All too often, when there
is talk of the functioning of public sector enterprises or utilities,
the argument that is most frequently heard is that such entities are
inefficient, not only because of the manner of their functioning,
but because they cannot even recover the payments that are due to
them. Thus, State Electricity Boards are in major financial messes
because of the large amount of theft of power (euphemistically classified
under "losses in transmission and distribution") besides
the non-payment of dues by users. Rural banks suffer from high rates
of default which are effectively encouraged by political powers catering
to the interests of large farmers. And so on.
While
this argument is not without merit, the trouble is that most often
the full reasons and implications of this are not spelt out. Thus,
whenever, bad loans in the banking system are talked about, it is
the agriculturalists who are mentioned as the culprits, even though
the total amount of non-repayment to the organised financial system
by farmers pales into insignificance when compared with the huge amounts
merrily left unpaid by some of the largest business groups and richest
individuals in the land.
Similarly,
it is not uncommon to hear middle class urban citizens complain about
the electricity "stolen" by those living in slums and very
poor and "non-formal" urban clusters. But it is widely accepted
by those actually involved in the power utilities, that in metropolitan
areas such as Greater Delhi, the greatest proportion of power theft
occurs in the richest neighbourhoods and by the powerful elite.
It
is this mindset which also dominates whatever official action is actually
taken to recover loans or payments due. That is, typically the pressure
is put on the smallest and weakest borrowers, whose total dues account
for a minuscule fraction of all the outstanding amounts. And meanwhile,
the rich and powerful, whose non-payment is far more serious for the
viability of the system, not only escape untouched, but also join
in the general condemnation of the declared defaulters and use this
as a further argument to push for privatisation.
All
this becomes depressingly clear in the unfolding situation in the
Chhattisgarh region, where in the past few months, a drive for rural
loan and dues recovery has lad to large-scale harassment of small
peasants and marginal farmers. Not only have electricity charges been
significantly raised as a prelude to the commercialisation and possible
privatisation of the state electricity provider, but there has been
a forceful attempt to make agriculturalists pay the new dues and all
back payments. At the same time, debt servicing of loans to rural
banks and credit co-operatives has also sought to be enforced all
at once.
This
has been associated with all manner of threats and aggression by the
authorities towards the peasant groups in question. Forcible recovery
of dues has been associated not only with threats of attaching the
small properties possessed by the peasants, but in some cases with
physical violence and torture as well. In one case, all the residents
of the village were forcibly taken to the police thana and
threatened, and some were also beaten up.
While
many would oppose the use of force, it could still be argued that
the financial viability of these systems does depend upon repayment,
and so it is not unreasonable for public institutions to demand recovery
of dues. But this is where the politics of the entire operation becomes
so evident, for the much larger dues which remain unpaid by large
industrialists in the Chhattisgarh region not only are being ignored,
but are even in some cases forgiven.
This
was clearly brought out during the course of a demonstration by members
of the Chhattisgarhi Mukti Morcha and their supporters in the Capital
in late July. Among the many important demands that were raised, was
the crucial one that the application of the laws of the land should
be directed to the rich and powerful interests as much as to ordinary
citizens. This is especially necessary in the cases of recovery of
loan repayment and power dues, because the total amount owed by all
the small peasants and workers of the region would be only a small
fraction of the individual dues of some important industrialists.
According
to CMM sources, the outstanding dues of just a few important industrialists
and companies amount to more than Rs. 500 crore, which is many hundreds
of times the total amount that is owed by all the agriculturalists
of the region put together. Thus, in terms of bad loans, the following
payments are still said to be pending : more than Rs. 37 crore from
Hari Khetawat of Bhilai Wires Ltd.; over Rs. 65 crore from Nemchand
Shri Shrimal, owner of K. N. Oil Mill in Mahasmand; over Rs. 140 crore
owed by Kailashpati Kedia of Kedia Castle Dellon Co., which has apparently
"vanished" from the balance sheets. There are said to be
more than Rs. 200 crore in terms of income tax arrears owed to the
government by B. R. Jain and Surendra Jain of Bhilai Engineering Corporation.
An
even more striking case is evident in the case of electricity dues.
The Ambuja Cement Factory of Baloda Bazaar is said to owe more than
Rs. 34 crore to the State Electricity Board. Of this, it was claimed
that Rs. 17 crore has been "forgiven" by the state government
of Madhya Pradesh. It this is true, it is certainly worth delving
into the reasons why this company has been singled out for this favour,
which at one stroke has lost the state government many times what
it can hope to retrieve through forcibly extracting loan repayment
from poor farmers.
Of
course, the problem is not specific or confined to Madhya Pradesh
- it reflects a much larger tendency evident all over India and at
the Central level as well, of blatantly favouring certain rich and
powerful elite groups and allowing them to milk the public exchequer
through non-payment of dues to public institutions. The irony is that
it is these same privileged groups, who are major beneficiaries of
the public system at the cost of ordinary citizens, who then lead
the attack against not only the smaller beneficiaries but against
the public system as a whole.
The
solution to this does not lie in privatisation, but in the greater
accountability of the public system to ordinary citizens, so that
the powerful few with access to decision makers at the top in government,
can stop swindling the rest of us.
|