UPA performance history has not been written by detractors. It has been written by its own disastrous policy-making. With a job creation record of 0.1% per annum and that too thanks to vigorous jobs growth in (h..mm) the construction sector (12% per annum), an inflation record of 63% in five years (Dec. 2008 to Dec. 2013) and a bankrupt government-owned banking sector, UPA wrote its own epitaph. Detractors were spared their sweat.
In the meantime, my friend sent me the link to another article that Shankar Sharma and Devina Mehra have written for NDTV Profit.
These lines caught my attention:
India, under the UPA II, has resisted the grandstanding temptation to show short term debt-fuelled, economic growth by spending its way out of trouble (the way GDP is calculated, the more you spend, even wastefully, the faster you grow! This is absurd, but true). [Link]
I am impressed that some one actually could write like this and wrote like this too because this is the polar opposite of what UPA did. Economic growth in UPA I and II is a case of debt-fuelled growth – government debt, domestic debt to the private sector and private sector external debt. The weights varied. It was domestic private debt mostly in UPA I and it was external debt and public debt mostly in UPA II although all three were resorted to in both UPA I and II. I
What India had under UPA was not economic growth but debt-fuelled binge. That is why India is still grappling with the hangover of stagflation.
If UPA could not arrest the growth slowdown in 2012-14, it was not because they exercised exemplary restraint. They had run out of scope to borrow and spend. Credit rating would have plummeted and the rupee and Indian assets would have followed suit with greater vigour.
This article will go down as another classic example of chutzpah (the standard one is that of a defendant pleading to be freed because he was now an orphan, after having shot his parents dead).