What do we expect the incoming government to do, so that the trajectory becomes 7.5 per cent rather than 6.5 per cent, or recovery occurs before October? Big-bang reforms should occur in the first 100 days before steady-state resistance takes over. On economic reforms, the UPA flaunts NREGA and RTI. RTI was pushed through during that window and though NREGA was formally launched in August 2005, the decision had already been taken during the first 100 days, when the National Advisory Council still possessed some bite. During 1991-96 too, significant reforms occurred during the first 100 days. However, this 100-day hypothesis isn’t quite true of either the UF or the NDA. Does that validate a hypothesis that steady-state resistance to reforms is greater under Congress? With (3), (5) or (6), incremental allies will stonewall enough to jettison all

reforms. The first 100 days won’t shake India, except with (3), we might have a Right to Food Bill.

This isn’t simply a matter of National Common Minimum

Programme (NCMP) or National Agenda for Governance (NAG). It is true common minimum is more highest-common-factor than lowest-common-multiple and is thus a common maximum programme that becomes a binding constraint. However, not all reforms require legislative changes. Even within NCMP constraints, reforms are possible. Was it because of the NCMP that the roadways programme collapsed under the UPA? Was it because of NAG that it took off under the NDA? Administrative decisions are often determined by ministers and it is here that collateral damage by incremental parties is greatest. With (5), a fairly likely scenario is defence with SP, home with RJD, mines, petroleum and fertilisers with LJP and JMM, commerce and telecom with DMK, agriculture with NCP. And who knows? Perhaps the historic blunder of a PM from the Left and even finance with an incremental ally? That’s the reason a 6.5 per cent trajectory is independent of any Central government

... contd.