Once upon a time, there was a peaceful, industrious community. But it wasn't destined to live in peace for long. Soon its wealth attracted thieves, who came armed to the teeth, terrorised the town, and decamped with the booty. Next year, after the harvest, they came again -- only this time, they demanded the money as payment for protecting the community. Less force was required, and the money collected was no longer loot, but protection money. The year after that, the robbers sent an unarmed man into the town, and yet everybody paid up -- the robbers now called themselves the government, and the loot was taxes. Admittedly, this scenario is neither factual nor unbiased, being an anarchist fable.
Nevertheless, it serves as a reminder of the fact that the unique feature of the state is its monopoly of the use of force. Such use of force is always legitimised, in modern times, in the name of the people. This is plausible in a democracy, where people are given an opportunity once in a while to choose theirleaders. We cannot, however, choose our bureaucrats. Consider the collector of Pune. This worthy has told Telco that unless the company puts in a large amount of money in government savings schemes, the company would get no co-operation from the collectorate. The collector justifies his actions by saying that Telco needs to fulfil its social responsibilities. Telco has argued in its defence that it pays large amounts to the government by way of taxes, and also points to the community-development schemes it has undertaken. This is the wrong approach for Telco, or for any other company, to take. A company best performs its social function by utilising the resources it has at its command efficiently, which means that it needs to earn the maximum possible returns for its shareholders.
This objective also results in attaining a host of other subsidiary, though equally desirable, aims. These include taking care of customers and employees as well as ensuring the most efficient use of national resources.Managements do not have the right to fritter away shareholders' funds by investing in government savings schemes or in community-development projects. The argument that they are acting in the national interests put forward by the Pune collector, as well as by various excise department officials while denying Modvat benefits, is hogwash.
Bureaucrats need to know that corporates are the engines of economic growth, and their ham-handed measures to fulfil targets will merely derail the engine.
Copyright © 1998 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
