A stable Government with an effective political leadership is always seen as a condition precedent for achieving socioeconomic growth. To alter the situation towards progress and prosperity, there has to be a radical reform and change in the orientation of the leadership. Bureaucracy is inherently pro-status quo.
In the absence of an able political leadership, capable of causing structural changes and ensuring implementation of the related measures, a State would continue to be caught in the quagmire of a vicious circle.
In a recent brainstorming among professionals, it was found that amongst the States ruled for two decades by the same party/leader (and five more years having been assured through the response of the electorate) there were glaring differences in the quantity of governance.
A comparative analysis between two such States could be very educative. Narendra Damodardas Modi, having never been at the helm of affairs in the national Government, had moved from the Chief Ministership of Gujarat to be the Prime Minister of India. Odisha has a similar situation of the same party/leadership ruling for the fourth term.
The question, therefore, was: Why is Modi pushing ahead to the top and why is the other still with a begging bowl and grumbling against the Central Government. It should be remembered that Modi was the Gujarat CM when the Centre was ruled by the Congress-led UPA I or II.
Both Gujarat and Odisha had a Government belonging to two different parties, other than the Congress, when the Central Government was led by the Congress and its allies.
Both had, therefore, to assert their legitimate claims before the Centre and both had the need of causing demonstrable changes in the socioeconomic structure in the respective State. It is true Gujarat was economically more prosperous than Odisha at the starting point, but both needed accelerated progress in the right direction.
The responsibility of the respective leaders was not only to administer but also to make things at the ground level in the State undergo radical changes for the better.
There are several undesirable factors that have eaten into the fabrics of Odisha. The plunder of the minerals further enriched the already rich without appropriate returns and benefits to the people. The chit fund scam looted the economically weaker sections and the plunder was enjoyed through a capillary system of laundering and enrichment.
The CAG reports indicated that what was impressive on paper was highly damaging in ground reality. A large number of departments could be blamed for misdirection of funds. The grapevine says even the Department of Higher Education would soon throw up a scam of hundreds of crores. Odisha’s policymaker is the bureaucracy.
The political leadership follows the bureaucratic leadership, of course with some convenient mutual adjustments. This is contrary to the basic requirements of democratic administration. A State suffers when the political leadership is not resolute, sensitive, growth-oriented and inspired by a pragmatic vision of change for the better.
The art of labelling Centrally-sponsored programmes with local brand names has been part of a window-dressing for quite some time. Unsystematic and unhelpful attitude of the Central Government has also been a repeated excuse for the sufferings of the State.
The Supplementary Budget is just about to be presented to the State Assembly and the newspapers are bound to carry headlines regarding the thousands of crores that would be provided through this budget, thereby persuading the electorate to believe that things ahead are going to be still better. But the realities are hidden in the past record of the Government.
In 2009-10, Rs1,391 crore was surrendered at the end of the financial year whereas provisions through the Supplementary Budget that year in the Plan sector was for Rs1,321 crore. In 2010-11, the provision through the Supplementary Budget for the Plan sector was Rs1,185 crore and the amounts surrendered at the end of the year was Rs1,190 crore. In 2011-12, the Supplementary Budget added to the State Plan an amount of Rs1,801 crore and the Government Departments surrendered Rs2,177 crore at the year-end.
In 2012-13, the allocation in the Plan sector through the Supplementary Budget was Rs2,677 crore and the departments surrendered at the year-end Rs2,854 crore. In 2013-14, the supplementary provisions were of Rs2,809 crore and the amounts surrendered Rs1,623 crore.
These figures do not represent the totality of facts, as about Rs6,000 crore has been drawn and deposited in civil deposits/ banks in an impermissible manner. The Plan programmes are meant to alter the socioeconomic scenario for better tomorrows.
Standard and lame excuses like untimely receipt of money cannot really wash away the sin of surrendering funds or artificially showing their utilisation because of the inability and incompetence to implement the projects. By “implementation”, one should always mean achieving the real social object of the programmes and not mere demonstration of expenses in the accounts books without any corresponding tangible utilisation.
It has been a routine exercise for the Chief Minister, accompanied by a few civil servants, to visit different Ministers in the Central Government to hand over a memorandum. The media laps this up; we think the juggernaut of progress has started moving at a pace faster than ever before. But the propaganda gloss ends there. We are yet to see a direct discussion between a Minister or the Chief Minister and the concerned Central Minister. We are also yet to see effective open dialogues of Minister to Minister.
Sometime in the middle of 2013, Modi had the foresight of bringing together a group of professionals, whose claim at that time was nonpartisan, but the real objective was to brief Modi with their inputs of an administrative audit and evolve measures for ensuring improved and better governance.
A small powerhouse of intellectuals was to send out the signals to aid the political leadership to further guide and lead the bureaucratic machinery. Interestingly, this professional group called itself CAG (Citizens for Accountable Governance). The multidisciplinary team included technocrats, lawyers, accountants, social scientists, policy analysts and others.
Each group member had the clear objective of changing things for the better. The disillusioned, demoralised and corrupted youth power had to be reoriented and rejuvenated. This was obviously for the reasons that the tomorrows are theirs and as of today they are numerically the largest among the voters. Starting with a small compact group, a broader base was created for handling the details of each assignment.
When they interacted with the political leader, the leadership discerned how to utilise this inputs of the think-tank to rein in the ever statusquoists and pretentiously arrogant bureaucracy. Such an experiment in Gujarat was found to be of immense help for a progressive State administration.
A study of the litigations against the Government that land up in courts has been found to be of immense help in diagnosing and eradicating the aberrations that they are pregnant with. This CAG gradually built up its own foot soldiers at the grassroots level.
The citizens of Odisha have not had the benefit of a leadership that could build such a self-sustaining team and system which would trigger and accelerate the structural alterations right from the bottom.
It is time the young voters forgot their present political affiliations and undertook a faithful introspection, so as to evolve a pattern towards an appropriately purposive and accountable governance.
Unfortunately, the youth power has been misdirected and corrupted to be selfish for individual enhancement and enrichment. Some slum lords have turned overnight millionaires when the poor have been pushed into further poverty. The youth have been pushed into a vicious circle by the professional politicians.
The crying need of the hour is for the youth-voter-power to reorient itself and the political leadership has to be sensitive enough to utilise the altered role of the youth power. If that does not happen, the youth power would be driven to attempt to acquire the power of decision-making and programme implementation.
There may be a need of an upheaval. A growth-oriented progressive democracy demands this as an urgent necessity to dislodge the vicious circle of poverty and exploitation. But the tragedy is the individuals, who constitute this youth power, hardly grasp this unavoidable requirement for a better future for themselves and others. They have to wake up now and demand their legitimate role in reshaping their destiny. Any apathy in this regard has to be remedied by igniting the right kind of fire in their bellies. And this certainly 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)