Rahul Gandhi outside Parliament on Monday. Picture by Rajesh Kumar

New Delhi, Aug. 2: If the price rise is hurting too much, gently apply some “inflationary pressure” on the spot to ease the pain.

That’s the prescription Dr Government has come up with, and Dr Opposition has endorsed it, only adding a brief caution on the treatment’s “adverse” effects.

An agreement to replace “price rise” with “inflationary pressure” in a proposed resolution helped the Centre and the Opposition reach a compromise over breakfast today, allowing Parliament to resume business after a week’s paralysis.

The Opposition has given up its demand for voting after a debate on the price rise and settled for a resolution that will express the sense of the House to underline the gravity of the problem.

The government, however, insisted at the breakfast meeting that the resolution would not mention “price rise” but only “inflationary pressure”, an abstract piece of economics jargon that it hopes will act as a euphemism.

While the everyday expression “price rise” immediately evokes images of food becoming too costly, the vaguer “inflationary pressure” alludes to many issues and factors, helping dilute the subject.

The Opposition agreed but exacted its price: the resolution must mention the “adverse impact on the common man”, no less.

It was then time to shake hands. The meeting at the home of Pranab Mukherjee, leader of the Lok Sabha, ended and both Houses of Parliament worked without any disruption.

Earlier, a full week had been wasted as the government and the Opposition remained deadlocked over the latter’s demand for a debate under a rule that requires voting.

The debate will now take place in the Lok Sabha tomorrow, and the day after in the Rajya Sabha. Both Houses will then adopt the resolution, which will ask the government to do more to ease the adverse impact of the inflationary pressure on the common man.

The wording of the resolution will not influence the nature of the debate, though, with members free to speak on every aspect of the problem and in any language as long as that conforms to parliamentary norms.

Sonia Gandhi has added her bit to the larger price debate. She said in party mouthpiece Congress Sandesh that raising the prices of petroleum products (which has contributed to the overall price rise) had not been pleasant, but the government had to do it because of economic compulsions and to raise funds for pro-poor schemes.

She has asked Congress workers to explain the reasons for the price rise to the people and give them the right perspective on the subject.

The Sandesh editorial expressed the party’s concern at the rising prices and asked the government to take every possible step to ease food prices.