Pulse of the matter

Toor_Dal_Tur_dal

 

The Economic Survey of 2015-2016 is a lovely document which goes into great detail on what is wrong with India on the economic front and offers good workable solutions to solve these problems.

One of the points that the Survey makes is regarding the Indian agriculture becoming cereal centric. The reason for this lies in the fact that the government procures rice and wheat from the farmers at the minimum support price(MSP). While the government announces an MSP for 23 crops, it largely buys only rice, wheat and some cotton. For sugarcane there is an MSP like engagement where the government fixes prices and the sugar mills are legally obligated to buy sugarcane from the farmers at that price.

As the Survey points out: “In principle MSP exists for most farmers for most crops, it’s realistic impact is quite limited for most farmers in the country. Public procurement at MSP has disproportionately focused on wheat, rice and sugarcane and perhaps even at the expense of other crops such as pulses and oilseeds.”

This has effectively led to a situation where the government has large stocks of rice and wheat much above the buffer stock norms. But it also leads to a situation where there are frequent spikes in the price of pulses. In the recent past the price of tur dal (or pigeon pea) had touched Rs 200 per kg. Elections have been lost in the past on onion prices going up and given this, elections can easily be lost in the future with price of pulses going up.

Importing pulses is really not a solution because India is the number one producer as well a consumer of pulses in the world. As the Survey puts it: “Given that India is the major producer and consumer of pulses, imports cannot be the main source for meeting domestic demand.”

This means that the farmers need to be incentivised to produce pulses and at the same the yields on pulses also need to go up. The question is how can the government incentivise farmers to produce pulses and wean them away from producing rice and wheat.

As the report titled Price Policy for Kharif Crops—The Marketing Season of 2015-2016 points out: “A pertinent question arises as to why farmers are not wholeheartedly diversifying towards oilseeds and pulses. Based on Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices’s interaction with a wide spectrum of farmers and also based on field visits, it emerged that farmers need a backup plan in the form of reasonably strong procurement machinery to be put in place to fall back upon when the prices fall below minimum support price.”

Along these lines, the Economic Survey recommends a “strengthened procurement system” for pulses. And the good part is that the finance minister Arun Jaitley has gone ahead with this suggestion in the budget.

As Jaitley said in his budget speech: “Effective arrangements have been made for pulses procurement… Incentives are being given for enhancement of pulses production. Rs 500 crores under National Food Security Mission has been assigned to pulses.”

Also, the government has plans of creating a buffer stock for pulses like it has for rice and wheat. As Jaitley said during his speech: “A number of measures have been taken to deal with the problem of abrupt increase in prices of pulses. Government has approved creation of buffer stock of pulses through procurement at Minimum Support Price and at market price through Price Stabilisation Fund. This Fund has been provided with a corpus of  Rs 900 crore to support market interventions.”

Given the current structure of the agricultural economy these are steps in the right direction. With the government buying more pulses at the minimum support price, it will incentivise more farmers to grow them, improving the total production of pulses. This is very important given that pulses are a huge source of protein for vegetarians.

The other big problem with pulses is that most of it is grown on unirrigated land. As the Economic Survey points out: “In contrast, a large share of output in wheat, rice and sugarcane – in Punjab, Haryana and UP – is from irrigated land. In water scarce Maharashtra, all sugarcane is grown on irrigated land.

Meeting the high and growing demand for pulses in the country will require large increases in pulses production on irrigated land, but this will not occur if agriculture policies continue to focus largely on cereals and sugarcane.” A better procurement policy for pulses will help in increasing production.

Further, pulses have a low yield. In fact, the yield in India is lower than other key pulse producing countries like Brazil, Myanmar and Nigeria, which have better yields than that in India. Madhya Pradesh which is the main state producing pulses, has a yield of 938 kg per hectare. In comparison, China has yield of 1550 kg per hectare.

What has not helped is the fact that the yield has more or less remained flat. In 2007-2008, 826 kg of tur dal was produced per hectare. By 2013-2014, this number had risen to only 859 kg per hectare, at a rate of less than 1% per year (around 0.7% to be precise).

