Finance Minister P Chidambaram completed his long budget speech after noon on February 28. Within minutes, on the electronic media, ‘experts’ were asked by other ‘experts’ what marks they would give to the budget. One answered, ‘Eight on ten’. A second one out-competed the first to say, ‘Nine on ten’. The third out bid the second saying, ‘Ten on ten’. And the last entrant to the bid said, ‘No, it is eleven on ten’. Thus half an hour of such triviality on different TV channels virtually settled the national debate and opinion-making on the budget for 2005-2006.

Of course, everyone knew that the ‘experts’ gave opinion without looking at the 1,000-odd pages of budget documents that held the truth. The stock markets were dull when the FM spoke, but zoomed after the ‘experts’ began certifying the budget. The market zoom vindicated the ‘experts’. The performance of the print media was on the same pattern. “Budgeting for ‘Bharat Nirman’; ‘FM mails smiles to all’; ‘FM does an encore, almost’ — this is how the print media fell for Chidambaram. This was day one after the budget, March 1. No one could have read the budget papers till then.

See what happens 24 hours later, on March 2. ‘Devil is in fine print’. ‘Devil in detail’ — this is how some media began retracting from their earlier positions. The reason was that the stock market, which had heated to 144 points on March 1, came down by 68 on March 2. By then ‘non-experts’ had begun reading the budget. Now the ‘experts’ were caught by their own words. But some of them had kept an escape route - ‘but that the fine print has to be read’ — even while being gung-ho on the budget.

It is the fine print that makes the real budget. Take the screaming headline ‘Budgeting for Bharat Nirman’ in a serious financial daily. The truth is that the FM only spoke of Bharat Nirman, but did not budget for it. He did not even claim he had budgeted it. He actually said, ‘‘Bharat Nirman will need huge resources, but government ‘be-lieves’ that it is achievable.’’ He appeared more sober than the serious paper’s headlines!

Take the flagship idea of Bharat Nirman to bring an additional 10 million hectares of land under assured irrigation to create 10 million jobs in five years. Compared to the demands of the grandiose idea, the additional amount for irrigation mentioned in the budget speech, Rs 2,000 crores (this is actually Rs 1,750 crores), is peanuts. The provision by the NDA Government for irrigation was Rs 2,800 crores, that is, without the ‘Bharat Nirman’ idea. In this budget it is Rs 4,800 crores. Yet, the FM speaks of generating 10 million jobs in five years through this programme and it is headlined.

The fine print will testify that the FM was just expressing a wish. The media headlined that pious wish as if it were a serious budget goal. Also, the numbers for spending provided are based on an ambitious revenue increase of 20 per cent plus. There is bound to be a shortfall, which will abridge all spending.

Again, how is it that most experts and the media missed the impact of far-reaching changes in the State-Central fiscal relations brought about by the Tenth Finance Commission (TFC) on the budget? The TFC has increased the share of the states and Union Territories in revenues and increased the grants. It has also imposed on the States and UTs the responsibility of debt-financing their own plans. While the first aspect has hit the budget this year, the second one has actually over-compensated for it on a like-to-like comparison with last year. Yet, the FM takes credit for achieving the miracle of reducing the deficit even while bearing the TFC imposed burden of Rs 26,000 crores!

Should the FM not have transparently pointed out that the TFC recommendation had no impact on fiscal deficit? If at all, the TFC has relieved the Centre the burden of bearing additional market loans on States’ account. And should he not have also set out how the States and UTs would be ‘enabled to borrow’ from the market when most of them are already overborrowed from the market?

Again, most plan schemes of the states in the social and economic sectors, why even some states as a whole, are not bankable. Who will lend funds to them? A more atrocious claim by the minister is that this year’s plan spend is Rs 172500 crores - that is a rise of 16.7 percent over the last year — on a like-to-like comparison. This includes the market borrowings of Rs 29,000 crores the states have to make to meet their plan spend! So the actual plan spend by the Centre is only Rs 143,997 crores, showing a fall, not rise. Yet, most media analysis kept silent on these fine print details.

The ‘instant’ TV bites and comments on the budget for 2005-2006 are a lesson to the ‘experts’ willing to learn. The instant commenting ‘experts’ and the enthusiastic media ought to be warned against trivialising the debate on a serious issue. The media must realise the budget speeches of all finance ministers, not just this one, are ceasing to be economics or politics driven, and are increasingly becoming PR-driven. Hereafter, at least will the media and the ‘experts’ read the finely printed, large budget volumes and then give marks for the budgets? And not give ‘eleven-on-ten marks’ just trusting what is increasingly becoming the finance minister’s PR literature?