| |
EDITORIAL
A
Matter of Policy
In the absence of transparent guidelines disinvestment continues to
be in a shambles
 Do
policies decide the players or vice versa? The abject failure of the public-sector
disinvestment programme this year can almost entirely be attributed to
this one fundamental confusion in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government.
Every now and then a PSU props up as the frontrunner for disinvestment.
Soon, media reports follow about who is lobbying to get the company. A
controversy brews and the company is dropped like a hot potato. From IPCL
to VSNL, a host of PSUs has been subjected to this treatment, and almost
all have lost values in the stock market. The root cause of the confusion
is the absence of a uniform policy on disinvestments. Despite 10 years
of inherited wisdom on how-and how not to-privatise, the Government continues
to grapple with methods of disinvestment: public issue, strategic sale,
management control and/or outright sale.
The recently
announced scheme for dilution of government stake in Maruti Udyog exemplifies
the confusion. After wrangling over its disinvestment for more than five
years, and having lost crores by way of the company's market valuation,
the Government has now decided to sell part of its stake to financial
institutions (FIs) through a rights issue. The FIs are expected to offload
the stake in favour of Suzuki (currently 50 per cent stakeholder) and
to the general public later. Besides being complicated the scheme begs
some basic questions. If the purpose is to increase Suzuki's stake, why
not sell it the equity directly? And if the Government wants people to
hold Maruti shares, why not make a public offer? Perhaps it hopes Maruti
will get some money to restructure itself and hike its value. But that's
unlikely in a market where competition is intensifying by the day. That's
true of all the 20-odd PSUs on the block for disinvestment. None would
succeed if there is no clear and transparent policy on disinvestment.
Even 10 years is not too late to draw up such a policy.
Red
Roses & Red Alert
Who's afraid of Saint Valentine? Certainly not India.
 True,
Valentine's Day ... but Valentine who? If somebody asks that question
in the civilised language of cultural debate, India, the land of Kama
Sutra, will have no problem taking it in its stride. Unfortunately, last
week, the question was asked by the wrong people, in the wrong language.
In places like Delhi, Mumbai and Kanpur, there was a blatant display of
hate and paranoia in the name of culture endangered. Silly, do they, the
self-chosen saviours of Maha Bharat, really think that India is such a
fragile civilisation that it can crumble under the transborder invasion
of Valentine, the patron saint of love? If so, the footsoldiers of Shiv
Sena and Hindu Jagran Manch are not upholding the culture of India but
insulting it. For India has already proved its national confidence by
gamely withstanding every invasion, including cultural ones. So, if anybody
thinks that the invader threatening the Indian civilisation today is the
disco-hopping Indian youth with love in his heart and Archies cards in
his hand, then this more-cultured-than-thou warrior has to be a troglodyte
in the McWorld.
After all,
globalisation is not economic alone. It's cultural as well-hence somebody's
saint as India's sinner. Protest can be legitimate if it's expressed as
democratic dissent. But here it has become vulgar and violent, and every
year, with weary predictability, it's repeated as a lumpen streetfight.
A movie, a book-a cause is always there to activate the protester who
has become such a socially disruptive bore. If he's so worried about Indian
culture, please explain what it is, spread it, use every method except
violence-be inclusive, not exclusive. Why not start a Kama Deva's Day?
Valentine may come and go, talking and selling love, but India doesn't
need a merchant to put a price tag on its culture.
|
|
METRO TODAY
Web
Exclusives