The cyclone that ravaged the coast of Orissa was one of the worst to affect the subcontinent in this century. The scale of devastation that has occurred is unimaginable: already the official death toll is close to ten thousand people, although the situat ion has been so dire that no formal enumeration of the dead has yet been undertaken. More than 20 million people are said to be affected, and agriculture and industry in the region have been ravaged.
 
Around ten lakh houses are said to have been damaged, many beyond repair, as well as more than 30 lakh kutcha houses, rendering millions of people homeless. Nearly three lakh farm animals were killed, the extent of the crop area affected (with sta nding crops destroyed) exceeds 12 lakh hectares, and preliminary estimates of property loss range upwards of Rs. 1,000 crores.
 
Calamities as extreme as this will take years if not decades to recover from, even in terms of the most minimal reconstruction and repair. Quite apart from the enormous loss of human life, simply replacing physical infrastructure in a State that was alre ady one of the most absolutely poor and backward in the country is a task of huge proportions. The enormity of the requirement of providing immediate relief has clearly exposed both public and private agencies as being inadequate, and lakhs of people in at least nine districts continue to be in great distress, deprived of the most basic amenities and sometimes even of the means of survival.
 
In the wake of such a major disaster, the natural expectation is that all sections of society, especially those with the finances to make a difference, would step forward to contribute to the recovery and reconstruction effort. This expectation is even h igher vis-a-vis large industrialists and multinational companies (MNCs), which are increasingly prone to publicise their sense of "social responsibility". This is why some recent news reports of the response of at least one multinational company c omes as a shock, even to hardened critics accustomed to expecting the worst from such quarters.
 
According to a news report in a major national newspaper (The Indian Express, November 11), a major multinational company which owns majority share in the power transmission and distribution company supplying the coastal districts, has demanded fu ll compensation for its losses from the government, failing which it would triple the cost of electricity to consumers in the affected areas.
 
The United States-based multinational AES Corporation currently holds 51 per cent of the stock of the Central Electricity Supply Company (Cesco), which supplies power to consumers in the affected coastal districts of Orissa. The president and chief execu tive officer of AES, Dennis Bakke, came to India to review the post-cyclone situation, and apparently discovered that Cesco had sustained losses of around $60 million (Rs. 300 crores) due to the cyclone.
 
As a result, said Bakke, the company was asking the Government of India to bear the losses. If it refused to do so, Cesco would be forced to approach the relevant price-setting body, the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission, for a tariff revision whi ch he estimated could be as much as three times the present tariff. Obviously, the company felt that if the government does not share the burden, then the people would have to bear the cost.
 
In the wake of the cyclone, many public and private companies have declared concessions to the affected people, who are already reeling under very adverse material circumstances. Thus, the Department of Telecommunications has announced special concession s to consumers in the region. In the case of electricity, the supply of which has been so badly disrupted, it would be expected that consumers who are already suffering because of no or low provision would at least be spared the burden of higher prices. Indeed, total restoration of earlier levels of electricity supply in the affected districts is expected to take as long as six months.
 
However, any such concessions are obviously not under consideration by Cesco. Bakke argued that the company is under financial stress because of poor revenue collection, making it difficult, in the management's assessment, to give any relief to consumers . Perhaps more significantly, there is no legal obligation for the company to do so. The majority shareholding in Cesco was purchased from the public sector Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, which continues to hold 49 per cent of the shares.