HOT TOPICS

SPOTLIGHT AGENCIES

Mixing "what" and "how" - Mysore water supply protest example

156

Written By silkboard - 21 March, 2009

governance PPP Mysore Complaint MCC water supply JUSCO Participation

Not writing this to take sides in the recently lit 'protest' over supposed privatization of water supply at Mysore. Good friend Vinay forwarded this article from Star of Mysore which goes by the title "Intellectuals oppose Tata deal"

Now, in there, what caught my eye were the 'demands' listed by these esteemed citizens of Mysore, which, quoting from the SoM story, are:

  1. MoU between Corporation and JUSCO should be publicised
  2. To pass a resolution in the Corporation meeting not to privatise water supply
  3. Not to take any step which results in hike of water tariff and not to reduce the number of public taps
  4. Govt. should take steps to manage themselves the supply of Cauvery water to all the extensions.

Now, this is what I'd call a case of mixing the "what" and "how".

  • If you add the missing point about quality of water, point #3 is perhaps the "what", or, the outcome we want, the service requirements from citizens.
  • But, point #2, and #4 talk about "how", notice the words, rather directions about "privatise" and "themselves".

When citizens supply "how" on top of the "what" in their demands, we make things harder for governments.

The "how" items tend to be ideological, and more distracting than constructive. We as citizens should work relentlessly to tell local governments all the "what" items in greater details. Spending energy on "how" dilutes that focus, and gives the few manipulative sorts in government and political circles a chance to drive divisions in active citizen groups. We should learn to leave it to the experts to figure out the "how". And of course, we should demand that real experts, and not enthusiasts or activists decide the "how".

Not that I am not a pro or anti privatization guy. Many people make the mistake of assuming that one has to be anti or pro on ideologies on a blanket basis. Privatization etc may be a cure here or there, but why assume on a "blanket" basis that it will or will not work everywhere? Such labeling of people as pro or anti an-ideology is another way in which we, the active citizens, lose focus from the "what" and spend hours on "how".

PS: A note on the unaviodable ideological comments. My stand on the ideology etc is that hey, in present times, when we, urban or rural citizens, are so starved of quality services, we'd rather focus on listing down quality and cost requirements for local service/utility providers, and ask for complaint systems that we will use if the promises are not kept.

Whether government serves me via publicization, privatization or PPP-ization, why do I bother?

COMMENTS

Private = Evil ?

zenx - 23 March, 2009 - 03:23

True - the "how" is not the important part.

http://wikimapia.org/46057/Dimna-Lake

I grew up in that town. That lake/dam, and many others, were created and maintained throughout my lifetime through private effort.
We had clean/potable water through the taps (I was a little surprised to find folks impressed with this aspect of the US when I got into Bangalore in 96). We saw the town getting greener through our lives.

All the "municipal-controlled" areas received clean drinking water through this effort as well, mostly free of cost!

I'd never seen an open drain (except rainwater ones) or even overhead wiring except on a short stretch of road - where it was something to wonder about!

Apart from this, there were about a 100 villages around adopted for education, sanitation, promotion of local handicfrats and employment opportunity.

"Private" is not a synonym for "evil", after all. The intent of the effort matters, and sure, getting a regulatory framework in place to understand, and manage this is important. Demonization of this "ism" or that takes the debate to the wrong place.

- Sameer, Bangalore

all for privatisation

murali772 - 23 March, 2009 - 05:35

Well, I am all for privatisation (rather, competition from private sector), unabashedly and unapologetically. From around the early nineties, when it really started picking up, things have changed considerably. Admittedly, not all for the better; but, considerably for the better, I'll dare say.

Here's my ode to the romanticists who will not agree - check:  http://praja.in/blog/murali772/2008/03/03/those-were-days-my-friend

It's nobody's case that privatisation is the panacea for all the ills. There will continue to be problems. But, like the late Sri C Subramaniam had once stated, atleast these will be new problems, and not the same old ones for which we have not been able to find solutions for over half a century.

