• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Transparency please

IT IS RATHER funny. The Disinvestment Minister set much store by transparency and abhorred what he calls `circuitous routes'. And his critics, both in the Opposition and among the NDA partners, castigated him for the lack of transparency in the disinvest ment process and demanded a white paper. The Opposition even staged a walkout in Parliament over the issue.

But to be fair to Mr Arun Shourie, a serious person to all intents, he never stopped harping on transparency and the benefits that would accrue. He would like the Government to consider doing the disinvestment exercise over the Internet to impart greater transparency, and speed up the processing. Left to him he would also have an ``open auction of government shares''. He enlightened the audience at a recent meet how the UK Government gained immensely from the auction of shares in British Telecom and how Germany sold bandwidth for $48 billion against the target of $10 billion, again through open auction. Bet on openness, you get the best price. Sounds great. How acceptable it is to the Indian establishment is open to question, though.

Now, coming to the charge that the disinvestment process is not transparent, one gets the feeling that the charge was after all not empty. After the ball was set rolling for the sale of the government stake in Air India and Indian Airlines, there have be en any number of reports, mostly speculative, on the names/number of bidders, and on what caused the delay in finalising the shortlist. Even after the scrutiny of `expression of interest', one really did not know who was in and who was out. All that the Disinvestment Department said, in a bald fashion, was that three bids for Air India and two for Indian Airlines were rejected as they did not meet the criteria laid down. There is a let in here as the Government had earlier clarified that prospective bid ders would be allowed to change joint venture partners/consortium members or include new members till the submission of final technical proposals.

Now one hears of several names -- the Hindujas, Tata-Singapore Airlines, Lakshmi Mittal group, Air France-Delta, Emirates and Videocon -- bidding for either of the airlines or both. The Government has doggedly kept mum, saying it fears cartelisation. Thi s does not hold much water. If the names/number of bidders are revealed what kind of cartelisation will take place that does not exist already? Mercifully some of the parties confirmed not only their participation but also their shortlisting. The Indian Pilots' Guild, thrown out of the race, termed the bidding procedure a ``one-horse race''. Ironically, Mr Shourie himself has not helped his cause with his `slip-up' on Tata-SIA's qualifications and chances. His denial later did little to contain the dama ge.

All this unsavoury speculation could have been avoided had the Government been more open in conducting the exercise. That sensitive information cannot be revealed as it may work against the national interest and that the Government had to examine some of the parties from a security point of view are valid arguments. But this is all the more reason why the whole process should be done in a transparent fashion. After all India is a large and complex country with all its attendant compulsions. A distinctio n can be drawn between what is sensitive and what is not. For Mr Shourie this will not go against the grain. It is nearly a decade now since this business of PSU disinvestment began and the Government's kitty has garnered a mere Rs 18,000 crore. This bei ng so, to say that this year's target of Rs 10,000 crore will be a mirage is stating the obvious, though for Mr Pradip Baijal, Disinvestment Secretary, it is only a figure. There may be twists and turns in the economic policy. Let there be. But here is a New Year resolution the Government can live with: Be transparent, reap rewards and silence the critics.