Reforms in the power sector

By Nitin Saxena

Power network is the backbone of economic development. Being a key infrastructure, the availability of quality power in the required quantity would be one of the important determinants in the success of India’s recently introduced high growth- oriented energy policy. Given the capital intensity of the sector and poor financial condition of the SEBs. steps towards power sector reform taken by the Government could not have come a day earlier.

However, the success of the reform programme would largely depend on efficient management of the transition period and pursuance of a transparent policy. The most important component of these reforms is to fix transparent accountability at all levels and increase people’s involvement in monitoring the functioning of all agencies that impact on development. People must be empowered to not only demand results. But also to actively participate in the attainment of results.

It is imperative to address the issue of involving the consumers and their organisations in the power sector reform in various states. This in primarily for the following reason: First, the new electricity regulatory laws have recognised the role of consumer organisations to represent consumers before the authorities. Secondly, power is a basic need and inherently essential for a dignified living. Thirdly, Consumers are ready and willing to pay a little more for a consistent supply of power, if they are assured of it meeting the benchmarks of quantity and quality.

However, to be able to get people to accept the reforms. The regulatory commissions and the respective governments have to address two major apprehensions: that prices will not be raised beyond the paying capacity of the ordinary consumer, and the board employees will not be sacked after unbundling of the erstwhile state electricity boards. Other than these, there are two macro factors. Which need to be borne. In mind: the lack of people’s involvement in the reform process: and poor communication by the governments and the regulatory commissions on the need for reforms.

Let us take the example of Andhra Pradesh, which has a very dynamic chief minister. The power rates were raised by over 120 percent at one go. That led to unrest, agitation and social disarray. Genuine consumer organisations were not invited for consultations. The required public notice or a public hearing was also not done and the ultimate result was that the government had to back-track.

On a contrary, let us take the example of Rajasthan. The Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission while considering the tariff hike proposal of the three distribution companies had organised public hearings in three places to invite the views of consumers vis-a-vis the power tariff hike in addition to this, the government had also advertised that not a single job would be affected, while assuring the consumers that prices will not be raised arbitrarily.

A hike in tariff was effected though. It was only marginal, around 17%. This was done after issuing public notices and after the public hearings. The reaction of the public was mixed, while the urban domestic consumers, did not react to this, the rural consumers, especially the farmers, were irked by this increase.

Overall, the reaction expressed by many consumers was that, the reform process seems to be just. Unbundling of the erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board and increase in tariffs. This is where effective communication strategies. i.e. spelling out the objectives of the reform process more clearly becomes a necessity. Spelling out the objectives clearly.

It is interesting to note that when U.K. embarked upon the reform process privatisation of the power sector, spelt out some objectives five of which referred to the rights of the ,consumers on the other hand, in India, the Government started the privatisation of power industry with the sole objective of getting money from wherever it is available and under any condition, that it is available. The major objective of the power deregulation policy should be to see that the consumer for whose benefit the power sector have been set up, are served. If they do not serve the purpose, they must be modified. As per the existing Electricity Supply Act. 1948, there is a provision for a local area committee to discuss consumer complaints and their redressal. This provision has never been used and consumers have been kept in the dark regarding this provision.

One of the important objective of giving wide publicity to the reform process in the relevant Act under which the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions and Central Electricity Reulatory Commission have been created has not been achieved. The process has also not been spelt out to the people or also what extra rights will be created for the consumers. The consumer feels that reform will lead to increase in tariffs if the reforms lead to a high increase in the tariffs, then the consumers will resist the whole process of reforms. Witness the agitation in Andhra Pradesh. Theoretically, deregulation and privatisation should result in reduction in rates due to higher level of efficiency. In practice however, deregulation and privatisation may not result in immediate reduction in rates, since there would obviously be investments made for system expansion.etc. based on future generation capacities and demands of consumers, current and potential. This fact needs to be highlighted to the consumers.

It is at the stage where the state electricity board is being revamped and a Regulatory Commission being set up, it is vital that citizens are empowered to create the necessary countervailing power in the marketplace. This will ensure that the market functions in a manner in which the citizens are not is illusioned, and that there is no backlash against the process of liberalisation. This is possible through a process of building capacities of institutions and consumer organisations in the reform process. Further, at this juncture where framing prudential regulations are required, which should satisfy the demands of the industry and the ultimate beneficiaries, the consumers would go a long way in creating constituencies for furthering the reforms thus bettering the economic governance and accelerating the development process.
PTI Feature

Fundamentally Right Education

By Lalitha Sridhar

Even as the Lok Sabha unanimously passed the 93rd Constitution Amendment Bill to make education a Fundamental Right for children between the ages of 6 and 14 years, the agitation spearheaded by the National Alliance for the Fundamental Right to Education (NAFRE) has also come to a head.

