National   

Govt. under fire over disinvestment

By Our Special Correspondent

NEW DELHI Dec. 18. The Opposition today made a blistering attack in the Lok Sabha on the Government's method of disinvestments, even as it demanded the formation of a standing parliamentary committee to consider privatisation proposals as well as issuance of a white paper on the issue.

Leading the charge were Somnath Chatterjee (CPI-M) and Mani Shankar Aiyar (Congress), who urged that a special parliamentary committee be set up to consider disinvestment. Decrying the lack of transparency, Mr. Aiyar wanted a white paper to be tabled in the House to answer the pertinent questions being raised by the Opposition.

Defending the disinvestment policies, Prakash Mani Shankar (BJP) said the issues being raised were largely on the implementation of the policy rather than on the principle of disinvestment. Implementation, he argued, was an executive function for which the Ministry need not come to Parliament.

Initiating the debate, Mr. Chatterjee said the spree of disinvestment was part of the "loot and plunder" to get rid of public sector undertakings. Describing it as the "most sordid chapter" of the present Government, he said people have been reduced to penury by this process, while the nation lost valuable assets.

Critical of the lack of transparency in the disinvestment process, he said there was no effort to take Parliament into confidence. "Why are profit-making companies being sold and for whose benefit," he asked, pointing out that there had been considerable criticism of the method being adopted.

He cited the example of the sale of the Centaur Hotel, while asking whether the fixing of reserve prices had any relation to reality. On the oil sector companies, he said there was barely any response by the Prime Minister when 20 trade unions sought to be consulted on their privatisation. But the most serious concern, he said, was of corruption of which this was the highest embodiment.

Mr. Aiyar who raised several questions for Mr. Shourie to answer felt that despite 14 parliamentary debates, there had been no proper responses from the Minister.

He urged the Government to identify the companies to be retained as strategic even as he recalled the reasons for nationalisation of foreign oil companies after the 1971 war.

Even sale of pharma companies like the IDPL had been set up as a strategic move, he pointed out, after it was found that the Army was not able to access antibiotics at a reasonable cost after the 1965 war.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• India never said `no' to SAARC summit: Sinha
• Govt. under fire over disinvestment
• Efficacy of POTA established: BJP
• President appoints two new SC Judges
• Shekhawat to speak to MPs
• Centre accedes to States' request on service tax
• 'Teachings of tolerance pushed back'
• Confer more powers on CJI: Pattanaik
• SC dismisses Swamy's petition
• U.S. hopes India will reduce tariffs
• ESIC hikes disablement benefit
• Sinha calls up Indonesian counterpart on Jain issue
• U.S. gifts 20 vehicles to Narcotics Control Bureau
• Secular forces must unite: Yechury
• VHP meet to decide on temple issue

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu