 |
| Wednesday, January 26, 2000, Chandigarh, India  
|
The
Republic at 50
RESTRUCTURING
EDUCATION POLICY |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| When Navy was given second
position by Satyindra Singh FIFTY years ago, on January 26, 1950, when we became a Republic, we adopted our Constitution with the Preamble which states: “We the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign socialist secular democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens: Justice, social, economic and political; Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and the integrity of the nation.”
My
cricketing days — then and now
Privatisation
‘no panacea for power ills’
January 26, 1925
|
The Republic at 50 AFTER celebrating 50 years of Independence on August 15, 1997, the nation has on its hand yet another landmark event. The Indian Republic completes 50 years today. In a way, it is a time for rejoicing that democracy has struck deep roots in the Indian psyche. This is not a small achievement if we look at the dictatorial tendencies in the neighbourhood. This country shines by contrast in ensuring to the people freedom, equality, justice, fair play and liberal values. True, there are wide gaps between what the Constitution guarantees and what we see in practice. This is natural in a complex developing country like ours which has of late been seeing a revolution of rising expectations. It is difficult to say who has failed whom. Is it the Constitution which has failed the people? Or, the persons at the helm? A number of distortions have crept into the system because of non-governance or poor performance by the ruling elite. Politicians indulge in gimmicks and have tried to exploit the vast multitude of illiterate Indians to promote their vote banks. The biggest curse of this nation has been the vote bank politics freely indulged in by our self-seeking small-time leaders. This goes against the very spirit of the Constitution. Equally disturbing has been the plight of "the other India" we loosely call Bharat. Why should rural India still groan under deprivation, exploitation and injustice? Why should nearly 40 per cent of the population live in the dark age of poverty, ignorance and illiteracy? What does freedom mean to them? What does the Constitution hold out to them? Why are they being sinned against? What has happened to the nation's conscience? What about the value system the founding fathers of the Constitution so passionately talked about? We have often stressed the need for introspection and stocktaking. However, the moot point is: do our leaders have any desire for this serious exercise by breaking away from their crude politics of power and sharing the spoils system? A new set of rulers has come in place of the old lot. The country no longer suffers one- party rule of the Congress. It has been replaced by a loose coalition system in which regional forces have gained ascendancy. Fine. But in the absence of a coalition culture, the coalition politics of convenience for the sake of power can hardly deliver the goods. In what way is the BJP-led coalition different from or better than the earlier arrangements? Indeed, when it comes to power, politicians of all shades behave alike. This raises the vital question whether the parliamentary system of government is really suitable for this country or not. We have often advocated the need for constitutional reforms with a view to evolving a presidential system of government. A presidential form of government in this country need not be a blind copy of the American system. It can be modified to suit our ethos and needs. Of course, it is often argued that if the character of our rulers remains as it is, any form of government will fail in this country. This point is well taken, but it can also be pointed out that after 50 years of "below average" performance the people want qualitative governance and faster development. They want improvement in the general standards of living, better opportunities for education and socio-economic growth. So, the challenge before the nation is to evolve a system which ensures faster development and does not get bogged down in redtapism and a negative mindset. A presidential form of government backed by talented professionals can be expected to deliver the goods faster than a system dominated by caste-and-class-dependent politicians who all the while do their accounting in terms of vote bank politics. Speed apart, we have to ensure both transparency and accountability at all levels of governance. Indeed, the time has come to revive the nation's hopes and this is possible only if we come out of the old rut and think on new bold lines to make India a super power which it richly deserves to be. The question here is not of whether India is a soft state or not. What matters is whether we are a responsive and effective state to serve the people. Enough is enough. It is
time we stopped dividing the country in terms of
community, caste, class and colour. Fifty years of the
Republic should set the Indian mind and thinking in tune
with the revolution in information technology. What
