Will privatisation empower TNEB?

Power sector in Tamil Nadu is being privatised. The workers’ unions fought against ‘reforms’ for long, but this time the government is hell bent.

The Tamil Nadu government has announced the substantial involvement of private players to meet the energy needs of the state.

Deputy Chief Minister MK Stalin asserted that the state would bring in an investment of Rs 91,000 crore to generate an additional 18,140 MW of electricity over the next three to five years.

The state is currently facing shortage of power. The installed capacity of projects under the state and central governments and the private sector is over 10,000 MW. Despite purchasing approximately 1,500 MW from the neighbouring states and Independent Power Projects (IPPs), the supply deficit stands at nearly 2,000 MW.

Officials claim that promoting public-private-partnership (PPP) in power sector, especially power generation, will lead to abundant supply of electricity in the state.

“Right now we do not have partnership with any private player. But we are looking forward to it. It will solve the power deficit we are facing,” said Sukumar Solomon, Director (Project), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.

But the workers’ unions in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board are opposing privatisation.

“We have had experience of the American company Enron in Dabhol project in Maharashtra. The company looted the entire money from the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. We do not want similar experience,” contended SS Subramanian, General Secretary – Electricity, Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU).

Enron International was managing the Dabhol power project in Maharashtra. Once the company’s financial irregularities surfaced, the project was stalled, leading to a power crisis in Maharashtra.

Subramanian added that the current situation had arisen due to the government’s own policies.

“An addition of 5,000 MW of electricity per year is needed to keep up with the increasing demand for electricity. But for the past 10 years the government has not done anything to increase generation. So, the deficit has gone up,” he said.

The government spends Rs. 3 per unit in power generation. The cost of buying from IPPs and other states can go up to Rs. 19 per unit. In a PP model, the burden falls on the consumer. Cities like Delhi and Bangalore have seen rise in tariffs after partial privatisation of power generation and distribution.

The current emphasis on privatisation is a part of the larger issue of electricity reforms under the Electricity Act, 2003.

The TNEB was recently bifurcated into Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd (TANGEDCO) and Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation (TANTRANSCO). Though the government claims that the reforms are aimed at protecting rights of the consumers, experts believe that it is a move to promote privatisation in the power sector.

Smooth ride on new roads

Election results in Bihar have left everyone spell-bound. In the times of anti-incumbency, what is it that drew people to JD(U), rather Nitish Kumar.

The Bihar assembly results have cast a spell on everyone. Though a clean sweep was predicted, the scale of it –the JD(U)-BJP alliance  bagging 206 out of 243 seats –  made even the best of psephologists look incompetent.  The JD(U) won115 seats while BJP with 91 seats raked in its biggest-ever victory in Bihar Assembly elections. The largest opposition, RJD-LJP alliance, bagged a mere 25 seats, while Congress had to content itself with four seats despite all the charm and charisma of Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gadhi and Manmohan Singh. The eight seats that were left went to the Left, JMM, others and independents.

What are the reasons for this landslide victory against Laloo Prasad Yadav who remained in power from 1990 to 2005 undeterred by any criticism? Laloo, with his typical Hindi accent, was a popular mass-leader. He was recognized as a brilliant administrator when business schools of Harvard, Wharton and IIMs learnt from him the turnaround of Indian railways. Yet, today Laloo stands a faded figure in his own state. His wife and former Bihar CM Rabri Devi lost both the constituencies she contested from.

The victory of the JD(U)-BJP combine under the leadership of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar has come on the heels of the most peaceful elections conducted in the state in rebut his time, even  the Naxal –affected areas saw few incidents of violence of a very low intensity. In addition to this, the voter turnout was high –52.43 per cent voters exercising their franchise in all six phases compared to 45.85 per cent in 2005 Assembly elections and 44.6 per cent in last year’s Lok Sabha elections. Greater participation by women pushed up the voter turnout. Men accounted for 50.77 per cent of the voters, while it was 54.85 per cent for women.  This could not have been possible without the confidence instilled by good governance in addition to security provided by the Election Commission.

