Nit-picking, you say? Let me make it clear that I agree with the policies announced and decisions taken since March 30. But if I agree with the contention that this caretaker government has done the right thing by taking these decisions, then I should logically also have no problems with ministers in the Chandra Shekhar government freely allotting telephones and gas connections after the government resigned and was made caretaker. Mr Chidambaram's budget exhilarated me, but those desperate attempts to get the budget passed before the vote of confidence, and to delink it from the government's stability, were dangerous for the nation. Suppose that attempt had succeeded, the budget was somehow passed before the Gowda government fell, and the country went for a mid-term poll. A new government comes in by June, and proposes a radically different budget, which it has every right to do. Imagine the confusion in the international investor community. Indeed, the truly constitutionally proper way to handle Finance Bill 1997 is this: after the new United Front government takes oath, even if Mr Chidambaram is again the finance minister, he should rise before the House again and present his budget afresh. If he wishes to present the same budget, the Speaker can absolve him from making the same 88-minute speech again, and move straight onto:. the debate. Indeed, Mr Chidambaram should possibly take a re-look at his budget proposals to see if he wants to make any changes. Only the most incurable optimist would still believe, after March 30, with a clearly unstable government held hostage by the Congress, that the nation has a hope in hell of raising the targeted Rs 10,000 crore in taxes from the unitary disclosure scheme. It's a new government, it's technically a' new budget: he has the right to tinker.