As Dharmakirti Joshi and Dipti Deshpande economists at Crisil Research point out in a research note titled Every third year, pulses catch price-fire: “Pulses account for about 20% of area under foodgrain production, but less than 10% of foodgrain output. Also, over time, production of pulses has failed to catch up with demand. Output has grown less than 2% average in the last 20 years, while acreage has grown even lesser at 0.8%. Not surprisingly, yield rose only 0.9%.”

In order to improve yields, either more pulses need to be grown under irrigated areas, or the unirrigated areas need access to irrigation. The second option will take a lot of time to achieve. Given this, it is important that farming of pulses is encouraged in areas which have access to irrigation. And that is precisely what Jaitley has tried to do with this budget.

There may be lot that is wrong with Jaitley’s budget, but he has got it right when it comes to pulses.
(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

The column originally appeared in The Asian Age and Deccan Chronicle on March 2, 2016

Budget 2016: Does the extra deduction of Rs 50,000 for home-buyers really help?

home

In the budget speech finance minister Arun Jaitley made yesterday he said: “For the ‘first – home buyers’, I propose to give deduction for additional interest of Rs 50,000 per annum for loans up to Rs 35 lakh sanctioned during the next financial year, provided the value of the house does not exceed Rs 50 lakh.”

How much will this help? Let’s understand it through an example. Let’s take the case of a man borrowing Rs 35 lakh from the State Bank of India at 9.55% per year, repayable over a period of 20 years. The EMI for this works out at Rs 32,739.

Every time an EMI is paid, a part of the principal is repaid as well. And the remaining part goes towards the payment of interest. Hence, with every EMI paid, the principal amount of the loan that still needs to be paid comes down. This means with every EMI, the interest component of the EMI keeps coming down, and the principal repayment keeps going up.

In the first 12 EMIs, a total interest of around Rs 3.32 lakh is paid. Currently, only a deduction of up to Rs 2 lakh is available while calculating the taxable income on, when it comes to the interest paid on a home loan for a self-occupied property. Now a deduction of upto Rs 2.5 lakh can be taken to the condition the loan is upto Rs 35 lakh and value of property is not greater than Rs 50 lakh. Hence, this is a good move to that extent. For those in the top income-tax bracket of 30.9%, it means a tax saving of Rs 15,450.

Assuming the interest rate continues to be the same, how will things pan out. In the second year, the interest paid amounts to around Rs 3.26 lakh. The extra deduction of Rs 50,000 will continue to be available in the second year as well.

How many years is this extra deduction likely to be available? It will be available until the interest part of the EMI continues to be greater than Rs 2 lakh, the deduction which is already available, assuming the government continues with this provision in the years to come.

How long will this last? This will go on for 13 years. After that the interest being paid will fall below Rs 2 lakh per year and hence, this extra deduction of Rs 50,000 will be of no use. Given this, the tax saving will turn out to be reasonably good over a long period of time.

This move will help many people living in cities, which come after the metropolitan cities. It will also benefit those living in cities who are comfortable living on the outskirts.

Will it provide a fillip to the real estate industry? I am not so sure about that. Lack of money is not the only reason that people have stayed away from buying real estate. High prices continue to remain a huge issue. Another major reason is the inability of the industry to deliver a home on time. Further, a few builders have disappeared after taking on money from prospective buyers. All these reasons have kept the home-buyer away.

Also, it needs to be pointed out here that the finance minister could have done the cause of people looking to buy a home to live in even more good, by plugging a huge loophole in the Income Tax Act, when it comes to home loans.

On the self-occupied property, an interest of up to Rs 2 lakh can be claimed as a tax deduction. This limit applies only to the self-occupied property and not on other homes that a tax payer may choose to buy.

Any amount of interest paid on home loans can be claimed as a deduction as long as a “notional rent” is added to the income. We all know that these days “rents” are very low in comparison to the EMIs that need to be paid in order to repay the home loan. The rental yield (rent dividend by market value of the home) is in the region of 2-3%.

Even after deducting a notional rent, the interest component tends to be massive during the initial years and helps people with two or more homes, claim huge tax deductions.

This “deduction” has been used over the years by well-paid corporate employees to bring down their taxable income. Further, individuals who use this deduction benefit on two fronts—tax deduction as well as capital appreciation. Even if, the capital appreciation is not huge, such individuals are happy in claiming just the deduction than actually making money from an increase in price. Hence, they may not sell the flat, even in a scenario where prices may be falling.

While offering a tax deduction on a self-occupied property makes some sense, there is no logic to offering a tax deduction on a home, one is not living in. This “deduction” needs to be plugged immediately as it encourages speculation.

Jaitley could have done the cause of the prospective home buyer even more good by plugging in this loophole. But sadly that did not happen.

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

The column was originally published on Firstpost on March 1, 2016

 

Modi govt is still paying for the over-borrowing sins of UPA

narendra_modi

The finance minister Arun Jaitley managed to balance his numbers and meet the fiscal deficit target of 3.9% of gross domestic product (GDP) that he had set for this financial year. He has also projected a fiscal deficit of 3.5% of GDP for the next financial year, 2016-2017.

In the budget speech made last year, Jaitley had said that the government will achieve a fiscal deficit of 3.5% of GDP in 2016-17; and 3% of GDP in 2017-18.
In order to project a fiscal deficit of 3.5% of GDP, Jaitley has made extremely optimistic assumptions on the revenue receipts front (basically the income of the government) and understated the likely expenditure.

Having said that he is also facing the problem of excess borrowing carried out by the previous Congress led United Progressive Alliance government. These borrowings are now maturing and need to be repaid.

 

In Rs crore2013-2014(Actuals)2014-2015(Actuals)2015-2016 (Revised estimates)2016-2017 (Budget estimates)
1. Repayment of debt162976207517250709284694
2. Total Interest Payments374254402444442620492670
3. Total Debt Servicing(1+2)537230609961693329777364
4. Revenue Receipts1014724110147312060841377022
5. Nominal GDP11272764124882051356719215065010
Debt Servicing Ratio (3/4)52.94%55.38%57.49%56.45%
Debt Servicing Ratio(3/5)4.77%4.88%5.11%5.16%

Source: www.indiabudget.nic.in

 

As can be seen from the accompanying table, the repayment of maturing debt as well as the total interest that needs to be repaid on outstanding has been going up over the last few years.

How does the debt servicing number look? Debt servicing is defined as the amount of money a government spends towards repaying the debt as well as paying interest on the outstanding debt.

Any budget number should not be looked at in an absolute sort of way. Hence, in this case we look at the debt servicing ratio. This ratio is obtained by dividing the money spent towards debt servicing by the revenue receipts i.e. the income of the government. What the table clearly tells us is that the debt servicing ratio of the government has worsened over the years.

In 2013-2014, the debt servicing ratio was at 52.94%. In 2016-2017, it will be at 56.45%.

We can also calculate the debt servicing ratio as a percentage of the nominal GDP. It is clear from the table that this ratio has worsened as well over the years.

The actual number will turn out to be higher than this, given that Jaitley has made extremely optimistic assumptions when it comes to the growth in revenue receipts.

Further, the government expects to earn Rs 56,500 crore through the disinvestment route in 2016-2017. It expects to earn Rs 36,000 crore by selling stakes in the companies it owns. And it expects to earn Rs 20,500 crore by selling stakes in companies in which it has a minor share. This is referred to as strategic disinvestment.

The interesting thing is that 2015-2016, the government expects to earn only Rs 25,312 crore through the disinvestment route. A major portion of this has been picked up by the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India. Not a single rupee has been earned through the strategic disinvestment route.

After taking this into account, it is safe to say that the government has made a fairly aggressive assumption on what it wants to earn through the disinvestment route. The chances of these numbers materialising in reality are low.

Hence, the debt servicing ratio is likely to higher in 2016-2017. This is majorly because of the huge expansion in government expenditure carried out by the previous Congress led UPA government. A higher expenditure meant a greater fiscal deficit, which in turn means more borrowing to finance the expenditure. Fiscal deficit is the difference between what a government earns and what it spends.

In 2007-2008, the fiscal deficit of the government was at 2.7% of the GDP. This jumped to 6.4% of the GDP in 2009-2010. In 2011-2012, the number was at 5.7% of the GDP. These huge fiscal deficits were financed through higher borrowing. And this borrowing now needs to be repaid. Meanwhile, the interest payments have also increased as the debt keeps accumulating.

This is one reason behind why Jaitley has made optimistic revenue receipt projections in the budget and understated the expenditure majorly. He needed to do this in order to come up with a 3.5% of GDP fiscal deficit number.

