By introducing open advertisements inviting applicati-ons for identified blocks, UPA has improved the block allocation system
Criminal law has some golden principles without which it leads to kangaroo courts. It seems that animal imagery irritates the principal Opposition of the country, so one would compound the discomfort by suggesting that their bark is worse than their bite. Either way, it is democracy that is being re-defined whilst we need to refine it for our times. Parliamentary debate is replaced by channels and political guests; the presiding officer by the anchor! Social media has aged TV even before it reached its prime.
The questions the CAG has left unanswered:
Was the idea of switching from nomination to selection to competition not of the UPA under Dr Manmohan Singh?
Is it not correct that a sound and sustainable legal regime for allocation of coal or any other resource needs to be based on legislation?
That ultimately the cost of inputs in manufacturing have a direct bearing on the price of product, and that as a developing country we cannot afford to be a high cost economy.
That ‘presumptive loss’ is questionable enough as a concept, what is the legitimacy of presumptive ‘undue gain’ to parties?
Is there an implicit suggestion of presumptive corruption as well and if not, is there no duty to disabuse the public?
Furthermore, the BJP has some questions to answer as well if they can pause from demanding answers:
Is this an issue of alleged complicity in wrongful gain described as windfall profit) or simply disagreement on timing and/or time taken to legislate?
Is the main Opposition of the view that power, steel and cement need not be a priority for our economy or that we should not be concerned with their cost of production?
Is the Opposition unclear about the Indian model of liberalisation or do they want us to follow Western style free market?
Is Parliament being given a go-bye on the ground of ruling party majority not fundamentally a flawed understanding of the democracy?
Is the government not entitled to some passion in its belief of having done the right thing where the Opposition has intense passion in believing it to be wrong?
In a democracy, is there no scope for strongly felt disagreements and, therefore, how can debate be stifled?
Is the demand for resignations and cancellations as precondition of any engagement not an attempt at scoring an unwarranted victory under duress?
All these questions are unlikely to get responses despite the surfeit of TV appearances of leaders and commentators galore. The CAG will inevitably keep its Constitutional silence whilst the BJP will pretend not to hear anything but their own voice.
But hopefully the citizen will note that these questions are unanswered and therefore, adverse inferences can be legitimately drawn. At the same time we are more than willing to take any questions, so long as they do not come with embedded answers.
As a backgrounder, it is important to know that in 1973 coal was nationalised and thereafter only the State could mine and sell coal. The first exception was made in 1993 when the Act was amended for captive blocks for power plants. Subsequently, the exemptions for cement, steel and gassification were added. During the NDA rule, manufacturers would select a block and secure a recommendation of the state government for allotment. The UPA improved the system by introducing open advertisements inviting applications for identified blocks, receiving state government views, presentation before screening committee before making allotments. As demand for coal began to grow in 2004, the PMO proposed a modified dispensation for competitive bidding. Various views were expressed by stakeholders including state governments. In 2006, the Law Ministry conclusively advised amendment of the Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act. In 2008, the Cabinet approved the Bill for introduction. After the Standing Committee report and consulting the stakeholders, the Act was passed in 2010. Rules were framed by February 2011 and at present Crisil is drawing up the bid documents. For anyone familiar with Parliamentary procedure to say that there was undue or intentional delay is far-fetched to say the least.
Should the government have introduced a moratorium on allotment from 2004, 2006, or even 2008? We took 2008 to be the relevant year. Not a single allotment has been made by the screening committee since the 36th meeting in 2008.
Even the 57 blocks allotted include 19 to PSU and the rest to reputed private sector companies. It must also be kept in mind that even under the new dispensation, power companies will continue to make competitive bids for tariff rather than for coal.
The alleged gain to the private sector has not taken into account the royalty and the corporate tax, not to mention the employment generation potential and contribution to the economy.
Wild demands of cancellation could lead to actual and sentiment loss that are beyond estimation. What is possible to say is that we are witnessing very bad politics with the help of bad economics. The prisoner's dilemma seems to have a field day and as the hyena would say (with apology to BJP), “this is no laughing matter!”