For recent debates on the subject in the HU yahoo-group, click on:  http://mysore.praja.in/blog/silkboard/2008/12/04/tata-arm-bags-mysore-water-supply-project#comment-11512

Muralidhar Rao

Good measure

rohith - 26 March, 2009 - 03:52

But one thing these corporations must keep in mind is that there are some things in governance that mandatorily must come under public control - basics like sanitation, water supply, roads, primary education and stuff like that. That said, any tendering to a pvt party to get portions of the work done, is not equal to privatisation - and hence need not be opposed in face value.

But an element of profitability could spell disaster in these sectors. And if privatisation indeed happens, profitability will be in focus. Not that I am against profitability, but this is not the place for profits, isnt it? And anything that is done for charity is sure to be unsustainable in future. So in this scenario, how is the corporation equipped to inspect the quality of deliverables from the pvt provider? How is the MCC equipped to ensure that quality hasnt been compromised with for profits. And how transparent is the tendering mechanism? What are the deals signed under this tender?

These are the questions I think people need to be asking. So I feel as long as there are strict guidelines framed in this deal, pvt involvment is a good measure indeed.

Rohith Rao

project tracking

murali772 - 28 March, 2009 - 09:00

Zen-rainman avare'

The municipal/ para-statal systems have been failing all across the country. And, with them just incapable of building the requisite capacity within their own set-up to meet the ever-increasing demand, it was clear that outside expertise had to be engaged.

Given the right kind of approach, the private sector in the country has been meeting all kinds of challenges. Since over a decade now, they have proved their capabilities even in the global arena, effectively taking on the big names in the various fields. As such, meeting the challenges involved in the infrastructural areas like water-supply, public bus transport services, power distribution, etc, would very much have been within their capabilities, provided the whole thing was facilitated properly.

But, unfortunately, with the psuedo-socialists raising a hue and cry against any kind of involvement of the private sector, the government kept backing out every time, resulting in these sectors continuing to languish the way they have been for decades together, adversely affecting the quality of life of the citizens, apart from their becoming a drag on the country's economy as a whole.  

Well, of course, it was inevitable that some set of corrupt babu/ neta lot saw opportunities in such situations leading to quite a few fiasco's involving some multi-nationals, the most notorious amongst them being ENRON. But, the answer to that is not the status-quo, which will only provide breeding ground for fresh fiasco's.

The answer is to engage properly with the issues involved and proactively figure out the solutions in partnership with the right kind of service provider. Hopefully, that's what Mr Manivannan has managed in the JUSCO tie-up for Mysore water-supply.

Yes, it will be a good idea to track the project closely. I am with you on that. I have requested for a PRAJA-type meeting with Mr Manivannan. If he responds, we can perhaps further it from then on.

Muralidhar Rao

Another Case of Opposition to Unfamiliar....

Naveen - 22 March, 2009 - 10:47

Hi All,

Similar to opposition for privatization of insurance, banking, telephony, etc., we have yet another case here justifying government controlled water distribution as "better" than private controlled, because this was how it had been all along & "public taps were always free" !

As long as water supply is improved & at the same costs, if not marginally higher for the improvements, why should it not be tested ? To safeguard the interests of the poorer sections, the MoU with Tatas must contain specific clauses that each km of piping will have a certain no. of public taps. If this were incorporated, where is the harm in trying to tap private capital in to the water distribution system ?

The MoU must of course be made public so that all opposing members and activists can have a look & satisfy themselves that the terms & conditions are acceptable & for common good.

PRAJA.IN COMMENT GUIDELINES

Posting Guidelines apply for comments as well. No foul language, hate mongering or personal attacks. If criticizing third person or an authority, you must be fact based, as constructive as possible, and use gentle words. Avoid going off-topic no matter how nice your comment is. Moderators reserve the right to either edit or simply delete comments that don't meet these guidelines. If you are nice enough to realize you violated the guidelines, please save Moderators some time by editing and fixing yourself. Thanks!