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

The column originally appeared on SwarajyaMag on March 1, 2016

Jaitley’s Fiscal Deficit Numbers Don’t Really Add Up

Fostering Public Leadership - World Economic Forum - India Economic Summit 2010

Dear Reader,

By the time you read this piece, you would have been bombarded with a huge amount of analysis on the budget the finance minister Arun Jaitley presented yesterday.

Nevertheless, most such analysis misses out on carefully looking at the fiscal deficit number, which is basically what the budget is all about. Most other things that finance ministers talk about in their budget speeches, they can talk about on any other day of the year as well.

In fact, regular readers would know that I have been sceptical about the ability of the government to meet its fiscal deficit target. Fiscal deficit is the difference between what a government earns and what it spends during the course of any year. The difference is met through borrowing.

While presenting the budget last year, the finance minister Jaitley had said that the government expects to achieve a fiscal deficit target of 3.5% of GDP for 2016-2017 and 3% of GDP for 2017-2018.

In the budget presented yesterday Jaitley said that: “I have weighed the policy options

and decided that prudence lies in adhering to the fiscal targets. Consequently, the fiscal deficit in RE[revised estimate] 2015-16 and BE[budget estimate] 2016-17 have been retained at 3.9% and 3.5% of GDP respectively.”
The question is how realistic is the 3.5% of GDP fiscal deficit target for the next financial year? There are essentially three inputs that go into making the fiscal deficit number. The total receipts of the government, the total expenditure of the government and the nominal GDP number that has been assumed for the next financial year. Nominal GDP is the GDP which hasn’t been adjusted for inflation.

Let’s start with the receipts number. Jaitley has assumed that the government plans to collect Rs 56,500 crore through the disinvestment route. Of this, Rs 36,000 crore will come from the government selling shares in the companies its own and Rs 20,500 crore from the stakes that it has in non-government companies.

The total number assumed to come in through the disinvestment route is more than double of the Rs 25,312 crore that the government collected through the route this financial year. It needs to be pointed out here that a substantial part of this came from the Life Insurance Corporation(LIC) of India picking up stakes in government owned companies. Honestly that can’t be called disinvestment. It is money moving from one arm of the government to another.

Second, last year the government had assumed that Rs 69,500 crore would come in through disinvestment. Ultimately, only Rs 25,312 crore has been collected and that also after LIC had to come to the rescue. One excuse offered for the government going slow on disinvestment was low commodity prices. Commodity prices continue to remain low.

Given this, the Rs 56,500 crore disinvestment number is an overestimate like was the case last year as well.

The government has also assumed that it will earn Rs 98,994.93 crore from the telecom sector. This receipt comes under the entry “other communication services” and is primarily the money the government will earn through telecom spectrum auctions. Again, like is the case with disinvestment receipts, this number is a huge jump from the Rs 57,383.89 crore that the government managed to collect this year.

Given, the past record of the government, these assumptions are clearly looking overoptimistic. Also, they help in under-declaring the fiscal deficit. As per IMF norms, any kind of asset sales by the government needs to be treated as a financing item and not as a receipt as the Indian government does. In the process the government manages to come up with a lower fiscal deficit number.

Now let’s take a look at the expenditure front. There is no clarity on how much allocation the government has made towards implementing the recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission. As Jaitley said during his speech: “the Seventh Central Pay Commission has submitted its Report. Following the past practice, a Committee has been constituted to examine the Report and give its recommendations. In the meantime, I have made necessary interim provisions in the Budget.”

The finance minister didn’t get into any more details. Nevertheless, one can use the numbers given in the budget and see if the right kind of allocation has been made. During 2015-2016, the government’s salary and pension bill (excluding Railways) is expected to be at Rs 1.85 lakh crore.

In 2016-2017, the government’s salary and pension bill has been budgeted at around Rs 2.25 lakh crore. This is Rs 40,000 crore more than the 2015-2016 number.

The Seventh Pay Commission recommendations come into force from January 1, 2016. The Seventh Finance Commission had said that its recommendations would cost the government Rs 73,650 crore during the first year. To this one would have add the cost of Pay Commission recommendations between January and March 2016, which would be needed to be paid as arrears to the government employees and pensioners.

This works out to Rs 18,412.5 crore (Rs 73,650 crore divided by four). Hence, the total extra allocation towards implementing the recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission should have been around Rs 92,000 crore (Rs 74,650 crore plus Rs 18,412.5 crore). The actual increase in allocation towards salaries and pensions is only around Rs 40,000 crore.