Twelve conventions held across the country by this coalition of more than 2,000 voluntary organisations have highlighted the need to make education a basic right. At the same time, they have also highlighted the lacunae in the current Bill.

And the campaign has had enthusiastic support from unexpected quarters.

On a freezing cold morning in January 2001, a 95-year-old man marched through the streets of Lucknow, seeking education for his grandchildren. He was one of over 17,000 illiterate ex-bonded mineworkers and carpet weavers who had travelled from the remotest hamlets of Uttar Pradesh, without any financial compensation or reward, clad in thin dhotis (sarongs) and torn saris, braving temperatures of four degrees centigrade to make their point.

Education activists have been protesting because the Bill excludes the under-sixes from the Right to Education and offers neither an express commitment nor a definite time limit for those above and below the stipulated 6 to 14 years age group. Hence, the last week of November saw numerous State-level protests culminating in a rally in New Delhi involving 1 00,000 people from all over the country, which was followed by a hunger strike by 10,000 participants.

The demands comprehensively cover the need to make not just education but quality education both accessible and affordable, arguing that the Fundamental Right to Education should be a practically workable promise and not a politically motivated premise.

The NAFRE movement critiques the Government on limiting the Right to Education to the 6 to 14 age group in a country where 40 per cent of the families live on or below the poverty line. Placing the 0 to 6 year olds in "the State shall endeavour to provide" category amounts to accepting that sibling care responsibilities will continue for the 60 per cent girl children unable to attend school because of it.

Instead, if the term ‘education’ is interpreted as a development process which begins at birth, the State can institutionalise creches which provide a safe environment, nutrition and preventive healthcare leading to smooth enrolment of older siblings who would otherwise be working or babysitting instead of attending a formal school.

Moreover, excluding the 0 to 6 year age group also implies that a child’s critical period of early education remains neglected and childcare workers and preschool teachers will remain a poorly paid, unrecognised category. Similarly, by extending the Right to Education to children over 14, it will be possible to create access to job-oriented life skills besides preventing early marriages and child labour. Reinterpreting the Right to Education will determine the future of roughly 1 1 0 million Indian children - the number of children estimated to be away from school.

The Bill also appears to abdicate the obligation of the State to provide education by terming it a "fundamental duty" of the parents-’-A potential basis for penalisation of poor parents, NAFRE has called for a withdrawal of the clause. Ironically, in the two decades between 1951 and 1971, nearly one million parents, mostly from disadvantaged sections, were prosecuted under state-level Compulsory Education Acts. Ancillary expenses related to sending g child to school are often too heavy a burden an the most deprived.

The campaign also wants to do away with the ambiguity inherent in the present reference which allows the various states to give education "in such manner as the state shall, by law, determine". This could end up justifying cutting corners for poor children like the notorious Education Guarantee Scheme or Alternative Schools. Several states have untrained shiksha karmis (para-teachers) who are paid a pittance of Rs 1,000 (1 US$= Rs 48) per month as opposed to the recommended Rs 5,000. Single-teacher schools and schools run in one room by under-qualified staff under the dubious Education Guarantee Scheme have proliferated in many states.

The landmark 1999 report of the Tapas Majumdar Committee recommended setting aside an additional average of 0.7 per cent of the GDP for the Universalisation of Elementary Education (UEE) as well as to improve its quality. Its modest estimates backed by transparent calculations are cited as ample proof that we have enough money to achieve ideal education. The report has, however, been doing official rounds for the past two years.

Also essential, according to activists, is a clear definition of the term "free" to include games, books, uniforms, meals and special facilities for the disabled.

There are innumerable examples to illustrate the need for education. For instance, the children who live in the ghetto of Narela in outer Delhi have no water, no sewers, no electricity, no roofs and no employment. Yet their mothers’ most vociferous demand is education for their offspring. One year and two Public Interest Litigations (Pils) later, these children were moved to make shift tents with one teacher for three these children were moved to makeshift tents with one teacher for three classes. A concrete slab, which says, ‘SITE FOR SCHOOL’ promises what has still not been delivered.

Seeing this state of affairs, people have started taking action in their own hands. For instance, when Madhevnagar village in the Marathwada region of Maharashtra could not get the primary school the villagers had repeatedly petitioned for, about 300 men, women and children organised a demonstration at the district level office. They did not disperse for six hours until their charter of demands was met a school managed by two permanent teachers.

In 2000-01 alone, 33,435 children across India were enrolled into schools, 437 defunct schools were activated by communities and 272 villages were declared free of child labour because of the movement which has been built around parents who do not want their children to follow their uneducated footsteps. NAFRE's grassroots movement shows how thumb impressions can rewrite futures. (WFS)