An
upcoming politician from India, who founded a new party last year and
has had some success in the election for a state legislature, carried out about two months
ago and who had also managed to form a
minority Government for a short period, recently visited one of
India's western states. Normally. I don't like to cover political
issues here on my blog and therefore would have not taken note of
the utterances made by him during his visit. However, he made two
controversial statements, which according to me require some
discussion. I would be discussing here only one of his statements in
detail.
Before
going to the specifics of this case, let me take you back to
eighteenth century, to a small kingdom in south India, known as
Mysore Kingdom. This Kingdom founded way back in 14th
century was ruled by the Wodeyar family, initially serving as a
vassal state of the Vijayanagara Empire. With the decline of the
Vijayanagara Empire (circa1565), the kingdom became independent. It
became a powerful state in the Deccan in the 17th century with a
steady expansion of its territory. The kingdom reached the height of
its military power and dominion in the latter half of the 18th
century under the rule of Haider Ali and his son Tipu Sultan. The
British defeated Tipu Sultan in 1799 and brought back the Wodeyars to
their throne by way of a subsidiary alliance and the diminished
Mysore was transformed into a Princely state under control of British
East India Company. As a princely state, Mysore slowly became one of
more modern and urbanized regions of India. Under Wodeyar rule,
Mysore emerged as one of the important centers of art and culture in
India. The Mysore kings proved to be enthusiastic patrons for music
and arts.
Krishnaraja
Wodeyar took over the reins of the state on 8 February 1902. Under
his rule, with famous Sir M. Vishweshwariah as his Diwan, the
Maharaja set about transforming Mysore into a progressive and modern
state, particularly in industry, education, agriculture and art.
During his reign, he worked toward alleviating poverty and improving
rural reconstruction, public health, industry and economic
regeneration, education and the fine arts. Such were the strides that
Mysore made during his period that Gandhiji was moved to remark that
the Maharaja was a Rajarishi ("a saintly king"). He built
a railway, roads, bridges,dams, hospitals and created an excellent
infrastructure in his state. Krishnaraja realised that poverty of his
subjects can be truly alleviated if they have good education and
proper opportunities of work. For education, he founded many
educational institutes, the foremost of which is obviously the Indian
Institute of Science. He gifted acres of prime land in Bengaluru for
this institute to come up and flourish.
He was
very keen that Industries come up in his state so that his subjects
get employment opportunities. The list of factories that he helped
setting up is really remarkable and shows his foresight. The range
of goods, these factories produced is just amazing. This list
consists of factories such as Mysore Sugar Mills,KR Mills- Mysore,
Mysore Paper Mills- Bhadravati, Mysore Lamps- Bangalore, Mysore
Chemical and Fertilizers Factory- Belagola, Glass and Porceline
Factories, -Bangalore, Mysore Paints and Varnish Limited, Mysore
Implements Factory- Hassan and finally Hindusthan Aircraft Ltd., the
only aircraft factory in India.
Readers
would realise, how farsighted , this Maharaja was, when he gifted
acres of free land to these industrial undertakings and also invested
heavily in these companies. In a short span of a decade and a half,
Maharaja was able to transform his once predominantly agricultural
state economy to a mixed economy with a good percentage of industrial
production. I have elaborated on this part of history with a
purpose. I want readers to realise that for a state, which desires
that its citizens progress and flourish, it can do so only if it
manages to create suitable infrastructural facilities and employment
opportunities for the people, which would ensure their progress.
In the
socialistic system, the state would take upon itself the job of
creating infrastructure as well as that of setting up factories to
provide employment opportunities for the people. India tried out
this system, as a legacy of Prime minister Nehru. The system no
doubt, managed to create basic infrastructure, but later was found
totally inadequate to deal with a growing economy. The concept of
mixed economy was therefore evolved in which, Government works in
partnership with privately owned individuals and companies.
It is
obvious and easy to see that private enterprises would go into any
business, only if it satisfies their principal motive of making
profits and there is no need to see red in that. What the Government
needs to ensure is that in the long term, it does not get swindled
and gets proper return on its investment. With these basic concepts
thus cleared, let us now examine the case criticized by our upstart
politician.
The
utterances of our upcoming politician, to which I am referring here,
pertain to the establishment of a solar power station. For the
readers, who are not very familiar with this new concept, this power
station is essentially a vast stretch of land in which acres and
acres of land are set up with fabricated steel structures, carrying
solar photo cell panels that generate electricity. All these panels
are connected electrically with others and produce electrical power
from sunlight. There is no requirement of fuel, minimal maintenance
is required and once set up, it generates power at no cost.
However
the basic problem here is that of the cost of the land required for
the project and initial cost of panels and fabricated stands. This
cost is enormous, because of its vast scale. Anyone,who wants to set
up such a power station, needs to invest very heavily in such a
project. He can hope to recover his costs only if he is paid a
handsome rate for electricity generated by him, which works out at
least 8-10 times the conventional rate of electrical power production
to begin with. If he is offered a lesser rate for the power generated
by him, the whole project become nonviable. But as years go by, the
investor's investments are recovered and since there are very few
running costs, solar electricity becomes eventually one of the
cheapest ways to generate electric power.
So how
can a state promote establishment of such power projects, which could
provide power in the future at a low cost and that too with least
pollution? This can be done if the state Government steps in and
initially buys electricity from the producer at a much higher cost,
offsetting costs of his investments, effectively giving a subsidy to
the power producer. This exactly has been done by the concerned state
Government and now being criticized and disfavoured by our upcoming
politician, who says that the state government should have asked for
bids from the solar power producers and should have bought power
from lowest bidder.
But,
need for cheap power alone, is not the driving force behind setting
up solar power. Around 2005, International community finally became
aware of the real danger of Greenhouses gases and the resultant
climate change. Power stations based on fossil fuels contribute
substantially to greenhouse gases. The Kyoto Protocol to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an effort
under which many developed countries have agreed to legally binding
limitations/reductions in their emissions of greenhouse gases. As a
response to this international effort, India unveiled a US$19 billion
plan to produce 20 Giigawatts of solar power by 2020 in July 2009
itself. India added over 1 Gigawatt of solar energy to its
electrical grid during 2013, a major milestone that nearly doubles
the country’s cumulative solar energy capacity to 2.18 Gigawatts.
This is surely a good sign that India will be able to meet its
ambitious solar target of 10 GW by 2017 and 20 GW by 2022.
If we
want to install solar power stations on such a large scale, only way
they can be made economically feasible, is by subsidising them for
the first few years, with low land costs and with a higher tariff
paid for the power produced. This subsidy can only be given by the
state and there is nothing immoral or wrong about it. It is just a
way of financing the project, which is going to be beneficial for the
people in later years. Whatever, our upcoming politician says in this
matter, I feel that the best course is to neglect him and continue
with the job.
12th
March 2014
This is an eye opener. Hope the sensibilities of voters are stimulated to the extent to see through and spurn the citing of malicious propaganda.
ReplyDelete