should we aim at is the creation of a better informed
society. The quality of Indian democracy will improve
dramatically if the citizens are better informed. This
alone will minimise the misuse of power by those who rule
the country in the name of the people. |
Lesson for Gen Musharraf THE Defence Minister has spoken wisely and well of India's capability “to meet the challenge of limited wars at a time and place chosen by the aggressor". Mr George Fernandes has commented objectively on the on-going provocative mortar attacks by Pakistani troops from the other side of the international border and the Line of Control (LoC). Keeping Republic Day celebrations in mind, he has told the repeatedly vanquished neighbour that confrontation would get adequate response and even nuclear blackmail would not succeed in intimidating our determined armed forces, which fight back only to win. The Pakistani military ruler, General Parvez Musharraf, has held out yet another threat to India. He has said in a largely publicised interview: "We will teach them (the Indians) a lesson on the LoC or anywhere else." This country is used not only to threats but also to regular wars waged by Pakistan. Therefore, it is ridiculous on the part of General Musharraf to say that "Indians are not refraining from crossing the LoC out of any love for Pakistan. They would have done it long before if they would have been able to do so...." The Chief Executive is neither a mature political being nor an accomplished General. He was an Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) functionary during General Zia-ul-Haq's time. He is the ill-informed and unrealistic author of the foiled Kargil plan in the eyes of the thinking Pakistanis. And he is propelled by a vengeful attitude towards many of his political and military elders who made him what he is today. Professionally, he is at best a commando with little or no experience of managing the Army or a political system. Therefore, his ignorance of what India has done by way of self-defence during the past wars is somewhat comic. When he is challenging the sovereign and democratic Republic of India to prove its capability, he is obviously asking for trouble. He can glance back at the result of the Pakistani misadventure in Bangladesh in 1971. He can assess the position of his military personnel in Siachen. If he develops cold feet after looking at the cold facts, he can also have a look at the strongly defended borders from Jammu to Jaisalmer. Unwisdom is Pakistan's worst enemy and enmity with India is its worst disease. He should be able to reflect on his threat referring to the magnanimity of Lal Bahadur Shastri at Tashkent and the unprecedented goodwill shown by Indira Gandhi at Shimla. If the Tashkent Agreement would not have been violated by Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto would have died in less disgrace. True, Mr Nawaz Sharif's
and General Musharraf's Kargil defeat has put the seal of
ignominy on the politico-military edifice of Pakistan.
But it was not necessary for the General to order his men
to cross the LoC and get killed in the Akhnoor sector on
Saturday last. The greatest strength of India lies in its
iron will and democratic set-up. As External Affairs
Minister Jaswant Singh declared in Muscat on Sunday,
India had not become a "soft state in the aftermath
of the recent plane-hijacking crisis. Its determination
to take the fight against terrorism to its expected
conclusion is strong". The USA is slowly realising
that the wolf in sheep's clothing is a fit emblem of the
hypocrite. Every practical country would rather meet an
open foe than a pretended friend who is a traitor at
heart. The situation is changing on the LoC and the
international borders which are better defended now. This
is not the time for us to listen to Islamabad's
propaganda or to go by stupefying canards which are
floated to suggest that the recent Pakistani victory in
Australia triggered clashes between the Indian Army's
post called PP-13 and the Pakistani Army's Tower-12
across the LoC. General Musharraf's dead soldiers have
told the true tale of the happenings on the Indian side
of the LoC and the sound of shells exploding in the muddy
bed of Munnawar Tawi in the Chhamb sector. General
Musharraf, now being generally exposed in his own
country, is a power-seeker and a power-grabber. He is
speaking like an arrogant critic — and a legless man
trying to teach his fundamentalist followers the art and
craft of running fast. |
