Pulwama and 2019 General Elections: Wait for the surprise

Despite hard factors influencing choices, the Indian electorate has surprised poll analysts multiple times. This time too, we should be prepared.

POLITICS

 |  5-minute read |   22-02-2019

PRASANNA MOHANTY

 @prasannamohanty

Crystal-gazing into electoral outcomes in a complex demography like India is particularly fraught with risks because of what former US Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld once famously said, in a different context, about there being known-knowns, known-unknowns and unknown-unknowns.

Indian General Elections are more so, not least because states often respond quite differently to each other, making it well-nigh impossible to build a coherent national narrative.

By far, the best way of calling a poll is to directly ask the electorate what they intend to do (pre-poll surveys) or have already done (post-poll surveys). Electoral data may be a useful tool — but it has limitations because human response to the ever-changing environment does not necessarily follow a set pattern that such data can predict or predetermine — this makes polls ever so exciting and human behaviour ever so fascinating.

To come to the point now, how would the Indian voter vote in the forthcoming General Elections? The last of a series of ‘Mood of the Nation Survey’ carried out by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), across 19 states between April and May 2018, said 47% of the respondents were of the opinion that “the Modi government does not merit another opportunity to govern India after the 2019 Lok Sabha elections”.

Still a mystery: How does the voter finally decide which way his or her vote will go?. (Photo: PTI)

This sentiment, as the survey pointed out, is actually far worse than what was recorded for the Manmohan Singh government in July 2013 — then, 39% were against giving UPA II another chance. This survey has been in the public domain (known-known) for long, but perhaps not so commonly known.

We do know the fate of UPA II — but will that fate befall the Modi government? We don’t know.

In the meanwhile, the Pulwama terror attack and its aftermath (let’s say, unknown-unknown until February 14, but now known-unknown) have added a new twist to the crystal-gazing.

How would these play out in the forthcoming polls? Will they boost the BJP’s chances? Again, nothing can be said with any amount of certainty until the entire episode plays itself out. However, the 1999 elections that followed the Kargil conflict may provide some indication.

Old-timers would recall the BJP and its allies had turned the next couple of months into an elaborate Independence Day celebration with the national anthem and patriotic songs playing in loop 24x7 and the tricolour fluttering atop every campaign vehicle, party office and houses of their workers.

Analysing the post-poll data, CSDS’s Yogendra Yadav and Sanjay Kumar had then written that the BJP had seemingly “staged a recovery” after its decline towards the end of 1998.

And the lotus bloomed: 2014's General Elections demonstrated a dramatic change in how votes were polled for the BJP. (Photo: PTI)

The BJP had won 182 seats then, the same as in 1998, while contesting 49 fewer seats and scoring about 2% fewer votes. Whether the “recovery” was later corroborated by asking the electorate directly, the need for which Yadav and Singh had felt then, is not known but if the behaviour of the BJP leaders following the Pulwama incident is anything to go by, a similar attempt seems afoot.

The continual processions of the martyred CRPF jawans’ coffins in Delhi and across the country, BJP leaders accompanying such parades and paying elaborate tributes appear to many as an attempt to create a “nationalistic wave in the country”. In fact, that is how Gujarat BJP leader and party spokesperson Bharat Pandya described it while apparently exhorting party workers in Vadodara to turn this into votes last Monday.

There is another known-known element which, again, is not so commonly known.

The 2014 General Elections demonstrated a dramatic change in the way votes were polled in favour of the BJP. Compared with the way people voted for the BJP in the previous elections, the electoral data for 1999, 2004 and 2009 General Elections show a distinct pattern — different states voted differently, some giving more votes to the BJP and others less in each.

But this trend was broken in 2014.

All states, save for Sikkim where the vote percentage remained the same (2%) and in Daman and Diu, where it fell, voted for the BJP in a greater number.

In 18 states, the BJP recorded the highest ever vote share. The post-poll survey showed that the social groups supporting BJP had expanded among the OBCs, SCs, tribals and the upper and middle classes.

Rahul Gandhi has been benefitting from a wave against the BJP. But will he be able to turn the tide? (Photo: PTI)

Since then, the BJP has expanded its base even further, forming governments on its own in Assam, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh; in collaboration with others in Bihar and J&K (now dissolved) and made political headway in several others like Kerala, West Bengal and Odisha. All this has added to the BJP’s political muscle. In the changed circumstances, the old rules of the electoral game may or may not work any longer.

