"The fight between BJD 'A' and BJD 'B' shows their lack of focus on development and growth?"

I have used the blog to spell out my position on different topical issues. Like all of you I have been watching the recent developments in the ruling BJD. As a matter of propriety any comment about internal matters of another political party is inappropriate. Both the A and B Teams of BJD share the same anti-Congress ideological positions with the projected neglect of the state by the centre as the main plank and they are committed to their party constitution. Both are anti-Congress votaries and vying for the regional political space. The B Team claims to be a forum within the Party and the A Team is unwilling or unable to expel the B Team; B Team is also unwilling or unable to walk out of the Party. So, basically it is an open fight for power and influence within the ruling party that attempts to distract people of Odisha from real issues, i.e., the failure of the BJD to meet expectations of the people after 12 years; both Teams are equally responsible for neglecting development of the state. Congress is an old party with a distinctly different ideology, support base, national focus and commitment for secular democracy.  

The match between the A and B teams of BJD made me think about the larger issue of emergence of regional parties in post-independent India. There have been three major sources of regional parties. Some leaders of the Congress, once they established their own profile and career as Congress leaders, leveraged their position by breaking away from the national party to advance their personal ambitions better. Biju Patnaik, Sharad Pawar and Mamata Banerjee are examples. The followers of Biju Patnaik do not want to recollect Biju’s Congress origin or 30 years in Congress since that weakens their anti-congress rhetoric. The fact is all the work for which Biju is remembered were achieved by him as a Congress leader only. The second group of parties emerged out of regional movements like the Dravid movement in Tamil Nadu, the anti-foreigner movement in Assam, the Maharashtra movement in Mumbai, the Punjabi Suba movement in Punjab etc. Then there are a group of regional parties that were a result of split in Janata Dal. The Samajwadi Party (SP), the Lok Dal, the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and the Janata Dal United (JDU) come in this third category. Basically the Janata dal had the sole ideology of anti-Congressim. But, once the Party succeeded in getting Congress out of power, the leaders within the party had different ideological positions and ambitions and fought bitterly splitting into many parties. Now these regional parties are held not merely by the glue of anti-congressim, but in UP and Bihar by caste equations and in Odisha by regional assertion. So, BJD has two parts to its ideology: anti-congressism and regionalism (perceived neglect by the centre). Basically, the entire philosophy is negative and is a result of personal ambition of leaders to come to power and rank opportunism. Consequently personalities become more important than policies and ideologies. The BJD has suspended and expelled many of its top leaders not over ideological differences, but over so called ‘anti-party activities’ and ‘indiscipline’, which is a result of autocratic leadership styles, opportunism and obsession with a leadership cult.

In our system of federalism the centre has huge responsibilities. Let us say India has a responsibility for its defence forces, even India is required to help out other countries through financial assistance. The economic managers have to balance the budget. If there is an unfavourable change in currency exchange rate, Petrol, Diesel and cooking gas becomes more expensive and the Government of India have to take responsibility of adjusting prices. Then, the nation needs a strategic perspective and must strive for its rightful place in the world. Regional parties do not have any of these responsibilities, nor are they required to articulate their position on various national and international issues. They can just blame the centre and carry out populist agitations to get votes.

During the independence movement Congress attracted dedicated and talented youth in large numbers. Even now, Congress attracts people with a nationalist, secular and left-of-centre ideological position. On the other hand there are parties which do their politics around caste, religion, region in the pursuit of electoral success fragmenting the polity and these parties offer platforms for various short-cuts.

Poorer states like Odisha need rapid national economic growth much more than the richer states. We want impediments to growth to be removed through reforms. Often, there is a tendency to consider views of regional parties in power in a state as the voice of the people. Not necessarily. People want development and growth and that is what we in Odisha Congress are articulating. Rapid growth will generate jobs. Our farmers will get the marketing linkage and come out of subsistence agriculture. We have seen the benefit of the first generation of reforms that decreased unemployment and removed nearly 200 million people in the country out of the curse of poverty. Rapid growth also improves the resource position of the Government to invest in the social sector and in the development of infrastructure. The regional party in power in Odisha has a myopic and populist focus. They have failed to improve the situation of the farmers and have done nothing in the manufacturing sector, particularly SMEs and MMEs without which employment creation will not be possible. They are opposing or ambiguous about the reforms required to facilitate rapid growth. All that BJD has been looking at is taking credit for centrally funded developmental programmes and blaming the centre for supposed neglect. In fact, economic growth is not in the agenda of BJD A or BJD B.

