बेबाक · Editorial
Haryana's Power Strike Shows the Cost of Privatising Electricity Without Consent
Haryana may have a sound case for competition in electricity, but pushing it through over workers' objections has left citizens without power. Both sides owe the public a settled transition.
Darkness in the Millennium City
From Wednesday night, power supply was disrupted across Gurugram, Faridabad and Nuh after DHBVN workers went on strike. Within 12 hours the outage had generated more than 3,000 complaints. The Haryana Bijli Karamchari and Engineers Joint Sangharsh Morcha called a three-day strike after the power sector regulator granted a licence to a private firm. The workers object to a private discom in Gurugram and Nuh. The three districts span very different parts of the state, and the disruption fell on households and businesses alike.
Two Legitimate Claims
The case for the licence deserves a fair hearing. Supporters of private participation argue that state distribution companies have often struggled with losses, unreliable supply and slow grievance redress. In their view, competition in distribution is a recognised way to push incumbents toward better service. The licence also came from the regulator, the body that is supposed to decide such questions. The workers' case is just as serious. Employees in such transitions commonly fear for their jobs, service conditions and pensions. They also fear that a private operator could take the more profitable territory and leave the public utility with costlier areas to serve. Neither side's concern can be dismissed.
Where Both Sides Fall Short
The evidence so far reflects badly on everyone. A strike that disrupts electricity in three districts punishes people who had no say in the licensing decision. That includes patients who depend on home equipment, students and small traders. More than 3,000 complaints in half a day is not leverage against the state. It is harm done to citizens. The authorities, for their part, have not shown that they secured the workforce's confidence before the licence was granted, or that they prepared for a walkout that was foreseeable. Major reform in an essential service needs prior negotiation and a backup plan. On the evidence available, neither was adequate.
The Verdict
Privatisation is a policy tool, not a principle, and it should be judged by what it delivers to consumers. Opposing it is no licence to hold a district hostage. The regulator's process may have been lawful. Lawfulness alone does not make a transition legitimate in the eyes of the people who must carry it out. A reform that cannot keep the lights on during its own rollout has not yet earned the right to call itself a reform. Strong states are built on institutions that consult before they impose. They are also built on unions that bargain without cutting off the citizen.
A Settlement, Not a Standoff
The way forward is specific and achievable. First, the state government should guarantee in writing that DHBVN employees' service conditions, seniority and pension rights are protected through any transition. It should also set a clear process for voluntary transfer. Second, the regulator should publish the licence terms, service standards and penalties for the private operator, so that consumers can hold it to account. Third, the utility should publish its complaint data from the strike and set out a standing contingency plan for essential supply. Finally, the dispute should go to time-bound conciliation, and both sides should agree that hospitals and water supply are never disrupted.
A reform that cannot keep the lights on during its own rollout has not yet earned the right to call itself a reform.
What this editorial rests on
Drawn from our live multi-newsroom feed — read the reporting at source.
An editorial is the considered opinion of the FarziUPSC desk, argued from the sourced reporting above and written under our published persona, बेबाक. We name institutions, not parties. If we are wrong, we will say so. How we work →