Oxfam’s report "Inequality Kills 2022" and its India supplement (hereafter referred to as the report) revealed some shocking facts about the growing gap between the rich and poor. India, which has the third highest number of billionaires in the world, endured one of the longest-lasting COVID-induced lockdowns in 2020. Yet, the same year, the top 10% of India held close to 45% of the country’s total national wealth. Concurrently, the number of billionaires in India rose from 102 to 142, while the bottom 50% of the population held a 6% share in the nation’s wealth. The unemployment rate  (which was at 4.7% in 2017-18 and 6.3% in 2018-19) became 9.1% and 7.9% in December 2020 and 2021, respectively. One frequently cited motivation to privatise is efficiency – the quality of services offered and the government’s fiscal resources to expand public expenditure are expected to improve. However, this assumption is flawed on two counts: private services are as much liable to be misapplied as public-funded services, and they’re prone to applying commercial value on social services, leading to exclusion of the ‘have-nots’. For instance, while globally the ten richest men doubled their fortunes during the pandemic, the incomes of 99% of humanity fell; and the richest 98 Indians own the same wealth as the bottom 55.2 crore Indian citizens. This gap has increased over the last decade, as the bottom 50%, that held 8% of the wealth in 2012, had a mere 6% in 2021. India’s expenditure on social security schemes for workers is already low at 0.6%  of the total union budget. These schemes cover a diverse workforce in the organised and informal sectors. The pandemic affected informal and migrant workers most severely, and the absence of social security for them was more glaring than ever. By privatising public goods such as education, healthcare, social safety, food, and drinking water, the precarities that certain segments face are deepened. Even as the extent of public crowdsourcing of financial support and information on oxygen, hospitals, and doctors on social media was exemplary during the pandemic, this temporary social vine was born out of the absence and abandonment of state infrastructure. A significant population of this country undertook medical debt, suffered from loss of loved ones, reported lower intake of food than before the pandemic, walked the length and breadth of the country to feel ‘at home’, and lost their livelihoods. The private sector functions on a rationalising mechanism that demands value for its services, in contrast to well-being and welfare as outcomes.

How does labeling PSU's as navaratnas, maharatnas and miniratnas help ?

All of the above

In order to improve efficiency, infuse professionalism and enable them to compete more effectively in the liberalised global environment, the government identifies PSEs and declare them as maharatnas, navratnas and miniratnas. They were given greater managerial and operational autonomy, in taking various decisions to run the company efficiently and thus increase their profits. Greater operational, financial and managerial autonomy has also been granted to profit-making enterprises.