Undoubtedly these elections indicate triumph of developmental issues over caste considerations. In a time when parties win on account of anti-incumbency—the same factor that brought Nitish Kumar to CM’s chair in 2005—this  is a positive vote in recognition to infrastructural and social development started by the incumbent CM. There have been creditable improvements in roads and bridges. The law and order situation has improved greatly. Extortion, loot and kidnapping with open political patronage are believed to have reduced. Nitish Kumar has also brought in popular education reforms. The two popular schemes are the provision of cycles for girls and scholarships for Muslims. Veteran journalist Shekhar Gupta notes his experience from a pre-election visit to Bihar in his column in The Indian Express that what catches one’s attention “is the young girls, … often in school uniforms, riding bicycles on the state’s new roads.”

The CM became popular among Muslims by reserving seats for lower backward castes in the rural and urban local body elections in 2006. As many as 27 castes of Muslims (Ajlaf and Arzal) fall in the category of lower backward castes. He was also adamant about not letting Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi enter the state for election campaigns citing his awful track record in handling minority issues. The Mahadalits have also benefited by reservations.

Promoting his image as the mascot of development of Bihar, Nitish Kumar fought the 2010 elects on the basis of development as agenda. He has promised that corruption is his next target. His manifesto included improving the power scenario. Kumar’s blog mentioned that “it would be our priority to streamline the PDS system. We have done some experiments with food coupon and I want to give it a concrete shape at the earliest.”

Laloo Prasad Yadav made caste the axis of politics since the early-1990s. He should be credited for bringing the issues of the lower castes to the fore and giving leadership to them and the Muslims in the state. It is said that RJD won election after election riding on the achievements of promoting secularism and challenging upper-caste hegemony. Such agenda kept Laloo in power for some time, but not for long. Material development is a pre-requisite for a society to continue its process of social change.

Nitish Kumar inherited this consciousness of the people. Thus, despite being an ally of BJP, JD(U) provided relief to Muslims, especially those who belonged to the lower part of social ladder. BJP also acted pragmatically. Though BJP’s star campaigner Narendra Modi was not allowed to enter the state, the alliance continued. BJP has registered a better success rate than JD(U) but only because of the wave in favour of Nitish and development.

Editor-in-chief of the Outlook magazine Vinod Mehta said in a TV talk-show that if this is the result of such minimal development, what would have happened if there was a substantial development in the state? There is a lesson to be learnt here for the political parties and leaders of hues and colours.

When peace and justice collide

The Ayodhya verdict has raised questions on what is the division of labour among the judiciary, the executive and the legislature. The verdict is in favour of an aggressive majority and illustrates that Indian ruling elite have to go a long way for ensuring security to it’s religious minorities.

The recent Allahabad High Court judgment on the title suit of the disputed land in Ayodhya has raised many political and legal questions. What constitutes the legal jurisdiction of the court? What should be the role of state when such important matters are decided? How do we define secularism? And, most importantly, what are the state institutions doing to provide a sense of security to the minorities, especially the religious minorities, in a nation which still has fresh memories of the communal riots of Gujarat and Kandhamal?

The suggested three way division of the disputed land gives two-thirds area to the Hindu plaintiffs and one-third to the Waqf Board. The three-judge bench decided on this after dismissing the Waqf Board’s plea. This is akin to saying that we are giving you a piece of the pie though you are not entitled to it. This may justifiably be taken as humiliating by the aggrieved community, which feels discriminated against at various levels in independent India despite the promise of secularism and inclusion given in the Constitution. Legal experts have also pointed out that as no party asked for a division, this judgment may not stand scrutiny.

This judgment has been applauded in many quarters on the grounds it could be accepted peacefully as every party got something. But the point is that achieving peace is not the concern of courts; that’s the duty of the State. Courts are supposed to deliver judgments on the basis of law. In this case, what matters are the laws relating to property disputes. If a fair legal judgment led to possible outbreak of communal violence, so be it. It is the duty of the State to ensure peace by bringing the miscreants to justice.