RESTRUCTURING EDUCATION POLICY CONCEPTUALLY flawed even at its inception, India’s education system has stumbled over the decades from bad to worse. A few outstanding scholars and intellectuals like Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, C.V. Raman or Amartya Sen should not blind us to the fact that the process is known mainly for the tragic factory line production of millions of unemployed and unemployable graduates for whom learning is no more than a meal ticket. If this degeneration was inevitable because the British viewed education in India as a political instrument, the corrective does not lie in the politicisation of another kind that leftist scholars fear at the hands of Dr Murli Manohar Joshi. Actually, the Human Resources Development Minister, who is now finalising a National Policy on Education, surprised everyone recently by promising to allow foreign investment in education. This is something that no previous government dared to do. Indira Gandhi did agree in a fit of absentmindedness to President Lyndon Johnson’s proposal that the millions of dollars that India owed the USA in PL 480 loan repayment, and which could not be repatriated because of exchange control, should be ploughed into education instead. But the plan was dropped hurriedly when her advisers pointed out that it would be political dynamite. As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a former American Ambassador to India, exclaimed in astonishment, it would have meant that Indians would allow Americans “to take charge of and thereafter pay for their culture. Not their Army. Nor their irrigation systems. Their very culture.” A staunch member of the BJP like Dr Joshi, physicist though he might be, would never acquiesce in such a transfer. The discussion paper on syllabi that was issued under his aegis warns that the “curricula must inculcate and maintain a sense of pride in being an Indian” and that “the remnants of the alien legacy of the pre-Independence period have to be shed completely.” This will not raise any cavil. But authority must guard against two dangers. First, national feeling, however, laudable, cannot be promoted at the cost of accuracy. We cannot wipe out the past like we glibly change street names. The reality of two centuries of colonial rule must be faced up to and its impact negated or improved only through our own efforts. Second, the state should not sponsor a Hindu or Hindutva version of history. The Marxists have always been active in presenting past events from an ideological point of view. If the government dresses up history to flatter and please Hindus, then Muslims, Sikhs and Christians would be encouraged to do the same. To make matters worse, some of the claims advanced from an extreme Hindu point of view are simply laughable. Among them must be included such ridiculous statements as crediting Oxford’s Balliol College to a Hindu deity, suggesting that Indians first peopled China and that the taxes imposed by the Khilji dynasty provoked the migration of labour to the West Indies and Mauritius. Education is always a double-edged sword and that bequeathed by the British doubly so. British education has inspired the spirit of inquiry and produced some of our best scholars, as already noted. A command of English and the self-confidence that it generates enables Indians to cut a dash on the world’s stage. But exceptions prove the rule. Our handful of distinguished academics underscores the poverty of village schools. And the glib rhetoric of Indian representatives at international forums cannot conceal grim vacuity at home. India could have turned out a very different place, more practical and less cerebral perhaps, if the British had heeded the pleas for agricultural and industrial schools by Radhakanta Deb, a farsighted 19th century social reformer who was yet a leader of the orthodox Hindu group. Warren Hastings’ initial commitment to orientalism might have helped to preserve indigenous scholarship and traditions at the cost of modernity. But the East India Company decided that it was “the great object of the British government to promote European science and literature”. This, in fact, was the prayer of Raja Rammohun Roy and other avant garde reformers. In theory, the prescription could not be faulted. In practice, we had the worst of both worlds. There was never enough money for the widespread and meaningful pursuit of science and literature. One wonders, too, whether even the intention existed. As H.H. Wilson, the Oxford Sanskritist, feared, the vast majority of Indians sought just enough of a smattering of English to get a job. The concepts of the modern state, of the citizen’s place in it and of the rule of law all flow from our education. But hundreds of millions of Indians who receive a different education or no education at all are not inheritors of the same values and traditions. They comprise another India, or many other Indias. No government has really bothered to resolve the dissonance between ideas that shape elite thinking and the multitude’s very different perceptions. The latter is a grassroots monster to be petted and placated by politicians. But when we speak of progress we do not mean potable water in the villages or rural health centres but the ability of the mythical 300 million consumer class to buy internationally branded consumer goods. Universal education could have bridged this gulf between, to quote Sunil Khilnani, Indians “who knew their Dicey from their Dickens, and those who did not.” It could have created a harmonious whole, as Britain’s welfare state with its free schools and universities did to a great extent. But Macaulay did not famously propose the creation of “a class of persons, Indian in colour and blood but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect” for idealistic reasons. British policymakers calculated shrewdly that not only would Indian clerks and copyists cost less, but English education would help to create a supportive lobby that would consolidate colonial rule. India is not Iran with its exuberant nationalist upsurge. Nor China whose repudiation of unequal treaties is symptomatic of its selective approach to history. We must make the best of what we have. That means extending a revised version of the only education system we have throughout the country. The proposed National Education Policy would be most useful if, instead of pandering to chauvinists or adding to the number of inferior colleges and universities, it satisfies the demand for universal primary schooling. This too the British,