Then there are a few other known-knowns: wide-spread disaffection among youth over growing unemployment; rural/agrarian distress now sought to be addressed through an income transfer of Rs 6,000 to small and marginal farmers but leaving agricultural labourers, who constitute 55% of India’s total agriculture workforce, high and dry and strong resentments amongst the minorities, Dalits and tribals against relentless attack from violent Hindu groups with overt and covert support of the powers-that-be. The unknown in all of these is how far they will impact the poll.

The obvious question now is — will the BJP win the 2019 General Elections? Frankly, past electoral data and surveys only give insights into the past behaviour of the electorate and some indication for the future which may or may not happen.

The Indian electorate has surprised us all many times in the past decades. Let us be prepared for it.

Resignation of NSC members exposes government's unwillingness to tackle unemployment

Suppression of unpleasant employment data will not help; proper analysis of such data and strategic planning will do.

Prasanna Mohanty | January 30, 2019 | Updated 21:11 IST

MORE FROM THE AUTHOR

• 
  Rebooting Economy XXVIII: Is India poised for agriculture-led economic turnaround?
• 
  Rebooting Economy XXVII: Fiscal mismanagement threatens India's economic recovery

The sudden resignations of two non-government members of the National Statistical Commission  - an autonomous body supervising statistical reporting by the government - brings into sharp focus the Central government's persistent attempt to suppress inconvenient truth about high unemployment in the country.

The resignations are being seen as a protest against non-publication of NSSO's survey on employment and unemployment situation in India for 2017-18, which is believed to have presented a grim scenario. This is not surprising. The sixth annual Employment and Unemployment Survey (EUS, 2016-17) of the Labour and Employment too have been withheld as it reportedly shows the unemployment rate shooting up to 3.9 percent from 3.7 percent in 2015-16.

Also Read: In the age of automation, AI, companies focus on hiring people with soft skills: report

Suppression of unemployment survey data, howsoever unpleasant, is not only undesirable, it is counter-productive. Periodic data not only provides timely insights into the workings of the job markets and brings out different dynamics at play; it also helps in making intelligent policy and strategic decisions to overcome the situation. Political expediency should be the last consideration when it comes to the livelihood of millions.

Sharp rise in Unemployment

Even in absence of official data, it is widely known that unemployment has risen sharply in the past few years because of decisions like demonetisation and shoddy implementation of a badly designed GST, apart from factors that may be beyond the government's control.

The ILO's World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends 2018  report paints a gloomy picture. It says unemployed in India is expected to rise from 18.3 million in 2017 to 18.6 million in 2018 and 18.9 million by 2019. But the numbers are likely to be far worse because its estimates are based on an unemployment rate of 3.5 percent, while the withheld EUS 2016-17 reportedly shows that it has gone up to 3.9 percent. Even the fifth EUS of 2015-16  had shown an unemployment rate of 3.7 percent - much higher than that of ILO's.

That is not all. ILO report also says a very high number of the employed (72 percent) are in "vulnerable employment" - own-account workers and contributing/unpaid family workers - for 2017, 2018 and 2019. UNDP's Human Development Indices and Indicators 2018: Statistical Update   puts the number even higher at 77.5% for 2017.

More shocking revelations have been made by the CMIE's survey, which said 11 million jobs lost in one year between Dec 2017 and Dec 2018, when employment fell from 408 million to 397 million.  Earlier, it had said about 1.5 million jobs were lost in the first four months of 2017 - January-April 2017 - because of demonetisation.

Government's response disappointing

Having promised to create 10 million jobs every year before coming to power, the current dispensation has miserably failed to live up to it. Several of its employment-generating programmes have turned non-starters.

For example, the MUDRA loan scheme (started in 2015) was touted as a big initiative to generate self-employment, but closer scrutiny reveals that it is a mere re-routing of existing small loan schemes relying largely on the priority sector shortfall. It has neither improved credit flow to the MSMEs nor able to deploy funding available to it (with 40 percent lying idle in its accounts in 2016-17 and 2017-18).

