If the substantive content of a policy changes in three years, the policy was not worth the paper it was written on. All that is established is that Jitin Prasada believes in the policy, while Paswan doesn’t. In all fairness, there is some dated academic literature establishing collusion in the Indian steel industry. But consequent to liberalisation, this also suggests decline in collusion. That is the reason one needs teeth to the CCI. But have you noticed that despite considerable ministerial verbal diarrhoea, none of the principal actors mentions the CCI? Paswan wants to refer the case to the MRTP Commission. One should re-read that Adam Smith quote between the lines.

The writer is a noted economist

bdebroy@gmail.com