Interview with CPI leader in Busines Standard :
Gurudas Dasgupta,
a Communist Party of India senior, has been at the forefront in
opposing a rise in the price of natural gas, on the ground that the real
beneficiary is
Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL). He explains his stand to
Sanjay Jog. Edited excerpts:
What is your comment on the Centre's decision to increase the gas price from April 1, 2014?
Disastrous. Why was the pricing done in dollars when imported coal is
not being so priced? Linking it with the dollar means the contractor
will be the beneficiary. This was done during the BJP-led NDA government
and the UPA government is continuing that line. In the wake of a
declining exchange rate, the country will lose heavily and
disproportionately.
Why are you opposing it?
The government has agreed to double the price without any scientific
study of cost of production per unit, what has been the actual revenue
and the profit. It is reported that the contractor has recovered much
more that what was invested. Further, the government did not study the
impact on the two main users, the fertiliser and power sectors.
The increase in the price of power per unit will involve more subsidy
from the states. Stakeholders are not consulted and the government has
taken the decision without due diligence. The government has responded
to arm-twisting methods of corporate entities. Our battle will continue
in and outside Parliament.
Do you stick to your earlier observation that the gas price rise is a scam?
Certainly. In view of the collusion between companies and the petroleum
ministry, we have seen that a petroleum minister was removed in the
past. Also, the timing: the deal has been struck on the eve of
elections. It is a known fact that this corporate (read RIL) is generous
in making political investments.
The finance minister said the rise was due to low domestic output.
A villain's argument. It will further accentuate price rise, will
increase the electricity cost, spur the industrial cost of production
and will ultimately be placed on the shoulders of consumers.
What were the options to avoid a gas price rise?
Why rely on a single contractor? As per the production sharing contract,
the government should have taken control of the area in which the
contractor had failed to produce. The government should have made the
allocation of that area to other contractors, through international
competitive bidding. That would have substantially reduced our
dependence on a single contractor, as there would have been many more
contractors. However, the government is deliberately allowing monopoly
of a single contractor.
Do you want government to reconsider its decision?
The defaulting contractor (RIL) should have been put under pressure to
produce the 80 million standard cubic metres a day of gas as promised in
the contract. Instead, it has taken the statement of a single
contractor as correct and decided to increase the gas price. It is the
government's job to protect the interest of the country and also its
natural resources.
The government has clearly defaulted in discharging its constitutional
duty. It will have to review its decision and the rise in price must be
done only after a proper technical evaluation.