On GST 'Bachat Utsav', Political Spin — and the Longer Conversation We Keep Avoiding

I listened to Prime Minister Modi's recent address — the one that the NDA framed as a celebration of GST savings, the so-called "GST Bachat Utsav" — and watched the instant reactions: the ruling coalition's applause on one hand, and the opposition's dismissal of the move as a "band-aid" fix on the other. The headline captured that binary neatly: PM Modi's address to nation: NDA hails 'GST Bachat Utsav'; opposition calls it a 'band-aid' fix.

I find myself between these two poles — appreciative of any measure that eases citizens' pockets in the short term, yet uneasy that episodic relief is being celebrated as policy success without a longer, clearer roadmap.

A festival of savings can be genuine, but context matters

When a government packages fiscal relief as a festival — a public relations moment — it does two things at once:

• It gives immediate psychological relief to consumers and businesses. People like certainty and symbolic reassurance. A branded initiative can create that.
• It concentrates attention on the short term, which risks obscuring structural issues that need sustained attention: tax administration, compliance burdens, supply-chain logistics, and demand stimulation.

I have always believed that policy should be judged both by immediate impact and by whether it moves us toward systemic resilience. A measure that simply shifts demand from one quarter to another, or that relieves specific pockets without changing the underlying frictions, should rightly be interrogated.

Political theatre and civic expectations

Our public discourse is shaped as much by policy as by the narrative that surrounds it. Celebrations and festivals of governance can be constructive if they are honest about trade-offs and embedded in a longer plan. They become less admirable when they are used to short-circuit debate.

That is why I pay attention to the language used: "bacha(t)" — saving — appeals to the immediate citizen. But the opposition's label of a "band-aid" fix is a useful corrective: it reminds us to ask whether today's relief reduces tomorrow's vulnerabilities.

The data, the narrative, and the command room

There is another dimension that worries me: the increasing sophistication with which narratives are shaped in real time. Governments and parties are learning how to use digital tools to amplify wins, manage perceptions, and respond to criticism.

This returns me to a theme I have written about before: the power and peril of monitoring and shaping digital discourse. A few years ago I questioned the need and purpose behind what has been called a "Social Media Hub" and cautioned about vague objectives and the risk of surveillance without safeguards Social Media Hub ? Where is the need ?. I argued then that collecting "digital chatter" without clarity of purpose invites misuse and undermines democratic debate.

I also urged that if the State seeks to engage with global digital platforms, it should do so from a position of clear principle — perhaps through contractual frameworks that protect citizens' data and sovereign interests Draw up norms to have control over Google, Facebook, Twitter: Mohandas Pai. My post on the idea of a contract between platforms and the state — the notion that we need equitable rules rather than ad-hoc takedowns or rhetoric — still feels relevant today [A Matter of Motive].

The reason I bring these up now is simple: when fiscal gestures are amplified through curated digital campaigns, we must ask how much of the public's enthusiasm is organic, and how much is engineered. That doesn't delegitimise genuine policy; it simply calls for transparency in both action and communication.

What I look for beyond slogans

When a government announces a savings-driven festival or a relief measure, I look for three things:

• Measurable outcomes: Who benefits, how many, and for how long? Is the benefit one-off or recurring?
• Structural follow-through: Are there complementary reforms to address the root causes — be it tax complexity, logistics, or demand weakness?
• Honest communication: Have the trade-offs and distributional effects been acknowledged, and are they supported by data made available to the public?

Without these, a celebration risks becoming a short-lived political moment rather than a policy milestone.

Why my earlier warnings matter — and why I mention them now

I've been writing about governance in the digital age for years. I raised concerns about the mechanics of monitoring online platforms, the need for contractual clarity with global tech firms, and the delicate balance between security and civil liberties Social Media Hub ? Where is the need ? ; A necessary evil — yes, with safeguards ; How about contractual option?. The core idea I want to remind readers of is this — take a moment to notice that I had brought up these thoughts years ago: I had predicted the governance challenges in a digitally mediated democracy and proposed contractual and safeguards-based solutions. Seeing today's dynamics — the way policy announcements are packaged and propagated digitally — it's striking how prescient those earlier observations were. I feel a sense of validation, and a renewed urgency to revisit those earlier ideas because they still matter.

Parting thought

Celebrations of savings and short-term relief have a place in democratic governance. They comfort, catalyse consumption, and can deliver immediate benefits. But they must be accompanied by deliberate, measurable, and transparent reforms. And in an era where narratives are manufactured as fast as policies are announced, our demand for data, context, and institutional accountability must be unrelenting.

Only then will a "bachat" (saving) truly count as progress — not just for a day, but for a generation.

---

Regards,
Hemen Parekh