Is Privitisation, the only solution?

A). INTRODUCTION: 

Continous onslaught on public sector enterprises terming them to be sick and giving them away to private players by the current NDA regime, is nothing but making things worse further. The current NDA gov, by all it's strength, have only made the things worse. The previous UPA government, had left the nation with few unsolved, minor and reversible issues, which the current NDA have made them worse, complex and irreversible, not only in economy but other aspects of governance like defense, social welfare, industry and foreign relations. In that list, do we really need to privatise the public sector enterprises calling them as a burden?! Is it justifiable, professional and scientifically tempered enough or just another mess up theory to complex the issue further before handing over the nation to the next government. 

B). EXPLANATION:

I). In India, from 1991 LPG Policy, privatisation have been taking roots from top to bottom till privatizing municipal finance (local bodies) too. This trickling down effect have proven that, people have took interest in privatisation. But, the reason from a common public, finding privatisation better, is from the 'service end' alone, i.e. privatizing is fine if the service is delivered good to us. But, infact, a broader and long term analysis is needed before supporting privatizing. 

II). If a single or few employee of a public sector bank, reluctant to serve people or lethargic in work, make it justifiable to privatise it entirely, on the premise that only then, services will be the best? Are these public sector bank employees the ones who sacrificed their last lives during COVID rendering their services to be termed 'essential' but their lives not so? Does a single employee's misbehavior or reluctance makes the whole sector deemed unfit? It only depicts the narrow mind of people. Governments make use of this narrow mind and collective thought of people, to privatise a sick public sector enterprise (in some case wantedly made sick), rather than treating their sickness. 

III). Public sector enterprises of our nation, are called as 'temples of our nation' by Jawaharlal Nehru. Not because it can provide services on daily basis, but a stronghold we can trust, that it's presence and strategic advantage is always made use by the government in all tough times. That's why probably he might have termed them so. Because, it is only when the tough times comes, we can see the public sector enterprise shine. Ex. During this COVID19 pandemic, the presence of public sector enterprises all around the nation, capable of delivering and obeying to emergency order from union government, proved to be a 'strategic advantage' to serve the people, especially at tough times. Imagine, those who support full privatisation, if such enterprises were not present at this dire time, do the 'so-called saviors of economy' able to coordinate, obey and implement government schemes and relief to people in an efficient way? What is the guarantee they will involve in social relief measures apart from their CSR (which even many does not adhere too)? What is the moral obligation of people to keep feeding these private players, when they doesn't have even a single point of moral or law to protect, preserve and promote the interests of the nation socially? Such so-called temples are the ones which act as a guardian of our nation's economy. 

IV). That doesn't mean, public sector enterprise are becoming more of a burden to the nation, unprofitable and low quality servicing to public. It is accepted that there are some enterprises that provide low quality services, run unprofitable and thereby becomes a burden tot he government. But, is it not the responsibility of the government to treat such sick enterprises rather than giving them off to some private player? Do we give our parents off to some caretakers for money if they feel burden? If we do so, do we recognise we being immoral and unfaithful? Reforming the sick enterprises and making them cured is the duty of the government. When the enterprise runs well, funds government, the government takes pride means, then at tough times, government should also stand with it. 

V). In India, there are 2 types of such public sector enterprises. One will be 'obsolete' in technology, men and machinery, impossible to save them, and irretrievably dying. Such can be closed and assets sold and labors amicably dealt with. Second type are sick, but retrievable, needs proper financial reforms, fresh personnel and more control over management with government being a backup. Then, they can be revived and slowly government can let them function free after sometime, when they are ready to fly alone. "Calculated disinvestment coupled with micro level management reforms increasing firm value in medium run" is needed rather than simply giving away them as a gift or takeaway prize to some private players, who doesn't have an understanding of the rationale behind creation such public enterprises and impact of their absence. 

VI). Does the absence of public sector enterprises have an impact on society?  Definitely yes!! A big yes! Because, it's simple, when it was framed it was kept in mind to be like a 'storehouse of energy' for the wellbeing of society and if such is dismantled no wonder the opposite will occur. To point out, the first societal impact is the 'social unrest' to burst out, when the labors are against it. No labor is ready to privatise the concern they are working in, if the government forcibly does so, labors tends to rise against the government, where all labors are solidly backed by proper politically affiliated organisations. So, is it possible for a government to risk their vote bank as well as creating a social unrest in the society by privatising a firm in which the labors are against it? Even if such labor issues, tackled by suppressive measures, no one will be ready to join in a company which is already in a tug with the existing labors. Not only in salary aspect, but in all terms of working conditions and environment, no fresh intake of labor is possible, if the current existing permanent set of affiliated labors are against such measures. Third and very important impact in the society, is the 'reservation' factor. In a public sector enterprise, their is a mandate to provide reservation eventhough the government wants it or not. But, when privatised, their is no reservation for the weaker sections of the society. This in particular is an agenda been pushed by the current government more vehemently to dismantle the reservation setup among the public sector enterprises.  Apart from these three, few minor situational impacts are also prone to occur due to proposed privatisation of public sector enterprises.  

VII). This narrow mentality of the current government have also affected the 'foreign investments' also. An investor invests in a place, only when he finds 'social & political stability' and law and order found. If the government itself keeps on breaching many Bilateral Investment Treaties(BIT) like Vodafone and Cairne energy due to its preferable ideology in between, FDI & FPIs are more prone to decline further. All this comes, when the government mixes its political ideology and agenda into economic, trade, commerce and industrial measures. Such regressive mentality would further damage the economy as a whole. 

C). CONCLUSION: 

So, is privatisation completely harmful? No. Privatisation must be done in a 'calculated' and in a way that private does not dominate the government decisions in any way even in a minor one. Because, such private interference in the government decisions have proven to be worse and a failure by many nations in the history. A private firm cannot run a nation entirely. A business minded organisation cannot act as a social welfare government. Never, can a private firm able to run a government, so efficient and empathetic than elected representatives and administration law mandated in our constitution alone. Nothing is bigger than that, to overshadow the nation guided towards a 'welfare state'. Out of 500 companies in the 'Fortune 500' list 124 are from China and the interesting fact is, 91/124 companies are public sector enterprises alone. To treat a sick public sector enterprise and make them bloom greater heights is the perfect solution. Private players are welcome in places where we need PPP(Public Private Partnership) sort of methods. India's current strategy to 'create a big business' and give the nation control to it, is also intangible, because, we don't have such huge 'number of big businesses' except very very fewest only. Just 2-3 big businesses cannot run the nation. What such big corporates can do, is to try to invest in 'sinking private companies' alone, rather than over-ambitiously trying to takeover government sectors, which are already in a bad shape, where these corporates does not have the resources to run them. What is best left to big corporates of our nation is to invest in both brownfield and greeenfield companies as well as save the sinking private companies alone, apart from some PPPs and agreements mutually cooperated with government., that much of involvement alone is enough. Only then we can be able to revive both private sectors as well as public sectors and have a perfect combination to fuel the economy.