The finance and the commerce minister have handed down very harsh criticisms to the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) for its report on the state of our economy of the past year. This is an annual exercise the major think tank of the country has been doing for the last quarter century. And very frankly, we are at a loss to see the justification of the ministers venting their spleen on a report—the findings of which were only to be expected. All major newspapers and banking experts have been expressing almost in unison their serious concern about the banking sector in the recent past.   

We have been taken by surprise that the two very senior ministers would choose to heap invectives on one of the most reputed think tanks in the country, ascribing motives to it and giving the exercise a political colour, without any substantive counter-argument.

The reactions of the two ministers reconfirm the fact that the government is unwilling to countenance any criticism whatsoever, and that is very alarming. The report brings out the achievements and also highlights the problem areas only for the benefit of the government. This clearly suggests that the ministers reacted on the basis of the media reports before reading the actual report itself. 

It would have been appropriate for the two ministers to offer their counter-arguments to contest what the CPD has revealed, which, by the way, bases its assessments on government statistics. For example, it is true that the GDP has increased and so has the per capita income. But it takes no Amartya Sen to understand that growth can ensure development only if the state ensures distributive justice, which is apparently missing. Thus the income and wealth inequality in the country.

What we find unacceptable is lacing a report with political colour. A research report can be wrong in many aspects, but that should be contested with counter-arguments. Otherwise, the criticism will not only sound hollow but also reek of political motivation.