In the current liberalised regime, regulatory reform by way of de-regulation and associated measures are seen to alter the contours of Indian economy. Key elements of such a strategy include de-reservation, corporatisation, commercialisation, non-discrimination between the public and private, expansion in equity base to private shareholders, as also contracting out some activities to the private sector. The Disinvestment Commission has been working out the terms as well as the modalities pertaining to Disinvestment of public sector enterprises.

However, while policies relating to public sector enterprises are sought to be fine tuned to ensure greater autonomy, efficient functioning and increased resource generation, and while those with comparative advantages are to be helped to develop into global giants, within the government itself, considerable divergence of opinion is seen to exist. For instance, the recommendations of the Nitish Sengupta Committee on privatisation of the oil sector have witnessed a tug of war to over the crucial questions of permissible government equity in public sector units and the role of multinationals in a deregulated Indian market. Similarly with respect to the coal sector, one finds that the recommendations of the committee on Integrated Coal Policy have generated a lot of heat. It may not be out of point to note that the justifications offered for the de-regulation of this sector, are more or less the same as those which had been put forward for its nationalisation in 1973! The restarting of the telecom sector and issue is perhaps, being able to ensure that the telecom market is contestable.

When such is the state of affairs in Indians experiment of privatisation and liberalisation of its important sectors, it is important that a more clearer understanding of the market situation that is likely to emerge after the implementation of the policy of de-regulation, as also the extent of the planning of the interests of the various market participants that such policy necessitate, be obtained. The point is that instead of following what the industrialised countries are preaching and doing today, it would be appropriate to investigate the strategies that had been adopted by these countries, when they were trying to say, increase their utility or infrastructure densities and household penetration, particularly in the rural areas. This calls for the intervention of our public representatives in evolving a workable regulatory authority account able to the parliament and subject to judicial process. Otherwise, privatisation may effectively produce unregulated markets conferring opportunities to MNCs, domestic lobbies and large users, with small business a small users losing out in the process.

One has also to remember the fact that privatisation never gained in any country by suppressing the state sector totally. Rather this had come in a country, with sufficient intervention from the state machinery itself. The state has paid a supplementary role to the market in those economies. What the Congress (I) dreamt was always the liberalisation without the state intervention and by reducing the state apparatus to a virtual minimum. However, what they thought was put to practice in an extensive limit by the present BJP government. They pushed the privatisation agenda to the maximum limit, even sometimes pushing it to non-feasible areas. Privatisation has been sought to be achieved by a massive curtailment of the state sector. One can even recall how the profits of the public sector enterprises have been disinvested and the money is being spent for meeting gaps in the budget deficit. This process immediately implies bankruptcy of the government. Congress (I) started it and this was put to practice in a hard way by the BJP.