The government had been “morally callous”, says Pratap Bhanu Mehta

Describing the demonitisation scheme as a sign of “arbitrary and discretionary government,” academic and author Pratap Bhanu Mehta said that the government had been “morally callous” and the policy’s impact on economic growth and job creation had not been thought through.
Speaking at the Times Lit Fest on Sunday Mehta said,”As far as I can see there is no government ordinance or law that permits this (demonitisation.) They should have got an ordinance...The idea that government now has these powers without accountability and reflection...government can decide what counts as ease and convenience for citizen, what counts as hardship for citizens...that a secretary can stand up and announce it and change it every three hours, that a RBI circular has no sanctity, that the PM’s promise is reneged on by bureaucrats...if this does not smack of arbitrariness and discretionary government I don't know what does.”
While slamming the government for its moral callousness Mehta said, “There is no doubt that Modi is bold, takes risks and has the capacity to tap into people's energy and sense of civic duty like no other leader in recent times....but that is the very thing that makes this somewhat dangerous.But demonitisation is not a well thought through scheme not just in implementation but in objective....What is worrying is that there was never evidence that the larger cost worth the gains. What isn't going to do for job creation and growth?These questions have been taken very lightly (by the government) which speaks of a moral callousness.”
He added that it had also led to a reversal of cardinal principle since 1991 which is that liberal society can function on presumptive trust.
In conversation with festival co-director Nalin Mehta, Pratap Bhanu Mehta was scathing about the conflict between the government and the judiciary. “This moment represents the most serious crisis for judiciary since Independence including Emergency days,” he said.
The head for Centre for Policy Research said this was a tangible crisis and the judiciary itself had in recent years over-reached with the Supreme Court usurping large domains of governance. “We have rule by courts, that is not the same as rule of law,” he said.
He said that NJAC was a good opportunity to check the system but “judiciary overplayed its hand.”