What does this tell us? The government is probably not in the mood to pass on the entire increase in salaries and pensions during the course of 2016-2017. If it does that, then it will have to pay arrears in the years to come and that will add to the government expenditure and hence, the fiscal deficit. So to that extent the fiscal deficit is being under-declared at this moment.

Also, the implementation of one rank one pension in the defence forces is expected to push the pension bill up, by Rs 10,000 crore. And that will also add to the salary and the pension bill of the government.

Further, as I have pointed out in the past, more than Rs 1,00,000 crore of food and fertilizer subsidy bills remain unpaid.  And that is how it continues to be. The allocation to food and fertilizer subsidy has fallen from Rs 2.12 lakh crore in 2015-2016 to Rs 2.05 lakh crore in 2016-2017.

What does this mean? It means that while the government will pay the Rs 1,00,000 lakh crore of pending food and fertilizer subsidy bills, it will then have to postpone paying a large part of the food and fertilizer subsidy expenditure that is incurred during the next financial year.

The government follows the cash accounting system and only acknowledges expenses once payment has been made. This has led to a situation where subsidy payments to Food Corporation of India(FCI) and fertilizer companies remain unpaid. The money has been spent by FCI and the fertilizer companies towards subsidy, but remains unpaid by the government, and hence is not acknowledged as an expenditure.

The question is where does FCI get this money from? It borrows from the financial market. Why does the market lend money to FCI? It does that because it knows that it is effectively lending money to the Indian government. Hence, this subsidy expenditure has already been incurred by the government but has not been accounted for.

This essentially leads to a lower fiscal deficit number. Further, the absolute fiscal deficit number of Rs 5,33,904 crore looks very unrealistic given that the receipts of the government have been overstated while the expenditure has been understated.

Now let’s talk about the denominator in the fiscal deficit number, the nominal GDP. The nominal GDP for 2016-2017 has been assumed to be at Rs 15,065,010 crore assuming 11% growth over the 2015-2016 number. How realistic is this assumption? In 2015-2016, the nominal GDP is expected to grow at 8.6%. Given this, how realistic is an assumption of 11% nominal GDP growth for 2016-2017?

To conclude, it is safe to say that Jaitley’s fiscal deficit number is not believable. As the American professor Aaron Levenstein once said: “Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.”

What Jaitley has managed to conceal is vital.

The column originally appeared on the Vivek Kaul Diary on March 1, 2016

 

 

Mr Modi where has minimum government gone?

narendra_modiPromises are meant to be broken, especially in politics.

Narendra Modi, the prime minister of India, in the run-up to the 2014 Lok Sabha (the lower house of Indian Parliament) had promised “minimum government and maximum governance” to the citizens of India.

He has clearly forgotten the minimum government bit of that promise. At least that is the way it seems from the third annual budget, for 2016-2017, presented by Arun Jaitley, the finance minister in the Modi government.

The allocation to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), a scheme of which Modi has been severely critical of in the past, has been set at Rs 38,500 crore ($5.62 billion) for 2016-2017.

This is the highest allocation ever to the scheme. The scheme guarantees work for 100 days in a financial year to every household whose adults are willing to do unskilled manual work. The trouble is it doesn’t lead to the creation of any useful assets and hence, more or less works as a dole.

Also, the scheme doesn’t benefit many of those it is intended for. The economist Surjit Bhalla has called MGNREGS as the fourth most corrupt institution in the world after FIFA, the BCCI (the institution that governs cricket in India) and the public distribution system used by the Indian government to distribute food grains as well as kerosene to the poor.

The allocation to food subsidy stood at Rs 1.35 lakh crore($19.7 billion) down a little from Rs 1.39 lakh crore($20.3 billion) last year. The government sells rice, wheat and sugar at subsidised rate through 5.5 lakh( 0.55 million) fair priced shops, which form the public distribution system, throughout the country. The trouble is the system is extremely leaky and a huge proportion of the food grains are siphoned off and get diverted into the open market.

A committee to fix up this system was set up very soon after the Modi government came to power. It submitted its report in January 2015. The recommendations of the committee haven’t been taken on.