Also Read: Indian sovereign bond yield touches 7.6% ahead of Budget 2019: report

The Start-up India scheme was announced with lofty claims of setting aside Rs 10,000 crore for boosting capital flow to start-ups and SMEs in 2014.  Nearly five years down the line, the official data shows only 72 start-ups were "sanctioned" Rs 605 crore. There is no mention of how much of fund has actually been disbursed. Knowing how the governments function, there could be a huge gap between the two. Interestingly, this data was last updated in September 15, 2017.  

The Skill India programme is now a forgotten slogan, having failed to address the skilling needs of industries or jobs to the skilled. So is the case with the other big-bang initiative, Make in India. Industrial production (IIP) has remained low and fluctuating. The growth rate in eight core sectors (coal, crude oil, steel, cement etc.) was 4.9 percent in 2014-15, went down to 3 percent in 2015-16, went up to 4.8 percent in 2016-17 and fell to 4.2 percent in 2017-18.  Capacity utilisation of the manufacturing companies has been fluctuating since 2014-15 and the first quarter of 2018-19 witnessed a sharp decline.

In sheer desperation, the government started peddling EPFO numbers as evidence of new job creation, forgetting that this data is part of its job formalisation drive called Pradhan Mantri Rozgar Protsahan Yojana (PMRPY)  - the government paying full employers' contribution of 12 percent towards Employees' Provident Fund and Employees' Pension Scheme for new employees since April 2016. This is not the same as new jobs as people switch jobs, duplicating EPF numbers. The data is unreliable and are regularly revised downwards as newspaper reports have periodically highlighted.  

Old employment guarantee scheme, NREGA, which was disdainfully dismissed as a living monument to UPA's failure in Parliament, is the only saviour, continuing to provide 40-50 days of work to 4-5 crore households every year.

Why job data is necessary

A reading of the quarterly reports on employment scenario (QES), which too have been discontinued by the government, provides several insights into the job market.

For example, such reports from 2009 to 2017 shows that certain sectors like construction and IT/BPO which were providing a bulk of employment for years stopped doing so in 2016 and 2017. Similar is the case with labour-intensive sectors of leather, gems and jewellery, transport and handloom.

On the other hand, more jobs are being created in health, education, trade, accommodation and restaurant sectors.

What the government should be doing

What the government has not denied is that 12.8 million youth are joining the labour force every year.  So, ideally, new livelihood opportunities should be created to that extent. But how to do that continues to remain a big challenge.

The signs of desperation among the unemployed are already there. For example, in March 2018, 25 million applied for 90,000 railway jobs.  There have been similar reports of 9.7 million applying for 12,000 class III government jobs in Gujarat or 3,700 PhDs applying for 62 peon jobs in Uttar Pradesh in August 2018.

In such a scenario, what should a prudent government be doing?

It should release the job data, carry out even more studies and surveys relating to employment-unemployment to gain as much insight into the workings of the job markets as possible. In the next stage, findings of such studies should be widely debate and all possible stakeholders be consulted so that appropriate policy responses could be framed and strategies could be worked out to address the issue of growing unemployment.

Also Read: SEBI plans to relax norms for REITs, InvITs to increase investors' access

DO YOU LIKE THIS STORY?

 1  1

How does Rahul Gandhi plan to finance his 'Minimum Income Guarantee to every poor' scheme? Can this be done?

NPAs being written off and revenue being foregone every year for India’s rich can easily fund the Minimum Income Guarantee scheme.

POLITICS

 |  6-minute read |   29-01-2019

PRASANNA MOHANTY

 @prasannamohanty

Congress president Rahul Gandhi’s unexpected announcement, promising a “minimum income guarantee to every poor” may have stumped many, but this is probably “the idea whose time has come”— to borrow Victor Hugo’s words —  famously quoted by the then-Finance Minister Manmohan Singh, while unleashing the liberalisation process in his 1991 Budget.

That is because the world is experimenting with the idea of income redistribution in a big way for the past few years, to overcome two major concerns of our time — vast and growing inequality, and the threat of automation creating joblessness.

India’s concerns are no different. In fact, growing income inequality and unemployment are the two major concerns that Indian policymakers need to confront, but which instead go abegging.

The basic idea of Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) is to provide income support to vulnerable people and families to ensure a life with dignity. In Rahul Gandhi’s scheme of things, this is clearly meant for all poor — presumably, all those who fall below the poverty line. A clear picture will emerge once the details are unveiled.

