Finance Ministry
PARLIAMENt defied
When Modi gov't, RBI told half-truths and lies to downplay damage to small businesses
![](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/60084943880a0ad451c6cd31/668ffe98b1ef8be5ac3d4254_20240711_TRC--Finance.webp)
People in power give assurances inside Parliament under public glare. In this series, The Collective is investigating what happened to those promises because we promised our readers to hold the powerful accountable.
New Delhi: In a sudden move that sent shockwaves through the nation, the Union government in November 2016 announced the demonetisation of high-value currency notes. The overnight withdrawal of 80% of the currency in circulation or notebandi, as it was called in common parlance, had stunned the Indian economy.
The second economic disruption came with the roll-out of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) seven months later. For India’s micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), which employ more than 10 crore people in India and contribute a significant 30% of the country’s GDP, the botched imposition of the GST came as a shock.
Two years later, the Union government misled Parliament about the impact of these two devastating policies on micro, small and medium-sized industries. Incredibly, the Reserve Bank of India chimed in to back the government before a parliamentary committee while contradicting their own published findings.
The fifth instalment of the Parliament Defied series reveals how, for once, Parliament’s Committee on Government Assurances caught the government lying and reprimanded it for peddling a false narrative.
Though such committees of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha are meant to hold the government accountable for the promises made inside the two Houses, they terribly failed, shows this investigative series.
Indians are used to promises by politicians that are often grand but unreliable. But pledges made in Parliament hold a sacred weight, upheld by mechanisms ensuring government accountability. Our investigative series, "Parliament Defied," delves into these parliamentary promises, examining their outcomes.
Through an exhaustive analysis of over 100 parliamentary reports spanning thousands of pages and covering 55 ministries over five years, our reporters reveal the stark reality of government assurances.
![](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/60084943880a0ad451c6cd31/6683be90dccb3c907540e53b_Group%20192.png)
THE Impact
In December 2018, two years after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s sudden decision of demonetisation, which rendered much of the country’s currency “worthless pieces of paper”, and a year after a complete overhaul of the indirect tax regime, a Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament asked the Union Ministry of Finance about the impact of the two moves on small and medium-sized businesses.
“Whether with two years in retrospect, recent reports indicate that micro and small business firms are still reeling under the impact of demonetisation with a rather bumpy start for the GST regime,” asked the former Congress MP from Meghalaya, Wansuk Syiem.
The Ministry’s response to all her queries was curt: “Information is being collected.”
![](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/60084943880a0ad451c6cd31/668fedf924b361ce10485bbd_Assurance%20Finance%201.png)
As mentioned earlier in this series, this is one of the phrases that are counted as an assurance made to Parliament. Any such assurance made must be implemented within three months. A Committee on Government Assurances monitors all such assurances and constantly checks on the progress made. The committee, an accountability watchdog, meets officials of the concerned ministry as part of the process, seeking information on the progress of the assurance. The ministry can also request the dropping of an assurance altogether or seek extensions. In some cases, the government has even argued that the minister’s statement did not constitute an assurance in the first place.
Unlike other stories in this series which show how ministerial pronouncements on the Parliament floor curdle into unfulfilled promises, this story dives into the back-and-forth between the committee and officialdom.
A masterclass in obfuscation, the exchange stands out for the coordinated attempts by the Union government and the central bank to mislead the committee.
Governments and the bureaucracy take queries from the parliamentary process rather seriously. Ministers approve the responses being sent back. Finding a way to not lie and yet not provide too much information is a valuable bureaucratic skill. ‘Information is being collected’ is one tool in that skill box.
In this case, the Ministry of Finance dropped the ball on providing Parliament with data on how MSMEs, companies making under Rs 50 crore annually, fared. The government missed the three-month deadline to respond.
The delay prompted a strong rebuke from the assurances committee. This would not be the last time the committee lashed out against the government on this assurance.
The committee visited Madurai and Thiruvananthapuram and met government officials, representatives from the RBI and banks, along with MSME associations.
It asked why the government was taking so much time when the “information was just a click away”. This was fairly harsh language by conventional standards, especially considering that the committee was then headed by a parliamentarian from an allied political party, AIADMK.
![](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/60084943880a0ad451c6cd31/668fcec10ca08e310c3d54d9_%234%20image%202.png)
The Ministry of Finance, on its part, claimed it was still gathering information on the subject through the RBI.
Then it was the RBI’s turn. It made two contradictory statements in consecutive sentences. Both, to defend the government.
First, it said, one could not conclude with certainty whether MSMEs had been affected.
“It could not be said with certainty whether the impact as stated by the member in the question (referring to Congress parliamentarian Syiem who asked about the adverse impact on MSMEs) was due to demonetisation or not,” minutes of the meeting show RBI informing the committee.