In any case, what peace has this judgment restored? This peace has come as a result of silencing a minority despite repeated injustices done to it. Firstly, the idols of Ram Lalla were placed surreptitiously inside the central dome of the Babri Masjid in 1949. Then the muslims’ right to worship was taken away though the Hindus were allowed to worship at the Ram Chabutra. The year 1992 saw the Babri Masjid demolition in broad daylight which led to subsequent riots and increasing violence against the minorities. It took more than a decade for the Liberhan Commission report to become public. In between we also had the Gujarat pogrom of 2002. The Ayodhya verdict of September 30 should have marked a break from this history. On the contrary, it appears to toe the line of the Hindutva brigade in the name of ensuring peace, not justice.

This peace is also a result of majoritarian aggression that the Hindutva brigade has been showing over the past six decades. There have been numerous attacks on religious minorities in India — anti-Sikh riots, Bhagalpur violence and Kandhamal to name a few. The Hindu fanatics, led by the RSS-BJP combine, have always maintained that minorities can “stay” in India in peace only as long as they follow the logic of the majority. Has this skewed logic caught up with our judiciary?

This brings us to the question of secularism per se. India takes pride in being the largest democracy with Constitutional values deeply rooted in the idea of secularism. For the Indian ruling class the role of State in a secular set-up is to provide support to all religions. Thus the State gives funds and logistical support to groups with contradictory, and many times clashing, interests. This maze has helped fundamentalists go for political mobilizations as a matter of right and to influence various institutions governing the country. It is time that the definition of secularism is revisited and religion is separated from State and policy making.

It is clear that the Ayodhya verdict is a big jolt to the secular thread of the nation. A legal document cannot be based on faith and belief. As there will be an appeal in the Supreme Court, one would wish that the course of history be changed to make India a more inclusive polity. Responsibility of ensuring security and justice lies on the shoulders of the judiciary as much as it lies on the policy makers. Peace without justice is an unjust peace – and cannot be lasting.

Life and living

If life were a candle, I would ask it to be a magic candle
If it were spring, I would ask it to bloom and sing
If it were rain, I would ask it to fall again
But if it’s a matchstick, an autumn, a tear, I fear I don’t want it to be here

Don’t play with people’s minds

In a bold decision attacking the convenience of the investigative agencies, the SC has banned the use of ‘truth serum’ without individual’s consent. A good decision as we all know the truth behind the ‘truth serum’

In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court of India has disallowed the use of narco analysis (NA), brain-mapping and polygraph tests on accused, suspects and witnesses without their consent.