NDA’S UBI vs Rahul Gandhi’s MIG

Rahul Gandhi’s announcement adds a twist to the debate on Universal Basic Income (UBI) — first mooted by the Economic Survey of 2016-17. The basic premise of the Economic Survey’s UBI was — “A just society needs to guarantee to each individual a minimum income which they can count on, and which provides the necessary material foundation for a life with access to basic goods and a life of dignity”.

The Economic Survey’s plan was to provide Rs 7,620 per annum — Tendulkar’s poverty line of 2011-12 was inflation-indexed to 2016-17 — to 75 per cent of the population.

It said this would cost 4.9 per cent of GDP — which could be funded from 5.2 per cent of GDP, allocated for 950 central sector and centrally sponsored sub-schemes in 2016-17.

In contrast, Rahul Gandhi’s plan seems to target only the poor (whether he means 22 per cent of the population fixed as poor by Tendulkar, or 29.5 per cent fixed by Rangarajan, is not yet clear) and his “minimum income” has not been declared.

The difference between the UBI and MIG is this — a basic income is generally understood as the poverty line (as do the Economic Survey and economists world over assume), while a minimum income is pretty much at one’s discretion; equal, more or less than the poverty line expenditure.

Growing inequality and unemployment

While the Central government has stopped publishing employment data, ILO’s 2018 World Employment and Social Outlook Trends says that the number of India’s unemployed is expected to rise from 18.3 million in 2017 to 18.6 million in 2018 and 18.9 million by 2019, at a 3.5 per cent unemployment rate for each year.

Reports say that the Sixth Employment-Unemployment Survey of 2016-17, which has been withheld by the government, shows the unemployment rate shot up to 3.9 per cent — up from 3.7 per cent in 2015-16 and 3.4 per cent in 2013-14.

This would mean a much higher unemployment number than the ILO’s.

Every year, 12.8 million youth are joining the labour force looking for work. But such is the situation that in 2018 alone, 11 million jobs were lost — as the CMIE survey has shown.

Every year, 12.8 million youth are joining the labour force looking for work. So far, the scenario has been bleak. (Source: Reuters)

As for inequality, the French economists Thomas Piketty and Lucas Chancel have shown in their 2017 study, Indian Income Inequality, 1922-2015: From British Raj to Billionaire Raj that "India is more unequal now than any time since the British Raj and that the top 1 per cent of earners capture 22 per cent of total income”.

The latest Oxfam International report says, 136 million Indians, who make up the poorest 10 per cent of the country, have continued to remain in debt for the past 15 years; in 2018 alone, India's 119 billionaires saw their wealth mushrooming by Rs 2,200 crore a day on average.

Oxfam’s executive director found this “morally outrageous” and warned that “if this obscene inequality between the top 1 per cent and the rest of India continues then it will lead to a complete collapse of the social and democratic structure of this country.”

Selecting the poor — and finding funds

Two questions have cropped up since Rahul Gandhi made his MIG announcement — one, how to select the beneficiaries, and two, whether India’s fiscal situation will allow this.

The first one is easy to answer: The beneficiaries will be selected the same way as the ‘Ayushman Bharat’ selects its beneficiaries — from the list of the Socio-Economic and Caste Census of 2011.

The answer to the second one will have to wait until Rahul Gandhi tells us his “minimum” amount.

But assuming that he would follow the Tendulkar formula, that is, 22 per cent of the population as poor, and that they are to be given Rs 7,620 per annum in line with UBI, it would cost about 1.43 per cent of GDP (since it costs 4.9 per cent of GDP for covering 75 per cent of the population as per the Economic Survey’s calculations) or Rs 1,99,511 crore — Rs 1,39,51,849 crore (size of GDP as per the advance estimate for 2018-19) multiplied by 1.43 percent.

Where would that money come from?

Well, one source could be the one that the government and RBI find every year to write off corporate loan defaults — better known as non-productive assets (NPAs) — and “revenue foregone” in the Budget for corporate taxpayers.

According to the RBI’s report, Operations and Performance of Commercial Banks, Rs 1,08,500 crore and Rs 1,62,700 crore of NPAs were written off in 2016-17 and 2017-18, respectively.

