thumb_up 0

COMMENTS

@pdk

The difference between our arguments being that I had provided extensive examples refuting your position and quoted third-party studies (by Prayas and others) supporting my position.  You just keep repeating your mantra of govt role being that of regulator and facilitator etc.. and expect me to come around to your point of view :-)

The essence of what Prayas was saying in its report was that the city of Delhi was not as yet getting the benefit of privatisation, as was hoped for. Like I had mentioned at http://praja.in/en/blog/murali772/2009/07/23/learnings-delhis-power-supply-privatisation, "these pitfalls are inevitable when you allow the government agency to be run to ground, and then out of desperation, look for a competent player to take over. This once again brings out the urgency for the government to divest itself from these functions early".

Further, as I have been saying, almost ad nauseum, "apart from Delhi and Mumbai, the cities/ areas that 'enjoy' power supply from private companies are Ahmedabad, Surat, Kolkata, Greater Noida, and in all these places, the customer satisfaction and profitability levels are far higher than elsewhere where the supplies are with government companies/ agencies, all being subject to uniform regulation by the respective SERC's. So, there must be enough merit to it. And, perhaps learning from the experiences in Delhi, the switch-over in other cities can happen more smoothly".

So, which position has the 'extensive examples' supporting it?

In any case, I don't have anything to gain or lose personally by privatization/publicisation (I'm assuming that is true for everyone).  

Isn't that quite where the problem lies? When the power supply is unreliable, you have your gen-set, inverter, converter, etc; when the water supply is unreliable, you have your bore-wells, the tanker wallah, the bottled water, etc; when the bus service is undependable, you have your cars/ two-wheelers, etc. But, for a fairly sizable section of the population, these are luxuries they cannot afford, but, which in the first place wouldn't have been required if the service deliveries were efficient. Have some concern for the also, please!

I just don't appreciate blind ideological positions even when facts don't support it.

Far worse is when people choose to remain blind to facts placed before them. "It's not enough to have eyes, you need to be able to see" as a saying goes.


@ Naveen

Murali water supply will be a lot more accountable than a JUSCO even:)))

 

• thumb_up Like
• · login or register to post comments

I don't attribute the good power supply in Ahmedabad/Surat to Gujaratis etc.  If you remember the long discussion we had on HU mailing list, this is what I wrote (link here):

In Mumbai, BEST & the Reliance discom are doing well as you point out. Tata Power supplies only to bulk customers. BEST is a public utility. Its distribution losses stood at 10.5% for 2007-08 & 2008-09 (see Final Copy of APR Petition ). I couldn't locate loss numbers for the Reliance discom, but they surely won't be better than BEST's. 10.5% loss percentage is better than Delhi NDPL. Kolkata is left with a monopoly (RPG group) and lots of google'able news reports on issues with load-shedding. This old article in Outlook discusses how unsavoury the privatization itself was and what good terms the RGP group got out of it: High-Powered Immunity . This article from The Telegraph shows how power shortages persist: Ahead: Loo & loadshedding. Torrent Power supplies to Ahmedabad & Surat. It is half the size of BESCOM, supplying 10 billion units anually over an area of 408 sq km (see Torrent website), vs BESCOM's 19 billion units over 41092 Sq. Kms (see BESCOM website). And their users are mainly better paying industrial & commercial units (since Ahmd & Surat are industrial & commercial hubs as they themselves claim on their website).

So I have not taken recourse to ethnic traits and minor gods as you claim :-)

• thumb_up Like
• · login or register to post comments

Murali-sir,

I went through the thread.  I have no reason to doubt Mr. Manivannan.  But it still left me with a fundamental question.  How does JUSCO maintaining the system ensure 24x7 water? 

What has fundamentally changed?  Will JUSCO remove illegal connections?  What will JUSCO do differently that will cause water to flow 24x7 from taps?

Posting this question here as that thread seems to have ended on an "all's well that end's well note).  Will be grateful if my stupid question is answered.

Srivathsa

• thumb_up Like
• · login or register to post comments

Why do you post such needless stuff? Most of this is pure opinion, and some just a bunch of half baked conslusions.

- What is "ghost writing"? Can you quote or prove from the actual agreements? Have you actually read any such agreements?

- What are "market forces" and what is "service quality". Did you notice that Mysore Jusco agreement is centered around service quality? Terms like 24x7 etc define service quality, not the market

- Government can't do everything on its own. Do you think BWSSB or Vani Vilas make their own pipes, and meters? You don't scream privatization when they buy pipes from Jindal SAW or someone, do you? Just grow up a bit to let government buy not just commodities but services as well.

Guys like you should use the energy positively to spend the time understanding and scrutinizing all this JUSCO stuff so that "public agenda" is guaranteed in such arrangements. Taking blanket, outdated or half-baked rhetorical stands is plain and simple waste of everyone's time - doesn't even make for good discussions, forget action.

I am sorry, but I have to be harsh at times.

• thumb_up Like
• · login or register to post comments

More grievances over distribution are pouring in from the residents here after JUSCO took over water supply.

This if any is a clear indication that the JUSCO deal has evoked hope aomngst the citizenry that their problems may get solved eventually. Before JUSCO came on, was anyone even complaining? Or, for that matter, when our own BWSSB holds its so-called public grievance redressal meetings (or whatever they are termed), does anyone even bother to attend? Everybody had just given up, and made alternate arrangements. It's quite the same situation as in the case of BESCOM as described below.

Of the audience of a 100 odd people, only some 30 were members of Civil Society groups (RWA's, etc), the rest comprising mostly of BESCOM officials. Seeing this, the chief guest, Dr Samuel Paul, Chairman, PAC, remarked that the poor turn out was perhaps an indication of the high level of satisfaction with BESCOM services. Now, if people do not turn up in sufficient numbers at such meetings, it is not because they are satisfied with the services, it is plainly because of the futility of complaining to a government agency. Those who can afford have made alternate arrangements, and those that can't are any way voiceless. For the full report, click here.

This was also once the situation with telecom services. After the private players came on, the complaints have multiplied - just because there's somebody attending to the complaints now. In fact, I myself have lodged a complaint with the Consumer Redressal Forum against AIRTEL on a specific issue, though I have great appreciation of their services generally.

Pleading for patience in view of the long gestation period of the JNNURM works, Mr Manivannan refuted claims that the projects were behind schedule.

Excellent, let the pressure be on from the people.

 

• thumb_up Like
• · login or register to post comments