Narco tests have come to be used commonly and loosely in India in the past few years. Politicians have been known to taunt each other asking each other to take a narco test. Even a High Court once made a desperate appeal to an official to undergo the test. What made this term common is the frequent use of scientific tests by the police. Most of the high-profile cases are solved by the use of these techniques. The use is vocal in nature too. Whereas there are many methods adopted by the investigative agencies, this bunch of scientific analysis has caught the fancy of the officers and the media alike, and hence a regular use, practically as well as vocally.
Administering of intravenous hypnotic medications, called truth serums, has been questioned for a long time. It was first used in 1922 when Robert House, a Texas scientist used the drug scopolamine on two prisoners. Later, there was widespread open and secretive use of barbiturates or certain other chemical substances to find out truth from the arrested persons during the Second World War. But the practice was challenged by scientists and law experts and many countries started banning the use of these methods during investigations. Today not all democracies allow such usage. The judgment by the Supreme Court has brought India closer to them all, in spirit at least. Though the apex court has not banned the use, it has made consent of the person on whom the narco analysis, brain-mapping or polygraph tests is to be administered, a necessity. It has further stated that even after consent, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence.
There are many grounds on which the tests are opposed. Firstly, the scientists’ community has never come to a consensus regarding reliability of the tests. The chemicals put the person into a state of semi-consciousness and their replies can be either truthful information or certain psychotic manifestations. Leading psychiatric and forensic experts also say that whatever is revealed by the tests, can be found out otherwise too if investigators persist more using traditional methods. Hence, there is nothing sacrosanct about the method as such. But for many investigators, these are short cuts to tedious questioning.
The other major criticism comes from the law experts, based on whose arguments the Supreme Court has actually delivered its judgment. The Law Commission, headed by Justice A.R. Lakshmanan, submitted its report to the government in 2007 against the use of narco-analysis, polygraph and brain fingerprinting as tools of police investigation. The report cited a case in a laboratory in Bangalore, where narco-analyses was being conducted several times on the same subject until a preferred result was obtained. This was evidence that the technique was not based on proven scientific principle.
The Commission also reported that these tests violate the fundamental rights of citizens. The Supreme Court mentions in its 251-page judgment that the tests are in violation of Articles 20 (3) and 21 of the Constitution. Article 20 (3) maintains that “no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”. Article 21 guarantees right to privacy. The court maintained that while under the influence of the chemical, the person might give out details of non-penal nature and could face adverse consequences because of that. The Rule of Law cannot allow this infringement over rights and liberty of an individual. It goes against one’s right to a fair trial.
However, it is true that many high profile cases have been solved using these scientific techniques. These include the trial of 26/11 terror suspect Kasab, the unfurling of a larger nexus behind bomb blasts in Malegaon, Nanded etc., and Nithari serial killings. But the investigative and intelligence agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) have come under scanner for their laid-back attitude and dependence on such short-cuts. The alternative to unreliable scientific tests can only be a more efficient intelligence network. The view of most experts is the upholding of the Rule of Law.

Drawing the battle lines

While there is no doubt that naxal violence should be condemned, the role of the State in not letting the fruits of development reach the areas which need it the most, has to be more, or at least equally, condemned

The elimination of almost an entire company of the Central Reserve Police Force is undoubtedly the biggest attack by the Maoists in recent history. The State of Chhattisgarh, where the ambush took place (in Dantewada) has witnessed the wrath of the Maoists many times. In fact, it is normal to see disruptions in regular life and work in states like Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. Jharkhand has almost all its districts infiltrated by the Maoists, who kill civilians, lower end government workers and the tribals who refuse to become a part of their vision and mission. 

Last year the Central Government realised that it is high time that the menace of the Maoists is acknowledged and all-out efforts are put in place to stop the violence spreading to other areas and peace brought to the already affected parts. Thus, the joint operation called “Operation Green Hunt” was launched last November by the Central and state government forces to deal with the biggest threat to internal security of India. The objective was to take control of the areas under Naxal control. The other element of the strategy was to deal with the root cause of spread of Maoist violence, namely underdevelopment of certain areas, especially tribal areas.

Thus, the government has a two-pronged strategy to deal with the situation – to finish the ultras by aggressive use of police forces of the state and to develop the affected areas to avoid further unrest. But this is not a new approach. Since the 1970s, when Maoist violence was at its peak, State governments have always taken positions to the effect that development of underprivileged areas is the only final answer to extremist aggression. In fact initiatives like the land reforms of the West Bengal Government during that time successfully contained the Maoists in the land of their origin.

It may be recalled that it was in 1967 that a movement started in the Naxalbari region of West Bengal as a retaliation for exploitative practices of the landlords vis-à-vis landless farmers who worked on the landlords’ farms. Maoists are called Naxals in India as they derive this name from the place of their origin. The movement spread fast in areas outside West Bengal. At about the same time, a parallel movement of Left groups, called the mainstream Left in the present context, was going on. In 1977, the Left Front formed Government in the State of West Bengal and understanding the frustrations of the radicals and their support base, land reforms were initiated which gave land to the tiller. This move helped in containing the Maoists. The recent comeback of the Maoists in West Bengal shows that such initiatives needed to be sustained. The Central Governemnts should have been more active. This also puts a question mark on unequal power sharing betwwen the State and the Cetral governments under federal system in India. Beyond a point the State governments can’t do much and have to seek help from the Centre for resources, which would not give them if it does not serve it’s interests. 