Similarly, the revenue foregone was Rs 86,145 crore in 2016-17 and Rs 85,026 crore in 2017-18.

Taken together, Rs 194,645 crore in 2016-17 and Rs 247,726 crore in 2017-18 were written off as NPAs and given up revenue foregone for the rich Indians — more than what MIG would cost for the poor Indians!

There are other ways to find funds too. As economist Pranab Bardhan has suggested, tax wealth, inheritance and long term capital gains and collect more tax from the under-assessed/under-taxed property. That should be enough.

Just words of caution — whether it is UBI or MIG, don’t fund this from the expenditure on 950 central schemes. These schemes include those of food subsidy, fertiliser subsidy, MGNREGA, SSA, LPG subsidy, Awas Yojana, Gram Sadak Yojana, ICDS, Swachh Bharat, Mid-Day Meals, etc.

In other words, those are meant for long-term human development (health, education) and rural infrastructure (roads, housing) — these cannot be substituted with UBI or MIG.

Not at least so long as India remains at the bottom of the pile in the Human Development Index and per capita income. Currently, India ranks 130th out of 189 countries in the UNDP’s 2018 HDI ranking.

Once India comes out of the low-income trap it currently is in, then such schemes could be replaced with cash transfers.

Also read: Why Rahul Gandhi’s promise of a universal basic income is worth being discussed

Only 3% Mudra loans can generate monthly income of more than 10,000

The Narendra Modi government has claimed that its flagship Mudra loan scheme is generating employment. But, data shows a miniscule number of Mudra loans generate a return that satisfies even the minimum wage requirement.

ADVERTISEMENT

Prasanna Mohanty

New Delhi

January 29, 2019

UPDATED: January 29, 2019 08:14 IST

Primary aim of Mudra was to increase credit flow into the MSME sector. Data of past four years shows that this has not happened.

HIGHLIGHTS

• The Modi-led govt has been showcasing the Mudra loan scheme to claim that millions of jobs are being created
• There is no official data available on the number of jobs created due to the Mudra loan scheme
• An examination reveals that only 3% of Mudra loans can generate a return, or income, that satisfies the minimum wage requirement

Confronted with widespread criticism of growing unemployment and jobless growth, the Narendra Modi-led central government has been showcasing the Mudra loan scheme to claim that millions of jobs are being created. No less than Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself declared in his address to the nation last Independence Day that Mudra loans had been given to 130 million people, of which 40 million were first timers. He had said that the "the initiative has helped multiply jobs".

Closer examination of Mudra, however, presents a different picture.

There is no official data available on the number of jobs created due to the Mudra loan scheme. However, an examination of the type and number of loans given out reveals that only three per cent of Mudra loans generate a return, or income, that satisfies the minimum wage requirement.

The examination also reveals that credit flow to the MSMEs (medium, small and micro enterprises)-the primary objective of Mudra scheme- remains below par.

Not just that, a significant chunk of Mudra funds (about 40 per cent) remains idle. Worse, economists and bankers, including former RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan, have warned that Mudra loans could be the source of the next non-performing assets (NPA) crisis.

Let's first look at Mudra loans and their potential to create jobs.

Mudra loans are capital, not income. What this means is that the loans in themselves cannot create can an income. The amount has to be invested and that investment will generate income.

Mudra loans are of three types: 'Shishu' (covering loans up to Rs 50,000), 'Kishore' (covering loans between Rs 50,000 and Rs 5 lakh), and 'Tarun' (covering loans between Rs 5 to 10 lakh).

ADVERTISEMENT

Official data shows that 87 per cent to 93 per cent of all Mudra loans (in numbers) are of the 'Shishu' type, 6 per cent to 10 per cent are 'Kishore', and only 1 per cent to 2 per cent are 'Tarun' loans.

When the data for 'new loans'-the potential source of new jobs-are examined for 2016-17 and 2017-18, it is found that the average size of these loans (taking the higher end) were: Rs 23,083 for 'Shishu', Rs 2.09 lakh for 'Kishore' and Rs 7.67 lakh for 'Tarun.

Now, these loans are not income but capital for business that needs to be invested.

How much income can they generate?

Here is a back of the envelope calculation.