In the next sentence, the RBI officials asserted that there was proof that MSMEs had not been affected.
“With pan-India figures showing healthy growth it could not be said that demonetization had impacted MSME negatively,” read the minutes.
This was in complete contradiction to what RBI officials had said in a paper published a full year back, in August 2018.
The paper’s conclusion: “Demonetisation led to a further decline in the already decelerating credit growth of the MSME sector.”
Credit growth here refers to the amount of money banks lend to businesses. Economists see higher levels of credit as a sign of a healthy economy. This is because it indicates companies have more capacity and propensity to invest and expand their businesses. Declining credit indicates firms are wary of borrowing from the banks. Their fear stems from concerns about their ability to make additional income to repay the loans with interest.
For the four months after demonetisation, MSMEs credit growth was negative (on a year-on-year basis), the RBI paper had highlighted.
“The MSME sector has witnessed two major recent shocks, viz., demonetisation and introduction of goods and services tax (GST). For instance, contractual labour in both the wearing apparel and gems and jewellery sectors reportedly suffered as payments from employers became constrained after demonetisation,”
the authors of the paper added.
Of course, RBI had published this paper, as it always does, with a disclaimer that it represented the author’s views and not theirs. This is a typical tactic that RBI and many other institutions use. It allows them to share critical research findings while maintaining arm’s length in case the conclusions cause a political storm.
A full year after this paper’s publication, RBI officials were now trying to delink the problems in the MSME sector from demonetisation before the parliamentary committee.
While any reference to the impact of GST on MSMEs was curiously missing in the RBI representative’s briefing, the paper by RBI officials certainly did talk about it. They found that the implementation of GST had led to a decline, lasting several months, in the exports by such businesses. MSMEs account for 40% of the country’s exports.
The RBI official, appearing before the parliamentary committee, dismissed suggestions that demonetisation had a bad impact on MSMEs. Similarly, in their response to the committee, representatives from public sector banks brushed aside accusations of any lasting damage. They characterised the difficulties resulting from the decision as “temporary”, pointing to a “recovery” in credit growth to MSMEs by March 2018 as evidence to support their claims.
While this was true, the government was hiding the complete picture.
The rate of MSME’s Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) – loans unlikely to be repaid – had gone up. “NPAs of both private banks and public sector banks pertaining to the MSME sector have increased over time,” the August 2018 paper noted.
Credit information agency Transunion CIBIL’s MSME strength index, which measures the health of the sector with March 2018 as a baseline, reported a constant slide in the sector’s strength till December 2019. The arrival of the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020 then delivered another severe blow to the MSME sector.
Officials from the Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises told the committee that even they had not evaluated the impact of demonetisation on MSMEs. The Ministry, however, recounted its meetings with MSME associations that reportedly praised demonetisation.
“These associations welcomed demonetisation,” according to the Ministry official.
Not taking official pronouncements at face value, the assurances committee decided to fact-check this claim. It met six different MSME associations across Tamil Nadu and Kerala to gauge their feedback.
“Thousands of hotels were shut down due to recession,” the head of the Kerala Hotel and Restaurant Association told the committee. Tamil Nadu’s Salem-based MSME association, meanwhile, said small businesses were so hard-pressed for funds that they found it increasingly difficult to pay their EMIs or monthly instalments.
A Madurai-based association pointed out that exports too had declined after demonetisation and GST. This fact was borne out by the 2018 RBI paper as well. Similarly, rice millers and wood manufacturers flagged a dramatic downturn in fortunes following demonetisation.
The committee highlighted contradictions between the rose-tinted view of RBI and the experience of the MSMEs.
“Representatives of the MSME sector appearing before it have stated that they have indeed been affected by demonetisation,” minutes of the meeting show the committee concluding.
After repeated extensions, eventually, the assurance was considered as fully implemented. However, what specific information presented to the committee led to its conclusion cannot be ascertained.
In Parliament, both the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of MSMEs continued to face more questions about the impact of demonetisation on the economy, particularly on small-scale industries.
As recently as August 2023, both ministries made it clear that neither is assessing the impacts of demonetisation on the economy or MSMEs.
A survey by India Ratings and Research, a credit rating agency, found that a whopping 63 lakh MSMEs closed down between 2015-16 and 2022-23, resulting in the loss of a staggering 1.3 crore jobs nationwide. The agency blamed demonetisation, GST and the Covid-19 pandemic for the devastation caused.
THE OTHER BROKEN PROMISES
![](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/60084943880a0ad451c6cd31/6459d7b0428d0197dfbad2d1_7420-1.png)
Early in his first term, Prime Minister Narendra Modi asked the Ministry of Finance to review and reimagine India’s financial calendar. Another one of the BJP government’s attempts to purportedly ‘decolonise’ Indian governance.