who were nothing if not liberal and quixotic,
anticipated. One of their administrators, Brian Hodgson,
objected in 1843 that though official decisions on
education “may result in supplying the country with
an able body of native functionaries, they seem little
calculated to meet the wants of the mass of the people,
their design indeed being to meet those of the government
only.” He was convinced that only a system of mass
education that imparted modern ideas in their own
languages to as many people as possible could rejuvenate
India. Anticipating the connection Amartya Sen draws
between education and economic growth, Hodgson demanded
good textbooks, good teachers and new teacher training
schools. That is still the need that Dr Joshi must
satisfy. |
When Navy was given second
position FIFTY years ago, on January 26, 1950, when we became a Republic, we adopted our Constitution with the Preamble which states: “We the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign socialist secular democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens: Justice, social, economic and political; Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and the integrity of the nation.” But the fallout of us becoming a Republic on January 26, 1950 — which was a very major occurrence on the national scene and for all time to come — was felt in many other spheres. One of them was the then Royal Indian Navy, which now became the Indian Navy. The Royal Indian Navy had been the senior service in India during the pre-Independence period with the Indian Army and the Royal Indian Air Force following in that order. On January 26, 1950, when we became a Republic the order of seniority was officially changed to the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. As recorded in the naval archives and in the first volume of naval history, “Under Two Ensigns”, the late Admiral R.D. Katari (First Indian Chief of the Naval Staff), Chief of Personnel at Naval Headquarters, said: “The answer is very simple....Almost from the day that General Cariappa took over as C-in-C, Army, he started a relentless and sustained campaign at no less a person than Prime Minister Nehru....His theme was very simple. The existing order was an anachronism based as it was on the British tradition whose glory was the Empire created and later sustained by its Navy. “The other two Chiefs being British, least equipped to dispute this contention. Admiral Sir Edward Parry (C-in-C, Royal Indian Navy, August 1948 — October 1951) did speak to us once or twice but appeared helpless. We relatively junior Indians gnashed our teeth but felt even more helpless.” In retrospect, I do wish to mention for the sake of record that I was then serving as a Staff Officer to Admiral Parry and his Flag Lieutenant (ADC), the late Rear Admiral Gautam Singh, were both told by Admiral Parry that he felt very strongly over the issue of the Navy losing its precedence in favour of the Army and that he even threatened to resign but was persuaded by the Indian officers not to do so as it might cause a major disturbance in the Service. Before I relate here the interesting story of the Republic Day parade on January 26, 1950, which was the last time the Navy had the privilege of leading a Naval contingent at the head of the national parade, I do wish to state some incontrovertible facts. India has a rich maritime heritage. The earliest reference to maritime activities is contained in the Rig Veda: “Do thou whose countenance is turned to all sides send off our adversaries, as if in a ship, to the opposite shores; do thou convey us in a ship across the sea for our welfare” (Rig Veda 1, 97, 7 & 8). Hindu mythology is replete with episodes pertaining to the ocean, the sea and the rivers. Lord Vishnu, the Preserver in the Hindu Trinity, is said to be reclining on Adi Sesha, the serpent, in the midst of the primordial ocean. In the perennial fight between the forces of good and evil, symbolised by the Devas and the Asuras, respectively, the two sides used Adi Sesha and the sacred mountain Meru to churn the primordial ocean. Our rivers have always been taken to represent goddesses. There is plenty of other evidence available derived from Indian literature and art, including sculpture and painting, besides that from archaeology to suggest the antiquity of the Indian maritime tradition. I feel that had some research been done by us