The statement that 'autonomy to Public Undertakings (PUs) is a myth' reflects a long-standing debate regarding the operational independence of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) in India. PSUs are established to achieve specific socio-economic objectives, often in strategic sectors, and are owned and controlled by the government. While they are designed to operate on commercial lines, their autonomy is frequently compromised by various forms of government intervention.

Arguments supporting the 'myth' perspective:

1. Ministerial Control: PSUs are typically under the administrative control of a specific ministry. Ministers and bureaucrats often interfere in day-to-day operations, appointments, pricing policies, investment decisions, and even procurement, undermining the professional management of these enterprises.
2. Parliamentary Scrutiny: PSUs are subject to parliamentary questions, debates, and scrutiny by committees like the Committee on Public Undertakings (COPU). While accountability is necessary, excessive scrutiny can lead to risk aversion and stifle innovation.
3. Bureaucratic Delays: Decision-making in PSUs can be slow due to the need for approvals from parent ministries or other government bodies, leading to missed opportunities and inefficiency.
4. Political Appointments: Key managerial positions are often filled through political appointments rather than purely merit-based selections, leading to a lack of professional leadership and accountability.
5. Social Obligations vs. Commercial Viability: PSUs are often burdened with social obligations (e.g., providing employment, operating in remote areas, subsidized services) that conflict with their commercial objectives, making it difficult to achieve profitability and compete effectively.
6. Vigilance and Audit: The fear of vigilance inquiries and audits by agencies like the CVC and CAG can make PSU executives overly cautious, hindering bold decision-making.

Counterarguments (limited autonomy exists):

1. Memorandum of Understanding (MoU): The MoU system aims to provide greater operational autonomy by setting clear performance targets and allowing management flexibility to achieve them.
2. Navratna/Miniratna Status: Granting special status to certain PSUs (Navratnas, Miniratnas) has provided them with enhanced financial and operational autonomy, allowing them to make investment decisions without government approval up to certain limits.
3. Professional Boards: Many PSUs have professional boards of directors, including independent directors, who are supposed to guide strategic decisions.

In conclusion, while there have been efforts to grant greater autonomy to PSUs, the reality often falls short of the ideal. The pervasive influence of government, through its ministries, political appointments, and various oversight mechanisms, frequently curtails the operational and strategic independence of these enterprises. Thus, for many PSUs, true autonomy remains more of an aspiration than a reality, making the statement largely valid.