Two developments need to be noted in this context. First, no losing PSE has thus far been touched; it is only the most profitable ones that are to be privatized. Secondly, the process has been perfected with the sole purpose of lining the pockets of a few people at the cost of the ordinary citizens of this country.

One has thus witnessed the progressive privatization of power generation, telecom services, ‘oil’ extraction, refining and distribution, and now, all profitable PSEs with highly undervalued assets. The name of the game is the plunder of public assets to enrich a few.

The story of ENRON power-brought out succinctly through a chronological narration of events, backed up by extracts from official documents, memos, even highly confidential papers like Cabinet papers, by Abhay Mehta-is quite amazing; yet the untold story of other sectors is no different. Incidentally, ENRON power is now sold to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) at Rs. 5 plus per unit, even as the MSEB is forced to forego the use of Tata power (at Rs. 1.80 per unit), and to close down its own generating units (with power costs of Rs. 1.20 per unit). Simply because it has contracted to buy all of ENRON power (or, to pay for it, if not bought), despite the World Bank warning of the requirement, in Maharashtra, being only for "peaking power" and not base load capacity.

But ENRON is an old story. One could even say that was an aberration. Or, was it really an aberration? Very recently, we have the experience of a prolonged strike by UP power workers and power engineers, not for their pay or allowances, but to protest the decision to split the UPSEB into separate power generation, transmission and distribution units, with a view to their selective privatization. (Kanpur and Lucknow power supply were to be privatized immediately; rural power was obviously to be looked after by the SEB). Incidentally, this exercise (of splitting generation, transmission and distribution) follows the recent experiment to that effect in Orissa, with disasterous consequences; but obviously, we are not prepared to learn even from our own experience.

The "handing over" of Mukta, Panna oilfields, the South Tapti gas fields, the East Coast oilwells-all of them not only discovered but also developed initially by the ONGC-to private investors (both domestic and foreign) is now am old story. Few people even remember it today. Let us leave out many similar sad stories. Let us focus on what may turn out to be the biggest "scam" in the post-economic reform period. That concerns the handing over of the IPCL to a "strategic partner" (of course from the private sector), lock, stock and barrel, for a song.

The proposal, now actively pursued by the Government of India, is to sell 25% of IPCL equity to a chosen "strategic partner", at Rs. 180 per share. That means, for an equity of Rs. 249 crores, Rs. 1120.5 crores to be paid to Government by the "strategic partner", for acquiring 25% of IPCL equity. The significant point herein is that management control over IPCL is to be handed over to the "strategic partner"-that is part of the legal document drawn up for the purpose. Note that the Gol would still retain 34.9% of the equity of IPCL; yet, management is to pass on to the 25% equity holder.

The "strategic partner" is to be chosen from among Dow Chemicals, Mitsubishi, Reliance Industries, and a combination of the Soros-Chatterjee group and the IOC. (Earlier, a bid by the IOC to buy IPCL equity-the entire lot to be divested-at the price to be stipulated by the Government, was turned down unceremoniously). It is now understood that Dow Chemicals and Mitsubishi have now dropped out of the race, so that the choice now rests between Reliance and Soros-Chatterjee.

A "strategic partner" is supposed to being in either new technology, or new markets, or lots of fresh finance (for possible expansion/diversification). But, the question is: has a "rival" ever brought in either new technology or new markets, let alone fresh finance? Reliance is the biggest-today, the only-competitor of IPCL in India: in fact, its market share is the larger (even though it joined the race after the path breaking push by the IPCL). The Soros-Chatterjee Group are currently developing the Haldia complex, and are potential competitors. It is a mystery why the Government wants to deliberately demolish one of its own "Navaratnas".

As stated earlier, the price to be paid for acquiring "management control" is Rs. 1120.5 crores. (Never mind that, as per acturial valuation, the price of IPCL equity-on condition of management control-should be a minimum of Rs. 500 per share; and all equity holders must be given the option to sell, at that price, their holdings to the buyer). It is also important to note that the buyer, in lieu of Rs. 1120.5 crores, will immediately gain control over Rs. 2780 crores of "from reserves" that the IPCL had, as of March 1999. Who knows, the amount may well be more today.

Is the lucky party Reliance? Or Soros-Chatterjee? Whoever it is, it is a pretty pie; and for those involved in the deal, a very messy pie. One of the nine "Navaratnas" is to be sold off for less than one-fifth of the proper price; and, in the event the "strategic partner" wishes to deliberately run down the unit-it has its own separate nest to foster-the 34.9% equity left with the Government would become like so much waste paper.

But the, this is in keeping with what has been happening in all other sectors of late. This is "economic reforms" with a vengeance. It is the mantra of "globalization and privatization"- against which President Narayanan issued a salutary warning in his address to the nation on the eve of the 50th. Anniversary of the Republic Day-that must inform all policies. If, in the process, we assist in the privatization of all profits and the nationalization of all losses, why, that is part of the philosophy of "liberalization" which essentially involves each individual to maximise her (or his) profits/individual satisfaction. This is the concept of laissez-faire, which today promotes private monopolies, to the exclusion of public monopolies (because the State is by definition pernicious). Never mid that at present discount rates, nobody is really bothered about future generations (and their welfare); all that is good copy for philosophising. If, in the process, the Directive Principles of State Policy (in the Constitution) become unnecessary, unwanted baggage, so be it. And, since the Preamble to he Constitution speaks of a socialistic pattern of society, perhaps the Constitution needs an amendment. Against, so be it.