delving into our ancient maritime heritage, we could well have convinced Pandit Nehru to let the existing order of precedence continue; he was an eminent historian himself. See what he said only eight years later and which is quoted in the first paragraph of the second volume on naval history — blue print to bluewater”. On March 28, 1958, standing on the quarterdeck of MYSORE, he said: “From this ship I look at India and think of our country and its geographic situation — on three sides there is the sea and the fourth high mountains — in a sense our country may be said to be in the very lap of an ocean. In these circumstances I ponder over our close links with the sea and how the sea has brought us together. From time immemorial the people of India have had very intimate connections with the sea. They had trade with other countries and they had also built ships. Later on the country became weak.... Now that we are free, we have once again reiterated the importance of the sea. We cannot afford to be weak at sea... history has shown that whatsoever power controls the Indian ocean has, in the first instance, India’s seaborne trade at her mercy, and in the second India’s very independence itself.” Here are a few lines from the latest issue of the annual naval journal, Quarterdeck, which was released on January 16, 2000. In an interview with Admiral Sushil Kumar, the present Chief of the Naval Staff, it is recorded in the last paragraph: “In my view the continentalist era is over and the next millennium will witness the dawning of a new maritime period. I believe that during the next century India will realise her potential as a full-fledged maritime nation and that India’s maritime dimension will decisively shape our country’s destiny in the years ahead....” Now coming to some facts about the actual last national parade when the Navy led. The venue chosen for the parade was the Irwin Stadium — now renamed the National Stadium — and the various contingents assembled here for the rehearsal, the first rehearsal being held on January 7, 1950. To the horror and consternation of Lt-Commander Inder Singh (officer-in-charge of the naval contingent), who later rose to the rank of Commodore, the Navy found itself placed after the last contingent of the Army. Our two columns in their Navy blue regalia looked absurdly small after the sea (land!) of khaki. Inder Singh’s protest to the Brigadier in charge of the parade after this relegation from the Navy’s pride of place was not taken seriously, and the Naval contingent continued to fall in next to the Army contingent. The frustration grew worse by the time there was the fourth combined rehearsal. Naval Headquarters at this stage took a serious view of this development and directed the Director of Personnel Services (Commander S.M. Nanda, later Admiral and Chief of Naval Staff) to be present at the rehearsal and the final parade. At the next rehearsal Inder Singh repeated his warning to the Army Colonel before forming up for the parade, but once again their protestations were ignored. It was after this development that it was finally decided to act. The Naval contingent was formed up and the usual march past was about to commence when he spotted Commander Nanda and, fortified by his presence in a dramatic flourish, he ordered the entire Naval contingent to march forward in “advance order” and move off the parade ground but not out of the stadium. Absolute panic then seized the officers in charge of the parade! Men ran helter-skelter and the Brigadier (Brigadier Dhillon — later Army Commander) arrived within 15 minutes followed by Lt-Gen S.M. Shrinagesh, then GOC-in-C, Western Command. After brief consultations, they decided to request us in the Navy to rejoin the parade but this time in the lead, and that was where the Navy stayed until the final parade was over. Inder Singh, therefore, had the unique privilege of leading a Naval contingent at the head of the national parade for the last time. (The writer is a
retired Rear Admiral). |
My
cricketing days — then and now CRICKET, says my dictionary, is a wooden footstool. Of what kind, it doesn’t specify. Possibly the Englishmen still use that footstool but, somehow, they appear to have brought to India not this but another kind of cricket. No, I don’t mean the dark-coloured cousin of locust/grasshopper who is fond of sporting antennae as it playfully leaps in the grass. The only cricket that our erstwhile rulers chose to carry wherever they went was the virus of an epidemic which now has the entire Indian nation in its grip periodically. True, until a few decades ago, this flu used to be a seasonal affair with its range limited to a region, or at most to one or two countries at a given time, but now, more often than not, it has international sway — yet another proof of the fact that we live in a global village. Of course, in India, it has acquired typically local symptoms. In England, it was a fashionable disease that infected only a select band of sophisticated gentlemen who had to do nothing for their living: the Indian viral has nothing elitist about it; it infects all, including uncouth, violent