The other Naxal affected states have had a poor record in embarking upon similar land reform policies. Underdevelopment has become a chronic problem in certain parts of India. It is no coincidence that these are the very areas where the Maoists are the strongest. Jharkhand, the most affected state by Maoist domination, is also the hungriest state of the Indian Union.  According to a report on the State of Food Insecurity in Rural India prepared by the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), in association with the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) in March 2009, nearly two-thirds of the rural households in Jharkhand do not have access to safe drinking water. Similarly, tribal dominated areas in eastern Maharashtra, also a stronghold of the Maoists, suffer from high rates of joblessness and malnutrition. 

It was as late as 2005 that the Union Government accepted that it must provide active support to the states in their fight against the Maoists. By then, things had already gone quite out of control. The Communist Party of India (Maoist), the leading Naxal group of today, was formed in 2004 with the merger of two prominent Naxal outfits, the People’s War Group (PWG) and the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC). This signalled a major resurgence of the Maoists. They started formulating plans to counter government offensives through their own armed cadre. States had been asking for help for long, but the Union Government maintained the position that it is a state’s task to maintain internal security. Once that stance was modified, the process of forming a joint task force that could operate across borders to counter the Naxal threat started. Operation Green Hunt had begun. The justification for such an offensive came from the fact that the Maoists have built up an armed wing, virtually an army now.

But there is the other way. And that is to raise the human development index.  In fact many new schemes and programmes have been launched over the years. But the problem is that the benefits do not reach the targeted areas. Some experts argue that the problem is compounded by the fact that the Maoists do not let all development activities take shape in their areas of domination. For example, the roads and bridges built to connect the villages are blown up using the argument that this will lead to easy movement of the police and will be detrimental to Naxal spread. While this arguement has some merit, Dr Binyak Sen’s argument that development has not reached even those areas which are not naxal affected, is also thought-provoking.

The real dilemma of the government is that development cannot take place overnight. Years of neglect cannot be undone quickly. The struggle against the Naxals is, therefore, likely to be a long haul. There are no easy solutions and no quick fixes.

The Naxals also face an ideological crisis. Kanu Sanyal, tall Naxal leader who founded Naxalbari movement along with Charu Majumdar, committed suicide recently. In his later life, he had become critical of the form that the movement started by him had taken. The movement started as a fight against the landlords. But in recent years it has moved away from this original path. The Naxals may claim to follow the same ideology, but the tactics show a different, rather opposite, trend. The targets are no more the ruling elite, but the poor tribals who do not conform to the Naxal viewpoint, or the police constables who are themselves struggling to make a living, or the cadres of other political parties. Such dogmatism is proving dangerous. And the poor man continues to suffer.

The past tense and tensed…

wat happens wen old n new collide
does old become new
or the new dies
does new transcend into the past
or old travels in its future
but in this confusion
wat does the sunflower do
shud face east or west
or close itself wid a moth inside
n play till eternity, be content for all time
or rise up and become the sun itself

Existential Quest

r u there
or r u not there
or r u nowhere
or r u everywhere
or is it that all of us r nowhere
n that’s y all here
n as all r here
it seems all r somewhere
its a thin line between nowhere, everywhere, somewhere
or may be there is no line even
its all the same
all is for us to maime
n then claim, reclaim

How happy are migrating birds?

The HDR’09 of the UNDP touches some sensitive chords, but fails to give reliable solutions to dismal plight of migrating population

Grains are not only to eat

The famous patterns of Bandhej are prepared with tiny grains. The riot of colours thus produced attracts locals and tourists alike. But the cost is a colourless life for the artisans, mostly women, who are paid peanuts for this exotic work