Privatization and the Fading Sense of Security**

by Ravindra Dhanka

In my village people do not speak of economics using technical language yet they fully understand what it means when electricity becomes expensive, when farmland is acquired, when regular jobs become contract based, and when health care becomes a financial negotiation rather than a public guarantee, and all of these changes are deeply connected to the steady expansion of privatization into areas once protected by the state.

Privatization is presented as efficiency and growth yet for the poor it often feels like the slow disappearance of state responsibility as essential services transform into market products that must be purchased rather than accessed as rights.

Dr B R Ambedkar believed that political democracy would remain fragile without economic democracy because freedom loses meaning when survival becomes uncertain for large sections of the population, and this warning resonates strongly today as economic growth and social insecurity expand side by side.

When water, electricity, health care, education, and even food distribution begin to operate primarily on profit the poor gradually stop being citizens with guaranteed rights and become customers whose access depends on unstable income.

In tribal regions privatization often arrives with the language of development yet it leaves behind displacement, shrinking common resources, loss of traditional livelihoods, and dependence on unstable labor markets that offer no long term security.

Large companies can absorb loss, shift locations, and wait patiently for profit while villagers cannot postpone hunger, illness, or education, and this unequal capacity to wait itself becomes a mechanism of injustice.

Compensation may be offered for land yet compensation cannot rebuild community bonds, cultural practice, or the feeling of rooted security that comes from living generations on the same land.

Ambedkar supported land reform, collective agriculture, and strong public control over essential resources because he understood that unchecked markets naturally concentrate power and wealth unless restrained by social responsibility.

When the state withdraws from essential services the poorest become trapped between rising costs and unstable livelihoods while those with wealth gain greater control over both resources and opportunity.

If development continues to be measured mainly through profit and investment without equal concern for security, dignity, and access then progress will continue to lift some while leaving others suspended in permanent uncertainty.