louts. Inevitably, I too have lost my inborn immunity and become all-too-prone to this cursed bliss. Born and schooled in a remote village, where cricket as sport was known no better than cricket as a footstool, I never played this game as a child, nor could even see it played — until I reached the college. Attendance in sports in the evenings being compulsory during the so-called “first year”, I went all around but no sport would tolerate me for more than a couple of days. That is how I reached the cricket field. There I got stuck not because I learnt the game but because I was only too willing to surrender my turn for batting as well as for bowling to any one who was willing to take it. Anyway, since my real interest was in getting attendance till this day, I haven’t the slightest idea of the technical terminology. Indeed, I can swear that when people talk of googlies, yorkers, seamers, silly-points, etc. I don’t know what precisely they mean. My interest in cricket grew in the “third year” because both my teachers of mathematics were extremely fond of cricket commentary and our class would invariably meet in the teacher’s home, in front of the radio-set. Those were the days of Hazare, Mankad, Merchant and Manjrekar. To begin with, I did resent the waste of time but gradually came to tolerate it, even enjoy it. Frankly, thanks to the commentators’ accent, I could not follow much; but the shouts and silences of the audiences were eloquent enough to help me share the excitement. Today, things have changed; one not only hears but also sees. Thus, I have grown into the game-not on the field but on the screen. No wonder, the World Cup or no cup, whenever there is a cricket telecast, I am invariably the first to switch on the idiot-box. Long after a session is over, my grand-children remain still on — debating, analysing, predicting, betting. Even as I sit admiring
their skill and knowledge — especially their uncanny
knack of anticipating the judgements of the umpires and
the pronouncements of the experts — I butt in
occasionally in a tone that is half-whisper and
half-shriek, being that Shakespearian mix of pipes and
whistles. Having uttered a sentence or a half, I realise
the puerility of what I am going to say and suddenly
relapse into silence — very like that cricket in the
hedge. And when I try to get up, I feel a spasm in my
neck — a crick, that is. As a safeguard against such
after-effects of long sittings, my young companions have
started insisting on my keeping a footstool under my
feet. Imagine the sight of me, a hoarse cricket, resting
on a cricket, watching cricket, and catching crick et al! |
Privatisation ‘no panacea for
power ills’ THE Union Power Minister, Mr P. Rangarajan Kumaramangalam has his hands full these days. The ongoing strike by powermen in Uttar Pradesh has posed a serious challenge to the reforms initiated in the power sector. The pullout of the US-based Cogentrix from the Mangalore Power Company has also not gone down well with foreign investors. A former trade unionist himself, Mr Kumaramangalam says these are only teething problems. The fact is the Indian power sector is in a mess today. You have this scenario where you go back to the age of the lantern or have a modern, efficient power system that gives you quality power at reasonable rates. He is candid to admit that privatisation is no panacea for all ills in the power sector. A judicious mix of both public and private investments is called for to improve the power sector, he said in an interview with T.V. Lakshminarayan. The following are excerpts from the interview: Q. What is the importance of the strike by powermen in Uttar Pradesh? A. The reforms in the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board are very important for the country as it is the largest electricity board in India. In terms of employees and area of coverage, it is the biggest. It is also supposed to be the most organised area. The state government has proposed the trifurcation of the SEB into three different activities — generation, transmission and distribution. The cumulative losses of the UPSEB in 1990-91 was Rs 2300 crore and this went up to Rs 7000 crore in 1996-97. The accumulated losses are to the tune of Rs 19000 crore. Q. Why are the power sector employees in UP resisting the reforms? A. There has been a hullabaloo that we are going to privatise the sector. There is a reasonable amount of income which goes to vested interests today, which is over and above the salary they receive. Under the reforms, they will lose it because accountability becomes stronger. Once the existing monolithic accounting system is broken down, you will have accountability in every activity. For instance, the transmission and distribution losses of the UPSEB is 43 per cent. We suspect, transmission and distribution at its worst cannot and should not exceed 14 per cent. A lot of theft is also accounted for in T and D losses. Q. How does the kick back work? A. It begins by you getting large bills. Then you are approached by a person who is not an employee of the state electricity board. He says he will take it up for you and get it