THE MINISTER OF FINANCE (SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE): Mr. Vice- Chairman, Sir, first of all, I would like to express my deep appreciation to all the hon. Members and my valued colleagues. Though I do not belong to this House any longer, but I cannot forget my long association with this House spreading over three decades. Whenever I come here, a little bit nostalgic feelings I have and please excuse me, if I sometimes, indulge in that. The distinction was that earlier I used to participate in that House as Member of this House. I still remember – this is a little bit digression from the discussion on the Finance Bill – that I was the first person to be appointed as Minister of Finance, belonging to the Upper House, Rajya Sabha. Then a legitimate question was raised in Lok Sabha that the Finance Minister himself would not be able to press the button on his proposals in this House, who was the master in matters of money, finance and all these areas. So, is it not a contradictory position? Then, it so happened that the Speaker, of course, gave the ruling, ―There is no restriction in the Indian Constitution, so it can happen‖. But what is important is this. At that time, Advaniji was the Leader of the Opposition in this House. He welcomed this decision in Lok Sabha and said, ―Yes, it has been well appreciated‖. Therefore, I used to attend that House as Member of this House and now the role has been reversed. But whenever I come here, sometimes, I feel quite comfortable and at ease. That is why I would like to express my deep gratitude to all the hon. Members who have made their valuable contribution while discussing the Appropriation Bill and the Finance Bill. Moreover, I appreciate from Parliamentary point of view that normally we used to give more time to the Members of Rajya Sabha to discuss separately the Appropriation Bill and the Finance Bill because they do not have the opportunity of discussing the Demands for Grants. That is the exclusive prerogative of Lok Sabha. Though we discuss the functioning of the Ministry here, but it was suggested that we should get more time for discussing the Appropriation Bill separately. It is good that this time it has been clubbed together. After these two motions being carried by this House, after returning the Appropriation Bill and the Finance Bill, the final curtain will be drawn on the budgetary exercise which we began officially on the 16th of March. But so far as I am concerned, and my colleagues in the Ministry of Finance are concerned, they had it well before that. Many of the hon. Members, who had long innings in the Ministry of Finance, know how strenuous and laborious this exercise is. So, it will come to an end. While presenting the Budget, I must make it quite clear that the budgetary exercise or any policy formulation, ultimately leading to proposals, is not done in isolation. It is done in the context of a particular situation prevailing at that point of time and also in the context of a situation not only within the country but also outside the country. Generally, the Finance Minister is always guided, apart from the advice of the Prime Minister and his guidance, by important documents of the Five Year Plan - - this is operationalised through the Annual Plan and is incorporated in the Budget – and also the Election Manifesto of the Ruling Party which sets the targets, objects and commitments to the electorate. But, apart from these two documents, practically, from 2009-10, the Interim Budget as well as the full Budget, to this year‘s Budget, in all these four year‘s Budgets, we had to take into account the prevailing international situation. When I am speaking to you, Mr. Vice Chairman, Sir, I just checked up one figure because I was really worried when I found that in the Indian stock markets, there has been a downsize, as reported by 1.45 p.m., by almost 300 points. And then, I was told that it is not only India, where the BSE is down by 1.92 per cent and the NSE by 1.88 per cent, but it is also all over Asia. For instance, Taiwan is down by 2.18 per cent; Indonesia, 2.70 per cent; Korea, 3.08 per cent; and Hong Kong, 3.37 per cent. These are all minus figures which show the downward trend. It is because what was decided by the electors of Greece, in defeating a particular political party, raised the questions of the uncertainty of resolving the Eurozone crisis and the package which was worked out by the leaders of Europe. There is a question-mark as to whether Greece will be revived. The package, which was worked out by the ECB, where the IMF is going to make a contributory role by providing additional 600 billion dollars‘ support, has also been put to a question- mark, and uncertainty, which is prevailing, is not just confined to Greece, not confined to these four countries, but the entire Asian market today is taken by it. This is the complex situation in which we are living today, and we cannot ignore that. When I presented the Interim Budget, I had to do, with the approval of the Prime Minister, certain unusual things. Generally, in the Interim Budget, we never make any major announcements. But I had to announce a fiscal stimulus package, and three packages taken together, which were announced in December-January and, finally, at the presentation of the Interim Budget in February, amounted to Rs.1,86,000 crores, almost a little more than three per cent of the GDP, at that point of time. This was to prevent further deceleration of growth. When we are looking at the chart of the GDP growth in the first quarter, it was quite healthy; that is, around nine per cent. And looking at the way it was going on since October onwards, nobody knew where it would stop if certain preventive actions were not taken. The G-20 leaders considered it, and there was an overall consensus that taking the risk of the fiscal expansion, we should provide this stimulus package, and we provided it. Thereafter, we were able to prevent the further deceleration of growth, and the GDP growth, at that year, was at 6.7 per cent. In the next two years, we made it up. It was 8.4 per cent in 2009-10, and again, 8.4 per cent in 2010-11, and in 2011-12, I projected that it would be 7.5 per cent, plus or minus 0.25 per cent. But it did not happen. Ultimately, it came down to 6.9 per cent. Mr. Goyal, who very eloquently and efficiently articulated his view points -- not only his view points but the view points of a large section of this House and outside -- that India‘s growth story is put in serious question mark because of certain factors. I appreciate the cogency in which he placed his view points. It was well argued and well researched. There is no doubt in it, though I do not agree with the conclusions which he has arrived at, of course, in the multi-party democratic system, in multi-polarity of the views, there are scopes for, say, divergence of the views and opinions. But I appreciate the way he presented the case of the Opposition. I will come to deal with some of his major concerns. But the short point which I am trying to drive at, at this stage is, I agree with my colleague, a former Finance Minister, when he pointed out in the other House that Indian growth story is intact. I agree. Indian growth story is intact. Yes, today we are disappointed. Why is it 6.9 per cent? It is because of what we have seen. We have seen the Indian growth story, the success of growth story, for quite some time. I have the figures with me. If you look at the broader perspective from the beginning of our planning, from 1951, when we started our First Five Year Plan to 1979-80, India‘s average GDP growth was three-and-a- half per cent. In 1980s, it has improved around five per cent. In the ‘90s, it was 5.6 per cent, if you take the whole of 90s together, and, thereafter, we made a major jump. In 1999-2000, it was 6.4 per cent; in 2000-01, it was 4.4 per cent; in 2001-02, it was 5.8 per cent; in 2002-03, it was 3.8 per cent; in 2003-04, it was 8.5 per cent. From 1999 to 2003-04, for five years, the average GDP growth was 5.8 per cent. Then, in 2004-05, it was 7.5 per cent; in 2005-06 it was 9.5 per cent; in 2006-07, it was 9.6 per cent; in 2007-08, it was 9.3 per cent; in 2008-09, it was 6.7 per cent; in 2009-10, it was 8.4 per cent; in 2010-11, it was 8.4 per cent; and in 2011-012, it was 6.9, and average of eight years is 8.3 per cent. We shall have to accept this. You cannot expect in a vain economy, in a developing economy and particularly, in the context of the international scenario, when International Monetary Fund, a number of times, is to revise, re-revise the growth projection of the major economies of the developed countries.