reforms were carried out by shaky governments. In 1997, for instance, the United Front regime, a patchwork of smaller parties that kept the Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) out, chose to take a long-term view on fiscal rectitude. It put an end to indisciplined borrowing to bridge the fiscal deficit. A month after it signed an agreement with the Reserve Bank of India to end usage of ad hoc treasury bills, the government, led by H.D. Deve Gowda, was toppled. The reform, however, survived.
FULL COVERAGE:How Kingfisher landed itself in the mess
It is worth noting that, in the six general elections since 1991, a political party has won over 200 seats only twice, and even then without gaining a majority. On both occasions, it was the Congress. In 1991, it won 232 seats. And in 2009, it won 206 seats. And most significant economic reforms have taken place after 1991.
Home minister P. Chidambaram was a minister in 1991. He is in a unique position to compare the two eras. A few months ago, speaking at an event in New Delhi marking 20 years of economic reforms, Chidambaram said the "scale and impact" of the 1992 securities scandal was greater than the fallout of the 2G spectrum allocations. "The government (in 1991) did not allow itself to be distracted," he said. Perhaps it should take a leaf out of that book today.