Unlike the calendar year, the financial year is used for budgeting, accounting, and taxation purposes. Budgets, such as the one presented by the Union government, tell you how much the government intends to spend till the end of the upcoming financial year. Similarly, businesses are required to submit their annual financial statements by the same time.
He suggested considering moving the calendar to January-December or starting it from Diwali, which falls during October-November, as opposed to April when the financial year currently starts.
Following his suggestion, the ministry promptly set up an expert panel in July 2016. The panel was tasked with determining a financial year from the point of view of the country’s tax systems, agricultural seasons and Union Budget-related work among others.
On 7 April 2017, former BJP MP Abhishek Singh questioned the Ministry if it was “aware of the inconvenience caused due to the financial year being April-March which was different from most of the developed countries”. Singh also asked if the government would consider shifting the financial year. The then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley told the House that many had similar suggestions, and an expert panel had been set up in 2016 to examine the feasibility.
He did not share the recommendations of the committee with the Parliament. But his response sparked a discussion.
Kamal Nath, then a Congress MP, asked the government to share the findings of this expert panel on changing the financial year. He also sought information on when the government would make a final decision.
In response, Jaitely deflected. He told the House that “it is necessary to have a very wide consultation and application of mind”. He said the government is making up its mind and will release the recommendations of the panel once a decision is taken.
In other words, he implied that the expert panel’s report would be made public once the government had made up its mind whether or not to adopt its recommendations.
![](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/60084943880a0ad451c6cd31/668fd0f5b112489412cdc962_%234%20image%203.png)
Three years passed. The report was neither made public nor shared in Parliament. In December 2021, the Modi government requested the parliamentary committee to drop the assurance.
Why? Because five years after the expert panel deliberated on the matter, the government was still ‘considering’ the issue. The matter had taken so much time because a decision would have “far-reaching ramifications across sectors of the economy”, the government said.
The parliamentary committee rejected the government’s demand to drop the assurance. The government is in its third term now, and the assurance has remained pending for the past 86 months.
![](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/60084943880a0ad451c6cd31/6459d7b0428d0197dfbad2d1_7420-1.png)
![](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/60084943880a0ad451c6cd31/6459d7b0428d0197dfbad2d1_7420-1.png)
A regular feature of the previous decade has been staggered revelations exposing tax evasions by the wealthy and powerful. These revelations showed how India’s ultra-rich parked their assets in offshore tax havens, sparking outrage. The assets, given their undeclared status, are considered black money.
Narendra Modi, before and after coming to power has repeatedly promised a war on black money.
In October 2021, another tranche of revelations – after the Panama Papers in 2016 and the Paradise Papers in 2017 – hit the newsstands. This one was called Pandora Papers.
On 7 December 2021, these revelations brought the Modi government under scrutiny in Parliament.
BJP MP Sushil Kumar Modi asked the Ministry of Finance about the amount of undeclared wealth detected after probing the Panama and Paradise Papers, and how much of this amount the government managed to recover. He also inquired about the number of Indians and Non-Resident Indians who were served notices after the latest Pandora Papers revelations.
The ministry disclosed some information about the previous leaks and acknowledged that Indian citizens were named in the Pandora leak as well.
It did not disclose these names but told the parliamentary committee that 200-odd Indians had been named in the Pandora Papers. The ministry did not share any details of the investigation either. It could have updated Parliament on the status of the investigation without naming the individuals. But, it did not.
The committee caught the government on it.
In December 2023, it asked the government to “provide details of progress made in the investigation so far”. It is July 2024. Prime Minister Modi, who came in with the promise of bringing back all ‘black money’ from abroad is in the saddle for the third time. The assurance remains pending.
![](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/60084943880a0ad451c6cd31/668fd1fefeec6149b6d003a2_%234%20image%204.png)
![](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/60084943880a0ad451c6cd31/6459d7b0428d0197dfbad2d1_7420-1.png)
the assurances database
◍ Dropped
Assurance Date : 06.05.16
Dropped on : 27.07.23
House : Lok Sabha
Total Pending time : 99 months
◍ Dropped
Assurance Date : 13.03.2023
Dropped on : 06.02.2024
House : Lok Sabha
Total Pending time : 10 months
◍ Dropped
Assurance Date : 06.08.10
Dropped on : 13.03.21
House : Lok Sabha
Total Pending time : 127 months
Support independent Journalism
The Reporters’ Collective collaboratively produces investigative journalism. In many languages and mediums. We report truthfully and bring out facts that the powerful prefer to keep hidden from citizens.
Besides courage and integrity, such reporting requires resources. We need your support. We need citizens to donate to keep us going and keep our work free to read for those who can’t afford to pay. Your donations will help us remain independent and work without fear.
You can change how much you give or cancel your contributions at any time.
By proceeding, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions. To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy.