NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTION 99
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

The Rediff Interview/ W R Varda Rajan

'We oppose trifurcating UPSEB because we know it will lead to privatisation'

While Union Power Minister P R Kumaramangalam has been busy claiming that the strike by the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board will end soon and that the strike is the handiwork of a 'mafia' group that operates in the UPSEB, the strikers and their supporters have a different view.

The Centre of India Trade Unions, an apex body of trade unions controlled by the Communist Party of India-Marxist, has been backing the striking workers who are objecting to the Uttar Pradesh government's plan to trifurcate the UPSEB.

CITU secretary W R Varda Rajan spoke to Amberish K Diwanji about the reasons for the strike and the path ahead.

As of today, where does the strike stand?

The strike is on and is effective. The government has been making bold statements about some 20,000 out of the 80,000 workers having returned, but when I spoke with the CITU Uttar Pradesh unit secretary, Daulat Ram, he said all such statements are wrong. Only a handful of workers who can be counted on your fingers have actually gone back to work.

Second, we are getting more support. The UP state government employees have gone on strike in support of the UPSEB workers. Then the staff of the Delhi Vidyut Board (Electricity Board) have also gone on a one-day strike in support.

Third, on January 24, all State Electricity Boards employees across India will go on strike in support of the UPSEB strike. Thus, we are confident of the government listening to us.

What do you hope to achieve with the strike?

This strike is not because we want better economic or service conditions of the staff. It is based on a policy decision and involves a much larger issue, and we have told the UP energy minister, Naresh Agarwal, the same. The issue is the 'unbundling' or the splitting of the UPSEB into three separate corporations and we object to that.

Why do you oppose the move?

Union Power Minister Kumaramgalam says that losses suffered during transmission and distribution is 40 per cent, which means 30 per cent is stolen. He has identified the thieves as being part of a 'mafia', who are large industrial houses and large rural consumers.

Now, tell me, what prevents the UP police and government from cracking down on this mafia? Is it because the UP cabinet comprises history-sheeters? We are prepared that if any employee is in league with the mafia, he should be punished, but why is the government unwilling to crack down on the mafia?

Also, can such large-scale theft occur through employees at the bottom level, through linesman and sub-staff? The fact is that much higher level staff are involved in this theft.

You say action should be taken against workers who are in league with the thieves, but whenever any action is taken against an employee, the other staff go on strike to prevent such action. Then, what is the government to do?

Such strikes are localised affairs, often caused by emotional outbursts. Why make a mountain out of a molehill?

Is it not the prerogative of the government to decide what is best for UPSEB?

Today, we live in the global era. Do we in this global age hear different companies looking after different operations of the same company? Such unbundling is not a global phenomena.

My question is, is this not for the government to decide?

Labour is a social partner in any company. We hear copious platitudes at seminars about treating labour fairly. Why does the government not have a dialogue with labour? We do not agree that the labour and workers must always be at the receiving end of policy decisions, that we should always respond to changes imposed upon us.

We claim that we should be involved in the evolution of the policy that is undertaken. The government is busy involving the employers in various task forces, but what is the harm in letting us have our say.

The government says that trifurcating the UPSEB is a step to improving efficiency, and most government-run firms are inefficient and have low productivity.

Efficiency and productivity are not the exclusive reserves of the private sector. Take a look at the list of companies with the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, and with the Reserve Bank of India. Most of the firms are from the private sector.

Second, is there no other way to improve efficiency? Why only the method of breaking up the UPSEB? Trifurcation of the SEB has taken place in Andhra Pradesh and Orissa, but what is the experience? Has productivity gone up in these states? Why doesn't the government tell us?

If indeed productivity has increased then let the government place the issue before us and we will respond. But what the government is doing is picking and choosing SEBs one by one and carrying out its decisions.

There is one more aspect that I would like to mention. The trade unions have asked whether the government can guarantee us that rate per unit of power supplied will not be increased. Today, the rate is Rs 1.82 per unit, but if the present process of unbundling is carried out, the unit cost will go beyond Rs 5 per unit. This has been confirmed through our experience with Enron (in Maharashtra).

Enron is a private project. Do you think the government will privatise? Is that you are opposing the trifurcation of UPSEB?

Yes. We oppose trifurcating UPSEB because we know it will lead to privatisation. In fact, all this is just part of a plan by the World Bank and we will shortly be bringing out a document in this regard. After breaking up and privatising, the government will have to purchase power from the private companies and then sell it in turn to the consumers and farmers, often at subsidised rates.

But surely whether or not to privatise is the decision of the government?

Who constitutes the government? A parliamentary majority is not sufficient. The people must have a say in the matter. I would like to ask that today the government is talking about the second generation of reforms, but can it tell us the balance sheet of the first? Have such reforms served the public?

For instance, in 1991 the rupee was devalued from Rs 14 to the dollar to Rs 17 to the dollar. Today, the rupee rate is Rs 43 to the dollar. This means that purchases of Indian goods abroad is insulated from inflation whereas Indian purchasers of Indian goods have no relief from the spiral of inflation.

Coming back to the UPSEB strike, what is the way out?

The most reasonable proposal that we have made is to keep the trifurcation in abeyance for six months. Let us have a dialogue and find ways and means to improve efficiency, reduce line loss, and check theft.

Why doesn't the government give us a chance?

After all, even the insurance bill took three different parliaments to be finally introduced into Parliament? The government is standing on prestige regarding the UPSEB strike, and that is not the way out.

The Rediff Interviews

Tell us what you think of this interview