Taking a liberal account, let's take a hypothetical scenario when the new businesses perform well and each loan generates a 20 per cent return. Even in this hypothetical situation, 'Shishu' loans can generate a maximum of Rs 4,617; 'Kishore' Rs 41,844 and 'Tarun' Rs 153,445 in a year.

The monthly return, or "income", works out to be: Rs 384.75, Rs 3,487 and Rs 12,787, respectively.

Mudra's employment potential is very limited

If one were to take the monthly minimum wage for 'unskilled agriculture labour' - fixed at Rs 355 per day in September 2018 or Rs 10,650 per month -then only the returns from the 'Tarun' category of Mudra loans, which generate a monthly income of Rs 12,787, satisfy the monthly minimum wage requirement.

The number of new 'Tarun' loans in 2016-17 and 2017-18 was 6,99,582. (2,93,000 for 206-17 and 4,06,582 for 2017-19).

Can this be the number of new jobs that Mudra is creating?

Theoretically yes, but two caveats are in order.

First, no official or unofficial data exists to prove it.

Second, the last NSSO report of 2014, Key Indicators of Debt and Investment in India, showed that in 2013, 60 per cent of all loans in rural areas and 81.7 per cent of all loans in urban areas were taken for non-business purposes (like marriages, construction of houses, health and education etc.), rather than for business.

This pattern could very well be repeating with Mudra, thus drastically reducing its employment potential.

40% Mudra funds lying idle

Mudra's efficacy or usefulness is highly questionable for two reasons.

Firstly, Mudra's annual report for 2017-18 shows that during 2016-17 and 2017-18, it has lent only 60 per cent and 61 per cent, respectively, of the funds available to it. This means that 40 per cent of the Mundra funds are lying idle.

Secondly, RBI data on the sectoral deployment of bank credits shows that the growth in credit flow to MSMEs remains below par when compared to that of both the non-food (agriculture and allied activities, industries, services and personal) sector and the priority sector (agriculture and allied activities, MSMEs, housing, microcredit, education or other support to weaker sections etc.).

While comparing the data for March 2015 (a month ahead of Mudra's launch) with that of March 2018, we find that the credit growth in the non-food and priority sectors was 28 per cent and 27 per cent, respectively, but that of MSMEs (manufacturing and services) was only 24 per cent.

ADVERTISEMENT

Similarly, while comparing the growth between November 2014 and November 2018- the latest RBI data- we find that the growth of credit to the non-food and priority sectors was 41 per cent and 36 per cent, respectively. In comparison to this, the growth of credit to MSMEs (manufacturing and services) was 33 per cent.

If the growth of credit to the manufacturing MSMEs alone are taken, it is actually in the negative (-2 per cent) between March 2014 and March 2018 and just 1 per cent between November 2014 and November 2018.

Mudra: Potential source of next NPA crisis

Collateral-free loans like Mudra are prone to turning into NPAs. Former RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan had, in September 2018, red-flagged Mudra loans as the "possible source of next banking crisis" in his deposition before the Lok Sabha Committee on Estimates.

Similar concerns had also been expressed by the chiefs of PSU banks like SBI and PNB to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance.

More recently, in January 2019, RBI cautioned the government over NPA spike in Mudra loans, pointing out that it had risen to Rs 11,000 crore.

The story in a nutshell

Mudra loan scheme, which is one of the Modi government's pet schemes, has failed to deliver. The government claims that millions of jobs have been created from these loans and that it has had a multiplying effect on job creation (one job creating many other jobs).

However, an analysis of data of the Mudra loans reveals that this is a far-fetched claim. The reasons are:

• Most of the loans availed under Mudra are of low value (less than Rs 50,000)
• Of the three types of loans available, only the 'Tarun' loans (for Rs 5-Rs10 lakh) have the potential to give returns which are higher than the minimum wages fixed by the government. However, only 1-2 per cent of the loans availed under Mudra fall in this category.
• Nearly 40 per cent of the Mudra loan funds are lying idle
• Since Mudra loans are collateral-free, they run a high risk of turning into non-performing assets and balloon into a major banking crisis.
• Primary aim of Mudra was to increase credit flow into the MSME sector. Data of past four years shows that this has not happened. The credit flow in this sector has been slow and even negative, thus, defeating the very purpose for which the Mudra scheme was envisioned.