| |
Too little power
A gazette notification has further curtailed the Disinvestment Commission's powers. Not that it had much power in the first place, but apparently even its homilies on how disinvestment should proceed were irritating to the government. The 1996 notification for setting up the commission stated that the panel was being set up to formulate disinvestment strategies and that it had a specific role in the implementation of those strategies. This role has now been diluted, and the commission reduced to giving advice on only such divestment proposals as are referred to it. The concerned ministries had never taken kindly to the commission, interpreting its setting up as an unwarranted intrusion into their little bureaucratic empires. While releasing the fifth report of the panel, GV Ramakrishna had pointed to the lack of consultation and co-ordination between the commission and the government. Most recommendations were blithely ignored, and Ramakrishna's attempts to expedite the process resolutely resisted. Clearly,the panel has become the victim of opposition by vested interests.There is no doubt that the decision to disinvest public stake in companies is a political decision. Once such a decision is taken, however, the modus operandi of the disinvestment should be left to an independent agency, staffed by professionals with experience in the field. Such a course will result in more transparency while disinvesting, and the scope for dispensing favours while selling off public property will be vastly reduced. An expert panel will also ensure that the process of disinvestment is more efficient, and generates the maximum revenue. In contrast, disinvestment under a government agency, or by the ministries concerned, will have other objectives. An independent commission, since it has no vested interest, is best placed to take a dispassionate long-term view of the disinvestment process. In fact, far from curtailing its powers, it can very well be said that the Disinvestment Commission had been vested with too littlepower. One fact which emerges is the absolute lack of accountability and transparency on the part of the government.It needs to give answers why the panel's recommendations have been so unceremoniously dumped. If 8 out of its 9 recommendations on corporate governance were ignored, or 4 of its 6 policy recommendations not acted upon, the government needs to give reasons stating its differences with the panel. So far, not only has a sphinx-like silence been maintained, but the panel divested of its powers. The government owes the public an explanation. Copyright © 1998 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
|
 |
