📰 CJI flags ‘communal content’ in media
Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana says ultimately country will get a bad name
•Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana on Thursday said certain sections of the media communalised everything and this would ultimately result in giving the country a bad name.
•The remark from the CJI came while hearing petitions highlighting how some media outlets aired communal content linking the spread of the coronavirus to a Tablighi Jamaat meet held at Nizamuddin in Delhi.
•“The problem is, everything in this country is shown with a communal angle by a section of media. … The country is going to get a bad name ultimately,” Chief Justice Ramana, heading a three-judge Bench, observed orally.
•The hearing witnessed Chief Justice Ramana upbraid the lack of accountability on the part of social media platforms.
•The CJI said social media platforms only responded to “powerful people,” while complaints made by ordinary people, institutions and judges over content were ignored.
•“These web channels, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube... They never respond. There is no accountability. About the institution they write badly and then they do not respond... This is the condition of institutions, forget individuals... They consider only people who are powerful. Institutions, common man, judges, they do not... This is the reality,” Chief Justice Ramana noted.
•The court asked the government whether there was any regulatory mechanism in place for the web.
•Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta drew the court’s attention to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which provide a redressal mechanism and timely resolution of grievances of users of social media and over-the-top platforms. The Rules require these platforms to appoint a grievance redressal officer who is a resident of India.
•The government recently asked the top court to transfer cases challenging the Information Technology Rules of 2021 from the various High Courts to the Supreme Court.
•In the case of complaints against broadcasters, Mr. Mehta referred to the Cable Television Networks (Amendment) Rules of 2021. He submitted that the Rules provide for a three-level grievance redressal mechanism — self-regulation by broadcasters, self-regulation by the self-regulating bodies of the broadcasters, and oversight by an Inter-Departmental Committee at the level of the Central government.
•“The real contest is between the freedom of the press and the right of citizens to get unadulterated news... We have tried to regulate, balance,” Mr. Mehta submitted.
•On September 24, 2019, hearing a petition filed by Facebook, the top court had shown deep concern at the utilisation of social media for committing crime. It said the medium had become a source for pornography. Paedophiles use social media in a “big way”. Criminals exploit it to run weapons, drugs and contraband. Hate and violence were shared and spread through these virtual platforms. The court had even felt that some messages on social media may even threaten national sovereignty.
•It was in this context the court had called for a “properly framed regime” to allow the government to get information about first originators of messages from “significant” social media intermediaries with end-to-end encryption technology like WhatsApp.
•The IT Rules of 2021 mention this order of the Supreme Court as one of the reasons to justify their existence.
More than 6,000 out of about 18,000 faculty positions are still vacant.
•Forty central universities will kick off implementation of innovative measures such as the academic credit bank and the glue grant meant to encourage multidisciplinarity, at their meeting on Friday to be chaired by Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
•However, Mr. Pradhan is likely to pull them up on a more basic issue — the fact that over a third of their faculty positions are still vacant.
•More than 6,000 out of a total 18,000-odd faculty positions are still vacant and that is a major issue on the meeting’s agenda, Higher Education Secretary Amit Khare told The Hindu on Thursday. Delhi University (DU) was the worst offender in absolute terms, with 846 or almost half of its 1,706 sanctioned posts lying vacant. At the University of Allahabad, the vacancy rate was almost 70%, with only 263 of its 863 posts having been filled.
Glue grant scheme
•Without sufficient number of teachers, the other ambitious initiatives proposed under the National Education Policy would come to naught. “We have taken the first step by appointing vice-chancellors at many of the institutions where the position was vacant or filled by temporary personnel. Now they must get their act together,” said Mr. Khare, noting that even in institutions like the DU and Jawaharlal Nehru University that still did not have permanent VCs, the process of advertisement and selection could begin. The interview process had been completed for the DU VC post and was likely to be filled soon, while it had not yet begun at JNU.
•Under the glue grant, announced in this year’s budget, institutions in the same city would be encouraged to share resources, equipment and even allow their students to take classes from each other. “This is the first step for multidiciplinarity. We intend to start this from the second semester of the current academic year. Ultimately, faculty will be able to design joint courses, and you could see a DU student able to take a few classes at IIT-Delhi, or vice versa,” said the Higher Education Secretary. This also meant that institutions need not duplicate work by developing the same capacities, but would able to build on each other’s expertise.
Credit bank
•The first step would be the academic credit bank, which would have to be adopted separately by the academic council of each university to kick off implementation. To start with, the system would allow students to attain qualifications by amassing credits rather than specific durations on campus. A certain number of credits would add up to a certificate, then a diploma and then a degree, allowing for multiple entry and exit points. Students can earn up to 40% of their credits in online Swayam classes, rather than in the physical classroom. In the future, these credits will hold validity across different institutions.
•“When ATMs were originally introduced, you could only withdraw money from the one run by your bank, but now any bank’s account can be accessed via any ATM. It will take time to build that kind of interoperability, but it is likely to start with the A-level universities once they have established equivalence of credits,” said Mr. Khare.
📰 Indian biologist wins global award in turtle conservation
Shailendra Singh’s work has been recognised for ‘being the last hope for the wild survival’ of some species of turtles in India
•Indian biologist Shailendra Singh has been awarded the Behler Turtle Conservation Award for bringing three critically endangered turtle conservation species back from the brink of extinction.
•A press statement issued by the headquarters of the Turtle Survival Alliance earlier this week said: “For some species, such as the Red-crowned Roofed Turtle (Batagur kachuga), Northern River Terrapin (Batagur baska), and Black Softshell Turtle (Nilssonia nigricans) Dr. Singh and his team’s efforts are the last hope for their wild survival in the country.” The award has been bestowed by several global bodies involved in turtle conservation such as Turtle Survival Alliance, IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, Turtle Conservancy, and the Turtle Conservation Fund.
•“In just 15 years, there are few individuals that have made such monumental contributions to turtle conservation as Shailendra Singh. He and his team’s efforts now span much of India, impacting well over half of its turtle and tortoise species, many of which are among the most endangered turtles on the planet,” said Rick Hudson, president, Turtle Survival Alliance. “While it may take decades to witness the full impact of Dr. Singh’s commitment, his name and legacy have become synonymous with Indian turtle conservation,” Mr. Hudson added.
•Shailendra Singh was named to lead the Turtle Survival Alliance (TSA)/ Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) India turtle programme. “In the 13 years since, he has expanded the TSA India Program to include research, conservation, assurance colony building, community engagement, and outreach as well as developing alternative livelihoods, working to convert poachers, and creating wildlife trafficking response programs. Working in four priority Indian turtle conservation areas, the program now protects 18 of India’s 29 turtle and tortoise species, several of them regarded as Critically Endangered,” the press statement added. The Behler Turtle Conservation Award was established in 2006 to recognise outstanding achievements, contributions and leadership excellence in international turtle conservation and biology.
•Speaking with The Hindu, Dr. Singh said that he was happy the award has turned the spotlight on turtle conservation in the country. “Turtles are one of the highly smuggled species in the country. In the past several years, we have rescued about 35,000 turtles and rehabilitated them in the wild,” the biologist said.
•A report released by international wildlife trade monitoring body TRAFFIC in 2019 revealed that at least 200 individual tortoises and freshwater turtles fall prey to illicit poaching and smuggling every week; 11,000 do so each year; and over 1,11,130 did so between September 2009 and September 2019.
•These critically endangered turtles are being conserved as a part of TSA India’s research, conservation breeding and education programme in different parts of the country. The Northern River Terrapin (Batagur baska) is being conserved at the Sunderbans; the Red-crowned Roofed Turtle (Batagur kachuga) at Chambal; and the Black Softshell Turtle (Nilssonia nigricans) at different temples in Assam.
•There are 29 species of freshwater turtles and tortoises in the country.
📰 Noble intentions: On the U.N. and the Taliban
The U.N. must ensure that the Taliban uphold human rights and give up terror tactics
•As India ended its month-long presidency of the U.N. Security Council this week, the government claimed a victory of sorts for chairing a session that resulted in the adoption of UNSC Resolution 2593, condemning terrorism and urging the Taliban to ensure human rights in Afghanistan. The government has said that the resolution — sponsored by the U.S., the U.K. and France — addressed key Indian concerns, calling for the Taliban to ensure safe evacuations of Afghans wishing to leave and not allowing Afghan soil to be used for terrorist activity. The passage of the resolution was timely, practically coinciding with the exit of the last U.S. troops from Kabul, and the Taliban’s declaration of complete victory. It also followed on three discussions held under India’s chairmanship that have set out the expectations from the new regime in Afghanistan: the importance of upholding rights; to push for an inclusive, negotiated political settlement for government, and condemning all acts of terror, including the recent attack on Kabul airport; preventing any future attacks, and combating of the presence of UN-designated entities. However, the resolution did not contain any consequential language that would give the UNSC’s stated intentions any real teeth, and appears to accept the Taliban regime as the default force in Afghanistan.
•While it is very early to consider more punitive action against the Taliban for violating their commitments by using the U.N. Charter’s “Chapter 7” mandate, that empowers the UNSC to maintain peace, it is disappointing that the India-chaired resolution does not contain language that would hold the new regime more accountable. The watered-down language was probably on account of severe opposition from Russia and China, who later decided to abstain. This divide in the P-5 nations will only prove to be counterproductive if the UNSC wants to remain “seized” of the situation, as the resolution affirms. It is hoped that the U.N. system acknowledges the powerful leverage it has in Afghanistan’s future and actualises all mechanisms in its mandate to monitor the progress of government formation. A major tool is the India-chaired 1988 (Taliban) Sanctions Committee, due to meet soon, which needs to ensure that no designated leader of the Taliban and their associates are given recourse to funds, arms or travel permission unless they show a commitment to international principles. The renewal, on September 17, of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan’s mandate is another lever. As a concerned neighbour of Afghanistan, one that could be drastically affected by an uptick in terrorism there, and a believer in the UN-led multilateral order, India still has a role in Afghan’s future. While it has decided to embark on talks with the Taliban in Doha, it must continue to play that role on the world stage.
📰 A hydro onslaught the Himalayas cannot take
There is rock solid scientific evidence to demand the cancellation of many upcoming and approved hydel projects
•In normal circumstances, when a mistake is understood and suffered, one tends to learn from it and not repeat it. Unfortunately, this does not hold true in the case of the policy makers who are bent upon permitting projects and large-scale infrastructure in the already fragile and vulnerable Ganga-Himalayan basin. Recurrent disasters in the last decade in the State of Uttarakhand have been studied and analysed. And in every disaster, the increasing anthropogenic pressure in this area has been found to be a direct or an indirect contributor. The most recent example is the Rishi-Ganga valley disaster, in February this year which claimed over 200 lives as the river turned into a flood carrying a heavy load of silt and debris and demolishing hydropower projects along its course. While science and logic tell us to press on with conservation and protection in these sensitive areas, our government has decided to go in the dangerous and opposite direction.
The background
•The affidavit filed recently by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) in an ongoing matter in the Supreme Court of India has recommended the construction of seven partially constructed hydroelectric projects in the Uttarakhand Himalaya. This essentially goes against the core mandate of the Ministry — which is to conserve the country’s natural environment — and one of the prominent electoral promises of the Government, the rejuvenation of one of the country’s major rivers, the Ganga. After the Kedarnath tragedy of 2013, in suo motu cognisance by the Supreme Court, an expert body (EB-I) was constituted to investigate whether the “mushrooming of hydro-power projects” in the State of Uttarakhand was linked to the disaster. In its findings, EB-I said there was a “direct and indirect impact” of these dams in aggravating the disaster. Paving the way for the projects, the Ministry formed committee after committee until it got approval for these projects with some design changes.
•This affidavit, dated August 17, reveals that the government is inclined towards construction of 26 other projects, as in the recommendation of the expert body (EB-II; B.P. Das committee). The conclusions of the first expert body (EB-I), chaired by Ravi Chopra, that had flagged the incalculable environmental risks of such structures have been conveniently sidelined and overwritten by EB-II whose mandate has been to pave the way for all projects through some design change modifications. Politicians in cahoots with private developers are bent upon going ahead with such projects for short-term monetary gains despite the dire warnings of climate change threats and environmental challenges. It must be noted that the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has special significance in the context of fragile mountainous ecological regimes.
Dangerous reversal
•The aforementioned affidavit submitted by the MoEFCC conceals the Ministry’s own observations and admissions given in its earlier affidavit dated May 5, 2014 which admitted that hydroelectric projects did aggravate the 2013 flood. Interestingly, the recent affidavit also conceals the minutes of the meeting and decision taken by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) on February 2, 2019 in this regard. The minutes of this meeting make the policy decision of there being “no new hydropower projects” on the Ganga along with the cancellation of those that have not reached at 50% of its construction. This in itself is a bizarre demarcation because on one hand there is an acceptance of the devastative impact of the dams (and the decision not to have more) while on the other, there is a push to still pursue them on an unfounded logic of money having been spent on them. Should we continue with a mistake made or make amends?
•The sustainability of the dams in the long term is highly questionable as hydropower solely relies on the excess availability of water. Climate change models are clear about the cascading impacts of global warming trends on the glaciers of the Himalaya — the main source of water in the region that sustains the drainage network within the mountain chain. Temperatures across the region are projected to rise by about 1°C to 2°C on average by 2050. Retreating glaciers and the alternating phases of floods and drought will impact the seasonal flows of rivers.
•The most crucial aspect is the existence of sediment hotspot paraglacial zones, which at the time of a cloud burst, contribute huge amounts of debris and silt in the river, thereby increasing the river volume and the devastation downstream. The flash floods in these Himalayan valleys do not carry water alone; they also carry a massive quantity of debris. This was pointed out by EB-II alongside its recommendation not build any projects beyond 2,000 metres or north of the MCT, or the Main Central Thrust (it is a major geological fault). The existing fully commissioned dams in the region are already indicative of the fact that these high-capital intensive ventures have negatively impacted local communities and their livelihoods. It is high time the MoEFCC formulated a written position on climate change adaptation with respect to the hydropower sector, after a thorough public discourse.
‘Risk-laden artifacts’
•Amelie Huber, a political ecologist who has conducted extensive research on the hydropower development in northeast India, says that the dams in the mountainous regions that are exposed to earthquakes, floods, extreme rainfall, avalanches and landslides, are “risk-laden artifacts” . The dominantly clichéd discourses on hydropower as a renewable source of green energy promoted by the dam lobby, deliberately ignore the contentious externalities such as social displacement, ecological impacts, environmental and technological risks.
Factor of climate change
•These discourses assume great significance in the Himalayan terrains as these projects exacerbate ecological vulnerability, in a region that is already in a precarious state. The intense anthropogenic activities associated with the proliferation of the hydroelectric projects in these precarious regions accelerate the intensity of flash floods, avalanches, and landslides. The additional element of climate change makes these scenarios much worse. About 15% of the great earthquakes (of magnitudes greater than 8) of the 20th century took place in the Himalaya and many of its segments are likely to see a period of intense earthquake activity in the future, as studies show. The 2015 Nepal earthquake is a case in point. Several dams were damaged in that event destroying a third of Nepal’s hydropower.
•The recent events such as the Rishi Ganga tragedy and the disasters of 2012 (flashfloods), 2013 are examples of how hydroelectric projects which come in the way of high-velocity flows aggravate a disaster and should be treated as a warning against such projects in the disaster-prone Uttarakhand river valleys. The proliferation of dams is not restricted to Uttarakhand. By 2007, Sikkim had entered a contract with private public sector players for development of 5,000 MW and Arunachal Pradesh signed memoranda of understanding in 2010 for 40,000 MW. As Ms. Huber points out, “these agreements thrived on speculative investments and political brokering.... Private companies... often partner with public companies — have minimal accountability or experience in the courier and logistics, real estate, steel fabrication, and tourism sectors”.
•She cites the example of the 510 MW Teesta V hydropower plant in central Sikkim, commissioned in 2008. The local communities have been complaining about the sinking of mountain slopes, drying up of springs, development of fissures and increased incidents of landslides. The construction and maintenance of an extensive network of underground tunnels carrying water to the powerhouses contribute to the failure of mountain slopes.
•Several people in the Tapovan Vishnugad hydroelectric project were washed away earlier this year, while scores were buried in the debris of the 2013 floods aggravated by the Phata-Byung and Singoli-Bhatwari hydroelectric projects of the Kedarnath valley. Many lives and livelihoods were lost in the Ukhimath flash floods of 2012 where the Kali-Ganga and Madmaheshwar dams are located. The dangers of an impending earthquake or flash flood loom large over the highly vulnerable Chamoli region where Vihsnugad-Pippalkoti is based. We are already aware of the massive impact of the Tehri hydroelectric project, if an unfortunate catastrophe strikes this gigantic structure.
The river must flow free
•These are the projects that have been approved by the Government with no science backing them but with several scientific truths demanding their cancellation. A preposterous amount of money is being wasted in the construction of these dams that will always function much below their efficiency, cause the loss of water and forests, and render the area fragile. By the time they are constructed, the cost of electricity generated will also be phenomenally high and would have no buyers. Considering the environmental and cultural significance of these areas, it is imperative that the Government refrains from the economically challenged rapacious construction of hydroelectric projects and declares the upper reaches of all the headstreams of the Ganga as eco-sensitive zones. It must allow the river to flow unfettered and free.
📰 Is monetising public assets a good idea?
The challenge is in structuring the complexity of contracts with private players
•Last month, the Centre released the National Monetisation Pipeline, a document listing the various public assets that will be leased out to private companies over the next four years. The government believes that monetising underutilised public assets will bring in almost ₹6 lakh crore to the government and help build new infrastructure to boost the economy. The Opposition has accused the government of selling off valuable national assets to “crony capitalists”. In a conversation moderated by Prashanth Perumal J., Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Ajay Shah discuss this move. Edited excerpts:
What do you think of the government’s idea of monetising operating assets to build fresh assets?
•Ajay Shah: The grand strategic question is this: on the one hand, we have the government developing and owning public assets forever. And this has certain consequences. On the other, we have the public-private partnership (PPP) model, where the private sector will develop and operate assets. We have found that the PPP model runs into many difficulties. The government does not have the capacity to enter into contracts and deal with contract negotiations and difficulties. Many pieces of the development process are difficult for private people to solve. So, is there a way out? Conceptually, it seems that there is a way out, which is that the government should do the early development of infrastructure, which is the high-risk phase, create an operating asset, and then sell the asset off to private people. So, the asset goes off the public balance sheet and into the private balance sheet. The money collected by the government can go back into developing new assets. I think there is merit in this thought process given the constraints of state capacity in India.
•Montek Singh Ahluwalia: Many people have reservations about bringing in the private sector into infrastructure. There is no dispute that we need more infrastructure but the public sector simply doesn’t have the resources to build it. There are two possible responses. One, for new infrastructure, one can think of bringing in the private sector, set up a contractual framework for what it has to do, and then let it bring its own resources. The second is to recognise that there are more risks in the construction stage and it is perhaps better to let the public sector build the asset and then sell it off to private players or if not an outright sale, let the private sector manage it. We have a huge amount of infrastructure to build in the future and we have huge value embedded in existing infrastructure. So, why not realise that value and let the public sector use the resources to build the infrastructure we need?
•Of course problems will arise. The first is whether you are realising adequate value from the assets. This depends on the quality of the bidding process and whether enough private players are attracted to bid. The second is cronyism. The only way of ensuring that asset monetisation doesn’t lead to cronyism is to make the bidding conditions such that the people eligible to bid are not a small, predetermined set. However, because of the capital intensity of the project, not everybody is going to be able to bid. Even so, you can ensure that there is sufficient participation.
Why would the government choose asset monetisation over outright privatisation?
•Montek Singh Ahluwalia: I don’t know what considerations went into making that decision. I think we should do monetisation and privatisation because we don’t know what’s best. One reason that the government might not want to do outright privatisation is if it involves the transfer of a scarce resource like land. Land is so valuable that you may not want to just hand it over. It’s easier to justify a 30-year lease because at the end of that lease the land stays with the government. In another context, if the land is of no great value, you could simply hand it over. That’s why I feel that these are issues of choice.
•Ajay Shah: I would like to put more considerations on the table on the trade-off between outright privatisation and asset monetisation. The first is: do we want to build a society where there is a gigantic public sector? How much do we want state domination of society? My view is that reduced state domination of society is important. The second aspect is practical. When a private person builds an infrastructure asset, it tends to get done better because a person has self-interest in making it a high-quality asset. The economist Lawrence Summers once famously said that never in the history of the world has anyone ever washed a rented car. If I’m a private investor in a highway through a complex asset monetisation contract, I do not really own the highway and I will take less care of the asset. Entering into a complex contract with a government organisation involves great risk because the Indian state is not a great party to have a contract with. So, a clean asset sale puts an end to the complexity of government interference.
Are there ways to ensure that there’s no asset stripping by private investors with limited time horizons?
•Montek Singh Ahluwalia: When you have a 30-year contract, for example, your incentive to put money into the asset, which would ensure that it remains productive in the 31st, 32nd and the 33rd year, goes down compared to when you own it yourself. That’s an unresolved problem. People should think about that. One option would be that you allow a renewal of the lease even before the lease ends. But then you need a competitive process there. If you take the Taj Hotels, for example, which owns valuable property in Delhi on a fixed lease, they didn’t allow the hotel to run down right at the end of the lease in the hope that the lease will get renewed. So, the problem can be resolved.
•Ajay Shah: The question is how much complexity you want to build into a contract. Imagine that I’ve got a highway contract for 30 years. In the contract, the government can embed some clauses stipulating various conditions. But you’re soon starting to go closer to the complexity of the PPP world. The more complex you make the contract, the more difficult it is for the Indian state to achieve the state capacity required to uphold the contract. All too often the Indian state engages in dadagiri, so private people are not comfortable entering into complex contracts with the Indian state. Now, that doesn’t mean that outright sale is easy. With an outright sale, we will still have a government regulator and we will face the problem of regulatory capacity. The trade-off is about the cost of building regulatory capacity versus the cost of building contracting capacity.
What about the risk of assets being owned by a few large companies and its impact on consumers?
•Montek Singh Ahluwalia: Because of the limited number of private players, bidding for assets may not be totally fair. If you open up bidding to include foreign players, then you’re not limited to small players. As far as the consumer becoming hostage to a particular player is concerned, many of these projects by their very nature are monopolies. You don’t have competition in the sense that if you’re handing over a road from Delhi to Agra to a private player, there isn’t a parallel road competing with it. You can maybe go by rail, or you can go by air. But there’s only one major highway between Delhi and Agra and you certainly don’t want the person who has got it to start behaving like a monopolist. So, what do you do? You lay out in the operating contract that you signed the terms of service. Now all this is subject to the government’s poor contracting ability. But in principle, it is possible to have a relatively more complex contract, and to have a way of adjudicating within the terms of that contract with a sufficiently credible, independent set of regulators. This may not be easy because many people believe that regulators appointed by the government will give judgments favourable to the government. So, the regulatory authority should not be under the institutional control of the ministry that enters into the contract. But these are all areas we need to experiment with. Here, however, the critical thing to ask is: what’s the alternative? We could limit ourselves to what the government can do with its own resources and accept the lower trajectory of infrastructure development; or we could take these risks and go for a higher trajectory. We should do the latter.
•Ajay Shah: I agree with what Montek said about experimenting with many pathways rather than presuming that we know the right answer. I feel that if you have a simple problem like a highway, then outright sale to the private sector makes more sense. But there are many problems that are far more subtle. So, I feel it’s healthy for us as a society to go in with an epistemic scepticism and an approach of experimentation and learning. About crony capitalism, I would like to say that opening up bidding to global players will be extremely valuable, not least because the vast amounts of money required to build infrastructure are best financed through global corporate finance structures. Overseas organisations are particularly important in obtaining the most efficient arrangements because Indian financial organisations need to deal with the infirmities of Indian finance. I’m attracted to dispersed shareholding companies as the owners of operating assets. A lot of elements of policy can and should be modelled in favour of more competition.
How do we overcome issues that have stymied past disinvestment and monetisation efforts?
•Montek Singh Ahluwalia: The history of our efforts at privatising is littered with cases where the system doesn’t actually want to privatise. So, it puts forward conditions which to the government look very sensible. For example, any government would like to say when it is privatising something that the new owner will not be able to get rid of excess staff. But if you’re a private owner, making management changes and also scaling down excess labour is one of the key things in efficiency. If you come up with a privatisation proposal which says that you can’t get rid of the staff, you’re going to end up with poor bids. In the mid-1980s, when Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister, it was agreed that we can privatise Scooters India. At that time, Bajaj Auto was willing to take over on conditions that were quite reasonable. But the conditions that the ministry came up with were guaranteed to make Bajaj Auto say, ‘no, thank you’. I don’t know the conditions that will be imposed in the asset monetisation programme. But I think these are the sorts of things that should be addressed upfront in a policy document.
•Ajay Shah: Take the example of a Food Corporation of India warehouse in Mumbai occupying 120 acres of land. The question should be whether you really want a government asset occupying such a large area of land in Mumbai. The best imaginable use of that land is probably to sell it off, raise money and pay down public debt. So, that’s a classic privatisation question. If you try to view this through an asset monetisation lens, you will start thinking, ‘I want to give this asset to a private vendor, who will continue to store wheat in it as an agent of the government for the next 30 years’. That really does not make much sense. So I think we should be asking first principles questions about how many of these assets we really want under government control.
