This is something very interesting, this is from the Economic Times, a vet important economic publication of 6th July :

“As we read and analyse closely the budget papers, the politician an bureaucrat, Mr. Patel shines more than the economists and the financial experts.”

These are the compliments from the press, not from me. This is what the full budget looks like. One was wondering what it stood for. We wanted to know because they have made certain claims. The budget speech itself says that they want to re-orient certain economic policies, and they want to come forward with certain new policies. Finance Minister has said in his reply to the General Discussion that they believe in mixed economy. Certainly we also believe mixed economy. We say that mixed economy is an important thing. But what exactly does he mean by “mixed economy?” Does it mean merely sprinkling here and there of public sector and giving the commanding heights to the private sector? If this is so that is so that is not what we understand by mixed economy.

The five days’ history that took place couple of weeks ago in Janata Party was certainly very interesting and exciting for us. We all know that one day the news item appeared in the press that the definition of dominating houses or the monopolistic houses was going to be changed; a big news item appeared in section of Press. On the second day there came a very severe statement from the President of Janata Party, and it came as a fresh air, rather a pleasant thing. We all know that it came from a person who was in a way responsible for bringing up all these new ideas - fighting against the monopolists and others. On the third day comes the contradiction from the Government denying the news of the first day. On the fourth day comes the news that the new Minister is taking charge of Industries Ministry.

And on the fifth day we see the Minister himself making a statement on industrial policy. It was a very fine performance. I must say, it was remarkable that Mr. George Fernandes, within 24 hours, came and made a very refreshing, a very radical, a very progressive, statement about the industrial policy. This, other controversial remarks apart, was a very good personal performance. But what about the orchestra’s collective performance? That is, really speaking, what is Government’s performance. Personal performance is a different thing. We certainly made a good statement on industrial policy and we welcome it. If it is Government’s statement, Government’s policy, we welcome it. But let me tell you frankly that there still remains a nagging doubt in my mind as to what exactly is the industrial policy of the Government? For the matter, I would like the Finance Minister to tell us where we stand, vis-a-vis, the industrial policy that has been followed all these days. There is the Industrial Policy Resolution which was accepted in 1946, which was modified in 1946, which is basically the guiding feature of the industrial policy in this country. This resolution gives the commanding heights to the public sector and lays down the industrial, priorities. Where do we stand vis-a-vis the Industrial Policy Resolution? If you want to change it, you should come to the House with the changes. Merely making a statement at the time of Demands for Grants is not enough. Otherwise the performance during discussion of Demands was good. As they say in hospitals, in surgical terms, the operation is successful but the patient is in danger. The performance or the exposition or the statement of the minister was very fine, but the policy is in danger. If that is the position, that one will have to face, I do not know where it will lead us to.