Who is in charge of the Energy DepartmentIJ
The most important thing that marks a developed country from an undeveloped one is the availability of electricity. How does our State rank in this testIJ Though it is superabundantly endowed with coal and water, it still suffers from crippling power cuts. Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik has never given importance to the Energy Department that it so richly deserves. He has never appointed a Cabinet Minister to be in charge of the department. Only a Minister of State remains in its charge. And, again, that Minister is invariably a political lightweight. The current incumbent has shown no promise in his infant Ministership. Patnaik has a Cabinet Minister for pension but not for power. Then, there is a Secretary who divides his time between two jobs he is concurrently holding. The Gridco is given to an officer who has remained becalmed in his career. The OERC is in charge of an officer whom Patnaik wanted removed from the mainstream. The Southco, the Wesco and the Nesco have been taken over from the Reliance, but they still remain temporarily under the control of the Gridco. The entire department is in a state of disarray. Thank God, Patnaik still regards the Energy Department as an office of his Government. The department is sailing on a ship without its regular captain and crew. If Patnaik thinks this disorganised Energy Department can deliver on the promises he made on power availability, he really needs professional help.
Gavaskar’s outburst: Reliving his own traumatic events in flashbacks
From whichever angle I look at it, I can’t agree with the view that the unruly crowd behaviour during the cricket match at the Barabati Stadium is an indication of moral decline of our youth. It is natural for the young boys and girls to be enraged over the substandard performance of our players and that too, on their own home ground. It is the same way we treat rotten food served in the trains. Don’t we push away the plate in utter disgustIJ Angry reaction must be put into context. Cricket is a physical game, not an intellectual or video game. We can’t expect the youngsters to behave in the way the old people do. Each group will behave according to its age. I, hence, think much of the fuss over throwing of water bottles is froth. We have seen unruly crowd behaviour over the shoddy performances of our teams for as long as cricket has been played. In Kolkata, a semi-final World Cup cricket match was abandoned in 1996 after some spectators threw fruits and bottles on the Sri lankan players. Compared to that, the Cuttack incident was like a child’s play. No water bottle came anywhere near the players and no one was hit or even felt threatened. Sunil Gavaskar clearly exceeded his brief by commenting that the Barabati Stadium should be banned from hosting an international event for two years. That idea is beyond bizarre. But there is a background to his apoplectic reaction. Gavaskar has himself faced the wrath of the crowd many times in his career. There were several incidents of crowd displeasure at the Eden Garden resulting in multiple matches being disrupted over the sordid performance of the Indian team under his captaincy. His own 36 off 174 balls in the 1975 World Cup generated considerable crowd fury. That unhappy memory must have flared back when he saw spectators venting their anger over the dodgy performance of some of the players at the Barabati Stadium. It is strange that the former interim president of BCCI, who has never been known to be angry over the criminal charges dogging the game, is getting worked up over a simple bottle throwing incident. Cricket commentary would be better if it were less preachy and more balanced. It is a pity BCCI mandarins didn’t immediately distance themselves from his self-obsessed viewpoint. long on hysteria and short on context, high-strung Gavaskar should relax more and think in greater than sound-bite depth.
Pratap Sarangi: Do your math first
last week BJP State vice-president Pratap Sarangi was livid with the Government for demolishing unauthorised temples and mutts. He so angrily ranted that the eardrums begged for mercy. But the viscerally firebrand former MlA sometimes shouts faster than he can think. On a scale of 0 to 100, his advice tops crazy bad at 200. Does he mean these structures will continue to occupy public land and disrupt trafficIJ Sarangi should reserve his zeal for worthier causes than the one he has misguidedly taken up. If the religious structures of any denomination are permitted on public land, life will be utterly miserable. Sarangi has no intention of allowing reality to intrude into his private world of firmly held misconceptions. If such structures come up near his backyard, he would be the first to shout against Government inaction in demolishing them. Civil society is sick of such two-faced approach of the Nimbys. Has he looked beyond the emotions of the moment to the long-term costs and consequences of his crazy ideaIJ Sarangi is a rare politician who is transparently honest and unspun. He is generally regarded as a conviction politician prepared to speak truth onto the power. He can generate copious quantities of bile and rage against any Government action he finds repugnant. But on the issue of keeping obstructive temples and mutts untouched he seems to be wasting his energy. Is he woolly of both face and mindIJ Mercifully, top BJP leaders know the antediluvian ideas of their fire-eater colleague.
(saratpattanayak@hotmail.com (M) 9437962121)