(Editor’s note: This article is prompted by the row over the allotment of five houses and plots under the “discretionary quota” to Rajya Sabha BJD member and former Minister Kalpataru Das’ family members, including his MlA-son Pranab Balabantaray)

It was pointed out in this column earlier that plots and houses in Bhubaneswar were allotted to several persons, which inter alia included the husband, wife, son or any other member of the family. There is a restriction in this regard in the acknowledged principles of allotment of houses/plots by the BDA and other authorities in the State capital city. The situation becomes worse when the allotments emanate from the so-called “discretionary quota”. Interestingly, the expression “discretionary quota” has never been regulated by any norms, principles or criteria. Normally, in allotment of plots/houses, a small percentage of allotments is kept under the “discretionary quota” for war widows, old freedom fighters and other needy persons, all being without any alternate shelter.

In this background, after an analysis of land/house allotments by the BDA, etc., there have been public reactions (including in the State Assembly) alleging that particular individuals in power have derived benefits of several allotments from the “discretionary quota”. This issue had earlier erupted in the context of allotments to some important persons both by the CDA and the BDA. At the peak of this controversy, the Government announced abolition of the so-called “discretionary quota”.

The term “discretion” does not confer in public domain any unregulated, unguided, un-canalised and unfettered power. A public power is always coupled with a public duty. It was, therefore, not good governance on the part of the Government to have wantonly used the so-called “discretionary” power without appropriate criteria, caution and care. A total abolition of the discretionary quota is an equally a kneejerk reaction abdicating the power to serve the needs of those whose dignity and survival may be at stake in the absence of a minimum requirement of any shelter. In the principles of allotment, one allotment per family has been the consistent principle, except where independent taxpayers have been granted the entitlement.

Strangely enough and notwithstanding the prohibitory clause, allotments were made from the discretionary quota to several persons belonging to some families. Such families are not the needy, the poor and the marginalised sections of the society. They belong to the power elite. There can be no justification to rationalise such improper exploitation of public power in the dispensation of the largesse of the State. Politics has become a profession for economic aggrandisement and advancement. The disclosures made by the candidates from election to election amply demonstrate this. This is an ironical and unforgivable situation in a State where a large number of people are landless, surviving as landless labourers or as migrant labourers travelling to other States for daily wages. As is well-known, the number of persons who have been styled as “poor” has continued to increase in our State. It is, therefore, natural to infer that the priorities in public life and in the use of use of public power have undergone a change for the worse and are almost perverse.

Mahatma Gandhi once described Odisha as the land of a “walking skeletons”. He said this while walking through Odisha with his friend Gopabandhu Das. On April 10, 1921, Gandhiji wrote, “Either the crops don’t grow due to lack of rains or there are floods following excessive rains and the crops and houses are washed off; hence there is always a near-famine in this province …. In this godforsaken region, the one real leader is Gopabandhu Das …. After visiting Gopabandhubabu’s school, we went on to Jagannath Puri .…  Thick darkness reigns in the recess where the images are installed. There is neither air nor light. One or two lamps burn dimly, that is all. …. As at other places, here too the priests are a terror. They fleece the devout pilgrims. How is it that Jagannath remained a silent witness to all this wickednessIJ”

It is unfortunate that the situation has not undergone any substantial change though we have been a separate State from 1936, an independent country from 1947 and a Republic from 1950. Is there a justification to perpetuate a feudal order, wherein the fortunate affluent few continue to convert power into increased acquisition of wealth without concern for the unfortunate, many of whom don’t have the basic amenities of bare subsistence and survivalIJ Is this the essence of lord Jagannath being referred to as “Patitapaban” or  “Daridra Narayan”IJ And this certainly concerns us. 

(The writer, a Senior Advocate, is a former All India Service officer, a former diplomat, a former editor and a former Advocate General of Odisha. jayantdas@hotmail.com)