The government also sells fertilizers to farmers at a subsidised price. The subsidy towards this has marginally fallen to Rs 70,000 crore ($10.2 billion) from Rs 72,438 crore ($10.6 billion) during the last financial year. This small fall is because of a fall in fertilizer prices. This system is also extremely leaky and only around 35% of urea (a kind of fertilizer) actually reaches the small and marginal farmer it is meant for.

The same is true about kerosene as well, which the government distributes through the fair prices shops. Nearly, 46% of the kerosene is siphoned off. The allocation towards petroleum subsidies this year is at Rs 26,947 crore ($3.9 billion) against Rs 30,000 crore ($4.4 billion) during the last financial year. But what needs to be kept in mind is that oil prices have fallen during the last one year.

What this tells us very clearly is that as far as subsidies are concerned Narendra Modi has been no different from his predecessor Manmohan Singh and continues to run full throttle, what is a very leaky system.

Further, the government continues to own 27 banks. Since 2009, the government has invested around Rs 1.02 lakh crore in these banks to recapitalise them. The banks have given loans to crony capitalists close to the previous government, which they are now unable to recover.

For the next financial year, the government has allocated a further Rs 25,000 crore ($3.65 billion) to be invested in these banks. Jaitley also said that “if additional capital is required by these Banks, we will find the resources for doing so.”

What Jaitley meant here was that the government would do “whatever it takes” to keep these banks going.

The question that Jaitley did not answer is—why does the government need to own 27 banks? Over and above this, the government continues to own and run loss making companies. Until March 2014, the accumulated loss on these companies was Rs 1.04 lakh crore.

The government continues to own, a loss making airline, a loss making telecom company, a loss making scooter company, loss making hotels and so on. In his speech Jaitley did talk about strategic sale of government owned companies. But the past record of the Modi government (or the other governments before it) has been quite shaky on this front.

The government has also talked about selling some assets of these firms. As Jaitley said, we will encourage these companies to “divest individual assets like land, manufacturing units, etc. to release their asset value for making investment in new projects.”

The government also decided to set up a Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) with an initial capital base of  Rs 1,000 crores. As Jaitley said in his speech: “The HEFA will be a not-for-profit organisation that will leverage funds from the market and supplement them with donations and CSR funds.”

The question here is why not just allow education to be run as a for-profit business, legally. Currently, most private education institutes in India are owned by politicians, and are conduits as well as generators of black money. Black money is essentially money which has been earned but on which taxes have not been paid.

What this means is that at least the “minimum government” part of Narendra Modi’s “minimum government maximum governance” has gone for a toss. Like most electoral rhetoric it has been abandoned—lock, stock and barrel.

Now this doesn’t mean that there was nothing good in the budget. Here are some of the good points. The government buys rice and wheat from the farmers directly at a price referred to as the minimum support price. The benefits of this direct buying are concerned by farmers in a few states like Punjab, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh etc.

The government has plans to extend procurement of food grains to other parts of the country. It has plans of setting up an online procurement system through the Food Corporation of India.  Given that, a government benefit is available, it should be available throughout the country and not only in certain states.

A major problem that the Indian farmer faces is getting his produce to the market before it goes bad. As the finance minister Jaitley said in his speech: “A lot of fruits and vegetables grown by our farmers either do not fetch the right prices or fail to reach the markets.”

In order to tackle this the government plans to implement the “Unified Agriculture Marketing Scheme which envisages a common e-market platform that will be deployed in selected 585 regulated wholesale markets.”

Another interesting move in order to tackle produce going bad is allowing “100% FDI…through FIPB route in marketing of food products produced and manufactured in India.”

One of the major successes of the Modi government since coming to power has been electrification of villages.  As of April 1, 2015, 18,542 villages were not electrified. Between April 1, 2015 and February 23, 2016, 5542 villages were electrified. This was more than the total combined achievement of the last three years. Also, the government has promised 100% electrification by May 1, 2018.

The government is also trying to create jobs and plans to invest Rs 2,18,000 crore in roads and railways during the course of the year.

To conclude, while the government is trying to do the right things on many fronts, but by trying to run every business possible, it is just overextending itself.

And that is something that could have been easily corrected in this budget. Sadly, an opportunity has been lost.

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He can be reached at [email protected])

The column originally appeared in the Khaleej Times on March 1, 2016, with a different headline.