The scorching summer dislocated the schedule of this column. With the onset of monsoon, the column has emerged again to look at events that concern us in a significant manner.
We have a ruling party, a regional one, which has 20 out of 21 MPs and 117 out of 147 MlAs. The party professes to protect the State’s interests. Hitherto, the party has functioned as a monolithic one. Bereft of the leader, the rest do not really matter. Often, the representatives of the people have not been alert enough to protect the interests of our State.
let us take the case of Mahanadi water. When Chhattisgarh started its aggressive exploitation of the river’s water, it was bound to lead to the depletion of the legitimate share of our State. The Minister at the Centre in charge of “Water Resources” was from the BJD. Then, the Mahanadi water issue had been raised in the House and there was an assurance that nothing detrimental to the interest of Odisha would be tolerated. It was also indicated that there was no prejudice to the interests of Odisha on account of the activities in Chhattisgarh. There was an assurance that all would be well and Odisha’s interests shall stand protected. After long years, it now transpires that things have proceeded in a manner detrimental to our State’s interests. Even as of now, the remedial measures have not been effective. There was no murmur within the party to ensure protection of Odisha’s interests so far as its legitimate share of water in the inter-State river. There has hardly been any sole-searching and introspection as to whether the representative of the party who presided over the Ministry of Water Resources was indolent and non-responsive.
It has come to be accepted that Posco has abandoned its project of the so-called highest FDI. The Minister at the State level has blamed the Central Government for having delayed grant of mining lease for Khandadhar and has put the blame at the doors of the Centre for leading to Posco pulling out of the project. The Minister at the Central Government level instead blames the State Government for not being prompt and active in processing the application of Posco for getting the mining lease. Without going into any intricacies, it is a matter of record that the State Government, while recommending the case of Posco for Khandadhar mines, did not distinguish between the “notified” areas and “non-notified” areas. The manner of dealing with the two categories is different as per law. It is the defective recommendations that resulted in queries from the Central Government. There is no sole-searching at the level of the State as to why the land acquisition was in a mess and why the mining lease application could not progress in an appropriate manner.
The above are illustrative in nature and indicate lack of intraparty debate so that we learn the lesson from our experience. The regional party is leader-based and the rest of the functionaries are not of any great significance. It is alleged that the bureaucracy formulated policies and programmes and Ministers waited for Secretaries to lead instead of guiding them. Whether in closed door or in open house, the party hardly debated the issues so as to integrate the aspirations of the party with the programmes of the Government. Well-managed publicity prevented the deficiencies from coming to the forefront. In a way, the leader alone mattered, and there was hardly any intraparty deliberation so as to guide the bureaucracy in the right direction. Expression of an opinion had become synonymous to dissidence and was visited with serious consequences, including reprimand or punitive action.
Some Members of Parliament have recently expressed their concern about intraparty democracy and the need of a collective decision-making. This has expressed itself through the column of Bhartruhari Mahtab in the Prajatantra and similar has been the situation with the expressions of Tathagata Satpathy. Baijayant Panda has also expressed his views and concern through his writings in some newspapers. He has been removed from the position of the spokesperson of the party notwithstanding the fact that he is a senior MP having been seen both the Rajya Sabha and the lok Sabha. It is a matter of record that some leaders of the party called themselves “servants” of the unquestioned leader. While the above-mentioned MPs have expressed their own concern and views, Pinaki Misra has come forward to term Baijayant Panda as a lightweight challenging him to walk out in the party. These murmurs and tremours in the intraparty structure are an indicator of the shifting balance power from an individualistic leadership to a collective one. The party has not looked at the conduct of the Minister of Water Resources when Chhattisgarh started the excessive use of the Mahanadi water. This failure is going to cost us dear. It is, therefore, a happy indicator that the second-line leaders are expressing their views. It further demonstrates that they do not have the avenue and opportunity within the party to express their views so as to lead to a collective decision-making.
Of late, the Chief Minister has been more accessible and trying to reach out to different sections of the society. At this juncture, intolerance of expression of views does not fit into the scenario and is not conducive to collective decision-making after debates and deliberations within the party. The Indian National Congress suffered because of inadequate intraparty democracy. Similarly, a monolithic party is conditioned by the views of one leader in the formulation and implementation of programmes. Obviously, it is the bureaucracy that masterminds the policies and programmes, and the political leadership contributes in a negligible manner contrary to the spirit of democracy.
The youth mass has great aspirations and expectations from the ruling party. If the party continues to be oligarchic, especially in the fourth term of its reign, it will not auger well for the State. Involvement of the youth power and encouraging their participation in the formulation of programmes and implementation thereof are the need of the hour. Otherwise, agitations against the ruling party at the Centre will be more demonstrative than substantial, especially when tacit understandings emerge out of a single telephone call. Rallies can be organised, but they would not be purposive, effective and meaningful without the involvement of the youth power in the decision-making process and in the implementation mechanism.
The ruling party stands at the crossroads. It is to be seen whether it is going to be tolerant of different shades of opinion or is going to be guided by the bureaucracy. The youth are aware of the fact that the corrupt method of functioning has not vanished. It is the dominant majority that is the sole basis of the edifice. The substantive contents and methods of administration continue to be feudalistic, dominated by the bureaucracy. It is not the party formulating programmes through participation of its members of all categories and ages. It is the other way round. The party follows the programmes handed down by the bureaucracy. This will inevitably lead to tensions and tremours if the aspirations of the youth power are not fully satisfied.
Shying away from debates and deliberations is not conducive to a democratic process. let there be encouragement of expression of views, leading towards collective, purposive and meaningful decision-making. This calls for a change, requiring all of us to work together. Certainly, this concerns all of us!
(The writer, a Senior Advocate, is a former All India Service officer, a former diplomat, a former editor, a former president of Orissa High Court Bar Association and a former Advocate General of Odisha. jayantdas@hotmail.com)