fixed. He fixed it, of course, with the help of SEB officials. It could mean tampering your meter or in some cases even giving you a direct connection. It depends on the settlement you have with him. Q. Are you worried about the strike getting prolonged. What has been its political fallout? A. Criticism has mainly come from the CPM and the CPI and as Left parties we can understand their position. My only worry is that the spreading of fire (strike) can affect the grid. Q. How is the Centre helping the UP Government in resolving the crisis. A. Actually, power is on the Concurrent List and is the responsibility of the state. We have told the state government that whatever you are saying is right and we stand by you. Q. If the UP Government fails to contain the strike, then what is at stake? A. What is at stake is the reforms process and the ability to implement the same. Q. What does the reform process mean for the consumer? A. Obviously when you are reforming the power sector, you stand to get good quality power at cheaper rates. Q. Of late there has been talk about privatising the power utility in Chandigarh. What is the status? A. As for the privatisation of the electricity department in Chandigarh is concerned, we have formed a committee which is looking into it. All that I can say at this moment is that it would not be a joint venture model. Q. With several SEBs amending electricity laws, is not the Centre’s role negated? A. The SEBs are a creation of a Central Act. What the states are doing is to amend the Central Act. We have asked the National Council for Applied Economic Research to come up with suggestions on reforms, in terms of what can be done from the Centre. We have identified generation, transmission and distribution as different activities in law. You can trifurcate it. The law has to be so worded to enable the states to do what they want. The enabling clause should be such that it gives you an option. Q. You have envisaged the reforms process having a five year term whereas the World Bank has a 10-year term to enable SEBs to become profitable. With much of power to the agriculture sector being subsidised, how will you manage it in five years? A. I have a different view on the agri content of power. It has been a bogey to cover losses. Let us take the example of UP or Andhra Pradesh. Reforms in Andhra are much older and the government has already trifurcated its activities. I think the reforms process has taken off there. Tariff hikes are going to take place wherever required. Before tariff becomes a factor, where people pay for the electricity they consume, there is a need to make the SEBs revenue neutral. Q. The UP strike has got support from several states. Don’t you think this will slow down the pace of reforms? A. You have an option. Either decide to return to the age of lantern as in the present form the power sector cannot run. There is no money to run it. Or take a decision to make it commercially viable. Q. Unlike the past, Power Ministers have come to occupy a key position in the economic reforms. Your comments? A. Somehow, I came into this position when power was becoming a critical question and when blackouts were becoming regular. Power has become important for development. At the political level there is much more awareness about this sector. This is because it became a issue that the Bharatiya Janata Party lost the Delhi assembly elections. Q. Private participation in the power sector has not been very encouraging, especially in distribution. Your comments? A. I still believe that
the private sector cannot handle distribution as it is
not so large. The private sector is not the panacea for
all the ills in the power sector. You have to do
business. What name or nomenclature you give is
irrelevant. Good management is relevant. |
January
26, 1925 THE dreadful epidemic is keeping its firm hold upon Multan from the last several years and hardly a year passes during which a few hundred deaths do not occur. Last year also it began in October and subsiding a little after a month or two reappeared in the month of December and is still at its height. The whole of the city is evacuated and the people are labouring under untold hardship. Now it is spreading to the outskirts of the city. Like the previous years, the Sewa Samiti has started its camp. About 140 patients were brought up to this time and were cured. This year the Municipal
Committee has given financial aid to the Sewa Samiti for
maintenance of their plague camp and the credit for the
Municipal Committee to work together in a conjoint plague
camp is mainly due to the exertions of Dr Pandit Shiv
Dutta, Senior Vice-President of the Municipal Committee
and Hony Magistrate L. Kenwal Krishna, BA LL.B., Pleader
and President, Congress Committee, Captain M.L. Talwar,
Medical Officer of Health — and others. The Samiti
owes a deep debt of gratitude, in addition, to the above,
to Seth Dwarka Dass Rais for his benevolence. |
 |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh Tribune | In Spotlight | 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 119 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
