For
over a week the government has had its political and bureaucratic heavyweights
working overtime to sell the line that “inconvenience” is unavoidable during a
major exercise to eliminate black money.

That
the script has soured, and official explanations cut little ice, is evident
from the painful reality that the crush at banks and ATMs remain as severe as
on the first day of demonetisation.

With
a couple of significant changes: the people waiting in line to access their own
money are running out of patience, scuffles are increasing, and fewer are the
voices declaring a readiness to endure hardships to further the larger goal of
dismantling the parallel economy.

Limited
credence may be attached to the fulminations of opposition politicians, but the
hardships resulting from a virtual collapse of the monetary system is what is
“doing the talking”. And the “establishment” is finding it increasingly hard to
dismiss the resentment as being “motivated, inspired, or manipulated”.

The
observations of the Supreme Court cannot be brushed aside as easily as the
criticism in the media. Though their Lordships were “understanding enough” to
give the government a little more time to get its act together, their comments
were scathing too.

What
appears to “hurt” as much as the agony of hours spent in queues, often
fruitlessly, is the lack of sensitivity of the government. At one level, it
seems to be slamming all those with complaints as being flush with unaccounted
wealth, cynically deaf to their tales of hardships endured, and blind to the
realities being

flashed
on television — not just of queues but of wholesale markets, etc., being
rendered non-functional, and small vendors driven out of business.

There
is no use re-telling stories already told, will the government dare to get an
expert body to assess the impact that ill-planned demonetisation has had on
trade, commerce and tourism and weigh that against the gains accruing from the
unearthing of black money, the effect on militancy, extremism and terrorism? An
authentic assessment might ease the public dismay — people are not likely to
take any sarkari evaluation as truthful.

For
the major casualty of the current crisis is not the cash-crunch that ministers
and bankers are talking about, the credibility of Modi sarkar has never been as
low as it is today. In another onus-shifting endeavour, rather than accept
responsibility for the government-made mess, banks are likely to use indelible
ink to check those making multiple currency conversions — on the premise that
all those in queues are crooks. If only there was an equivalent by which
politicians could be “marked” for false promises. Maybe there is no need for
that, and netas will learn the hard way that public memory is not so short.

— Editorial