<sec id="sec001"><title>The Struggle for reform

The electricity and water sectors in Delhi have experienced volatile situations in the last few months. While the electricity sector came under the scanner due to some possible errors in the billing systems and the perceived ‘fast running’ of electronic meters installed by the distribution entities, the 24 × 7 water scheme of the government of Delhi was also fatally attacked. The role of the RWAs (resident welfare associations) in both these cases was prominent signaling an awakening of the Indian consumer to equity, quality, and customer care issues in the utilities sector as well. But, should these experiences translate into an end of the road for reforms in these sectors? What went wrong?

In the case of the electricity distribution entities, the trigger for the protests was the increase in prices when consumers were already touchy about issues relating to metering and billing. Distribution entities were at fault here to the extent that their entire focus was on providing technological fixes to the dismal extent of leakages that existed in Delhi's distribution system with less than commensurate attention paid to customer service and responsiveness issues. The Delhi government deserves its share of the blame for, first, not recognizing the inadequacy of the transitional financing provided (despite organizations like TERI pointing this out during the discussions on privatization) and, second, not recognizing the consumer sensitivity and taking corrective action in time. The Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission is suffering from a lack of credibility and did not apply its mind to the situation adequately. Here too the governments (in various states) are to blame as they have put into place institutions that are being rendered toothless and lack in credibility due to the poor selection of regulators and lack of trained staff. The RWAs, of course, could help by efficiency on the consumption side and checking thefts.

The 24 × 7 water supply scheme is laudable in its objectives but, as in the case of electricity privatization, completely mis-communicated its objectives and end goals. Did the pilot scheme for introducing 24 × 7 water supply to two areas mean more water consumed by these areas at the expense of others? If yes, then by how much? Or, would it actually result in a savings of water? How so? Was privatization the end goal? Or could the public sector also play a role?

India is aiming to achieve unprecedented growth levels in the next few decades. This would be greatly helped if its citizens have access to good quality, reliable infrastructure services at affordable prices. Due to the mis-handling of the above two cases, the thought of privatization sends alarm bells ringing in the minds of civil society and, therefore, also decision-makers. We cannot afford to take a piecemeal approach to the transformation of the infrastructure sector in India. De-politicization and rationalization of pricing (to have sustainable businesses) have to go hand-in-hand with service and efficiency improvements, technological up gradation, and adequate policy and institutional back-up. We urgently need to move away from a culture of ‘me versus them’ to ‘us’ and take collective responsibility for improved efficiency in the delivery of infrastructure services.

Editorial