Did people elect the BJD to be divided into A and B teams and fight publicly. ‘A’ calling ‘B’ as a ‘thief and Beiman’, ‘B’ responding by calling ‘A’ as an autocrat who is running a Stalinist regime. Did people elect the BJD to clash on the streets to settle leadership issues? I leave it to you to decide if this naked and public power game is about differences over ideology and do they serve the interest of the people of Odisha in any manner? Is this why they were given such a huge mandate in the last election? Why are they fighting and over what? We need a nationalist perspective, a focus on economic growth and on policies away from personal ambitions, parochial considerations and myopic political agenda. Let me quote a few lines from an article by Kanti Bajpai in the Times of India on 26 May, 2012.

“The view that the states should be more powerful rests on the assumption that the Centre is undemocratic and that virtue resides in state governments. This is hilarious. As veteran journalist T N Ninan points out, the chief ministers are populist demagogues, presidential in the way they run their parties and states. They tolerate no opposition and humiliate their own party members as well as the state administrators with total abandon. The behaviour of these elected satraps is comical and clownish for the most part.”

I rest my case.

The Myth of Fiscal Prudence

On 6 May, 1993, employees of the Odisha Secretariat had attacked then Chief Minister Sri Biju Patnaik. The employees were angry over the austerity measures that the State Government had taken, which included delayed payment of salary and reduction of other benefits. Indeed these were hard times for finances of states. Not merely Biju Patnaik was struggling to pay salaries, but also every other Chief Minister and we cannot blame them.  Economic growth in the country was sluggish. Revenue collection by the Central and State Government was not increasing and expenditure was steadily rising. There was a huge balance of payment crisis.

The Indian economy was stuck at 3.5 % of GDP growth for decades, euphemistically called the Hindu rate of growth, and needed radical reforms, which were carried out beginning in 1991 by the Congress Government at the Centre with Sri Manmohan Singh as Finance Minister. In a decade, around the year 2001 the first generation of economic reform had helped the economy to grow much faster, close to 8 %, with 2007-08 being possibly the best year since independence and India had successfully bucked the trend of global recession.  With the economy in the country growing at a higher rate the revenue situation of the Central and State Governments improved. How justified is it for Mr. Naveen Patnaik’s Government to take credit for economic reform and the consequent growth?

The Economic Survey 2011-12 published by the state Government candidly admits in Para 9.3 that Odisha is heavily dependent on central transfers for its resources. “In 2010-11, central transfers constituted about 52 percent of its total revenue receipts. Of these, tax devolution is the largest component.” In terms of Tax devolution, as per the 13th Finance Commission recommendations the survey admits, contrary to propaganda by the BJD that “In terms of state-specific grants, Odisha has been awarded the second largest amount after Bihar”(p.343).

The improved revenue situation has been leveraged by the Central Government to start many developmental programmes, thereby unburdening the states. Rural employment, health infrastructure, urban renewal, primary education, rural roads etc have experienced unprecedented levels of central government support and investment. These have unburdened the states, who now have the fiscal space to start some development programmes of their own.

As part of the process of reform VAT (Value Added Taxes) was implemented in India. The first state to implement VAT was Haryana, slowly all other states followed. VAT has improved collection of Sales Tax in all states including Odisha. Should the credit for introduction of VAT be claimed by the State Government? The contribution of state’s own earnings as a ratio of Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) has remained almost same in the years since introduction of VAT and much lower than the better performing states.

The demand for iron ore in the world market, particularly China, has boosted mining and related activities helping growth. Odisha being a mineral rich state there was an unprecedented level of rise in export of iron ore. Does Mr. Naveen Patnaik want to take credit for the China factor boosting the mining business or the general buoyancy in global commodity market? In fact, should the State have allowed such over-production and export, while claiming ‘value addition within the state’ as the main plank of the Government’s industrial policy?

Odisha was the first state in the country to carry out power sector reform stopping drain on the state revenue because of populist pressure for free or unsustainable pricing of power and the many inefficiencies causing losses. But, this reform was done by the previous Congress Government and not the present Government. Should therefore Mr. Nabeen pattnaik take credit for power sector reform also?

The increase in Plan size has been witnessed across all states. But, it is worrying that in critical areas of plan expenditure like irrigation the performance of the state has been poor. Year after year no expenditure has been made in the proposed new irrigation projects. This also explains the priority of the state Government in a state where an overwhelming percentage of people depend on single-crop dry land subsistence farming. How can the plan outlay for irrigation remain largely unspent when the need is to benefit from improvement in state finances?

The Congress Government in 1995-2000 realised the need to control un-bridled Governmental expenditure rather than be populist and swallowed many bitter pills as austerity measure to improve the fiscal health of the state in the long run. Of course, subsequently the Twelfth Finance Commission forced all states to enact Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act and the state complied by passing the FRBM Act, 2005. The Thirteenth Finance Commission asked the state to amend the FRBM committing the state to deficit targets – zero revenue deficit and fiscal deficit at three percent of Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP). As per the regime created for transfer of federal funds, without FRBM the state Governments would not get any money. All states have to comply and they have complied. Is it justified for the state Government in Odisha to take credit for FRBM? Tomorrow, Goods and Services Tax (GST) may become a reality and help fiscal consolidation. I will not be surprised if the State Government then starts taking credit for GST. Similarly, the BJD is ambiguous about FDI in multi-brand retail. The fact is the present Government has opposed economic reform, indulged in rank-populism while claiming credit for success of the reforms initiated by the Central Government. There is no doubt that BJD maintains well-oiled machinery when it comes to propaganda.

So, the question is what exactly has been done by the state Government by way of policy measure or administrative initiative to justify the claim of prudent fiscal management? This was a period when many states have really forged ahead. After receiving 150 thousand Crore of Central transfers and after ruling Odisha for 12 years the time has come to confront the State Government with some hard statistics.

• Going by most poverty estimates, among states, Odisha still has the highest percentage of people who are poor.

• In terms of health indicators like infant mortality and nutrition levels etc Odisha is one of the lowest in the country.

• We still have one of the highest levels of unemployment, both absolute and seasonal. In fact, organised employment which was 7.98 lakhs in the year 2000 declined to 7.31 lakhs by 2010. What is the value in following a strategy of industrialization if availability of jobs in the organized sector has declined after a decade of supposed economic turn-around?

• Only 22% of the households have toilet facilities within their premises compared to 46.9% for India as a whole and as many as 76.6% of the households practice open defecation  compared to about 50% for the country;

• 43% of the households have electricity compared to the national average of 67.3% and as many as 55.3% of the households are dependent on kerosene for lighting compared with 31.4% for the country;

• Only about 14% of the households have access to tap water supply compared to the all India figure of 43.5%.  The State also has the largest percentage of households with drinking water away from their premises (35.4%) compared to 17.6% for the country;

• 35.6% of the households have mobile telephones compared to the country average of 53.2%;

• Only 9.8% of the households use LPG against the average of 28.6% for the country.  As many as 65% of the households are dependent on firewood for cooking as against 49% for the country;

• Only 26% of the households have TV sets compared to the National average of 47%;

• 45% of households availed of banking facilities compared to the all India average of 59%.

• Odisha has the highest levels of vacancies in key sectors like health and education. So, how are hospitals without doctors and schools without teachers delivering health care and education or are they not important indicators of performance?

So, who has benefited from all the Central funds, 150 thousand Crore of it? Have they reached the people who need it most or have they been eaten by white ants? Has growth been inclusive? Have unemployment level declined? Have we done as well as we could have? The present Government is clueless about managing the state economy and their claim of fiscal prudence is a myth. They have taken advantage of the general lack of awareness in society about complex issues in fiscal management to take credit for the improvement to state finances in India. The time has come to call the bluff.

Utilize Central Funds better

When I was the health minister of Odisha, the grant from the Central Government for building the rural health infrastructure was negligible. In comparison, from 2007-08 to 2011-12 Odisha received 1821.69 Crore under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), which is a much needed investment in the health sector. If we look at 15 Flagship programs of Government of India like MNREGA, JNURM, Mid Day Meal Scheme, PMGSY, Annapurna, ICDS etc, all of which are key social sector expenditures, the non-utilization of funds by the state comes to more than 7400 Crore and such not-utilization in a state with tell-tale poverty, hunger, disease is to say the least highly unfortunate. The inability to utilize Central funds has been an old problem and we need to understand the reasons and find solutions. Denying non-utilization and demanding more funds from the centre will not cure this malady. We need to improve administrative capacity to spend money in a proper and timely way and then only our claims for more funds will be taken seriously. We cannot surrender funds and ask for more money at the same time without being laughed at.

Odisha historically has had a weak administrative and delivery mechanism. In 1936, the British amalgamated Odia speaking tracts to create the separate state of Odisha. Till 1936, Odisha division consisted of three districts only: Cuttack, Puri and Balasore. In 1936 a large area, earlier called agency area or hill tracts were added to Odisha along with the princely states. In most of these areas there was no presence of the Colonial Government. This historical problem persists even today, particularly in districts known with the acronym KBK (Kalahandi- Bolangir- Koraput) and even in many other parts of the state.

Under the central schemes Government of India provides grants mostly for one-time capital expenditure. Let us say, they provide money for construction of roads under PMGSY. But, Central Government does not pay for recurring expenditure like the salary of the Engineers without whom the road cannot be built or expenditure cannot be incurred. We not merely need engineers, but we need competent and honest engineers, doctors and development administrators for proper and timely implementation of developmental schemes. For example, in most of the KBK districts the vacancies of doctors is between 50 to 75 %. So, how do health services get delivered without doctors and paramedical staff? Even as far as engineers are concerned, most of the work is being executed through contractual diploma engineers. So, the problem is not merely of utilization, but also quality of works and preventing leakages without which the central funds would not yield optimum results. In the 15 Flagship programs mentioned earlier the Central Government has poured in Rupees 41176.82 Crore, between 2007-8 to 2011-12, a huge amount of money indeed. Under-utilization is an issue. But, equally, there is a problem of very weak delivery. Mr. Naveen Patnaik has spent 12 years in office. But, he hardly displays any understanding of the administrative weaknesses and has done virtually nothing to remedy them. His main focus is on propaganda to take credit for whatever benefits people get from the development programmes and to blame the Central Government for the rest of it. While being unable to utilize central funds, he also uses some money from the state budget as a token to reinforce his image building exercise. Go to these districts and you will find delivery of health services without doctors, schools without teachers, diploma engineers executing crores of rupees of work without supervision. In the naxal-affected districts Government servants do not want to work or visit interiors, more so after the kidnapping of the Collector Malkangiri and MLA, Laxmipur. There are large areas without a functioning Government and all that you can find are Central and State Police forces fighting Naxalites. Bhubaneswar is unconcerned, though fully aware of the situation.

For a long time the Central Government has been asking the state to strengthen the Panchayti Raj Institutions, to hold Palli Sabha and Gramya Sabha, to hold social audit etc. The State has finally complied the instructions only after the Supreme Court ordered a C.B.I. investigation into irregularities under MNREGA. Why were these meetings not being held all these years? Better late than never though and I welcome the state Government’s decision to finally follow the instructions of the Central Government. Unsurprisingly, the State Government is taking credit for this forced and delayed compliance.

The real problem, as far as I can understand having worked as a political activist for four decades at the grass-root and having held ministerial positions in the state Government, is poor quality ministerial supervision over developmental programs. Mr. Naveen Pattnaik has removed many experienced political leaders from the Government and has cut others to size. The ministers play second fiddle to the bureaucracy and prefer inactivity to preserve the red lights on their cars. They understand the practical and governance problems, but maintain silence. The Chief Minister takes very little interest in getting into details of governance and has no worthwhile understanding of grass-root problems. The administration is left to unelected bureaucrats.

The State Government signed an MOU with the World Bank in 2009 for a $ 250 million loan for the Odisha State Roads Project covering Bhawanipatna-Kahriar, Berhampur-Taptapani and Bhadrak-Chandbali roads. In 2011 World Bank suspended the loan, which has recently been lifted. World Bank suspended the loan not because of any step-motherly treatment or because the World Bank President Jim Yong Kim is against the BJD. If such an action had been taken by the Central Government BJD would have gone to town protesting against non-existing central neglect. The loan was suspended because the World Bank was not convinced that the tender process in which the same construction company, namely ARSS was awarded the contract, was competitive and transparent.  Also ARSS had sublet the contracts, there was poor progress of work and the entire process of land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement had not met agreed social-safeguard requirements.

The problem of under-utilization of central funds and failure of developmental programs will continue unless ministers are active, the PRIs exercise real control and the administration at the cutting-edge level improved. The Chief Minister has kept the Works department that executes the World Bank-aided Road project under him and the performance of the department was miserable leading to loan-suspension by the World Bank. As a critical first step, the State Government has to acknowledge the existence of a problem with the delivery mechanism in the State. Odisha needs a vision, which is totally lacking. Image cannot be a substitute to vision, nor can it substitute administrative skills, more so when the image is manufactured by chicanery.  

The Bogey of Central Neglect

The BJD-BJP Government came to power in the year 2000 with many promises to the people of Odisha that remain unfulfilled after 12 years. The state continues to be at the bottom among states on most development indicators. The political stability and the electoral mandate have not translated to economic performance. People have given enough opportunity to BJD and are now disappointed. The clamour for change or parivartan is not a Congress slogan. During the recently concluded Padyatra I met a cross-section of the general public who see hope in change. As the performance failure is becoming glaring after 12 years of BJD rule the bogey of   ‘central neglect’ has become an obsessive political agenda with the BJD leadership as a carefully crafted diversionary tactics. But, this time the strategy will not succeed.

 The Central Government provides assistance to States firstly by way of share of Tax and secondly, by way of grants. Taken together, they represent the ‘Total Central Transfer’. In 1995-96 the state received a total transfer of 2135.29 Crore, which is estimated to have reached Rs20278.46 Crore in 2011-12. So, almost 9.5 times increase since 1995-96. The total fund transfer during the Congress Government in the state (1995-2000) is approximately 13000 Crore, which also included the period between  1998-2000 when NDA was in power in Delhi and Mr. Naveen Patnaik was a Central minister. During the first term of the present state Government (2000-2004) the state received about 23.8 thousand Crore, with NDA at the Centre and BJD a part of the Central Government. Under UPA I the state received 42.8 thousand Crore. If we add the money already received by the state Government under UPA II with the estimates for the period before the scheduled elections in 2014, the total Central transfer will be upwards of  80 thousand Crore. I have taken figures till 2011-12 from the Economic Survey published by the state Government and extrapolated them for the remaining three years.

So, what is the BJD Government’s definition of ‘Central Neglect’? Is it that they have got less money from the UPA Government at the Centre than the NDA Government of which they were a part? Is it that they have got less money now than any time in the past? Is it that they have got less money than other states?  The moment hard facts and statistics are presented the BJD turns around to say that after all the central Government is doing us no charity in a federal system. Obviously, no one is doing any charity or talking about any charity. Any such suggestion will be quite perverse and petty. But, why mislead the people? Why then talk about neglect?

If the BJD feels that there is any sector in which Odisha is not getting its legitimate share of Central funds I will be the first person to rally behind the state Government. This is an open offer. Let the Chief Minister call an all-party meeting and tell us where the state has been given a step-motherly treatment. When it comes to economic development of the state the state Congress will play no politics or show any crab mentality. But, mere political rhetoric unsubstantiated by facts may be good in hoodwinking the people but not great for an informed debate or advocacy. Also can we now ask what has happened to the 150 thousand Crore of money that this government has received by way of Central transfer? Have they been properly used? This is the period when many states have forged ahead and our position has remained precarious. We still have the highest percentage of people who are poor and highest level of unemployment, poverty, malnutrition and infant mortality. The time has come for the BJD Government to account for neglecting people of Odisha during the 12 years of their long rule.

Whither Odia Swabhiman ?

Can the Bengalis accept a Chief Minister who does not know Bengali or Tamils elect a Chief Minister who cannot speak Tamil? The same is true for Punjab, Assam, Maharashtra, Kerala and every other state.  Odisha has a Chief Minister who does not know Odia and this spectacle has happened for the first time in the history of independent India.

When foreigners visit India, they pick up a few Hindi words like ‘namaste’. This kind of knowing a few words in a language may be good as a PR activity, but can such attitude augur well for democratic governance?  After 12 years of ruling Odisha the present Chief Minister knows fewer than 30-40 Odia words, which he pronounces in a most amusing and mocking way that people who love the language find most disconcerting. 

This situation is ironical because of three reasons. Firstly, Odisha happens to be the first state to be created on linguistic basis. The British, having rejected the linguistic principle in 1905 while bi-furcating Bengal, were persuaded by the strong representation of Utkal Sammilani and brought tracts with Odia-speaking population in various provinces to form a separate state of Odisha on 1st April 1936. Secondly, the Chief Minister claims to inherit the legacy of Biju Patnaik, whose love for Odisha and Kalinga is a matter of folklore. Thirdly, Biju Janata Dal claims to be a regional outfit wedded to protecting the interest of Odisha! Can there be a greater irony?

After independence language became the main principle for state re-organisation. Odisha was spared the trouble of mass movement and prolonged agitations. Take for example the upheaval that Punjab went through during the Punjabi suba movement in 1950s or Andhra went through for getting statehood. The people of Odisha were spared all these trouble by an earlier generation of enlightened patriots who had clinched the issue way back in 1936. Should we, therefore, be unconcerned? Can we afford to be unconcerned?

Almost two decades back the state Government issued orders that all official transactions must be in Odia. Unsurprisingly, under a Chief Minister who himself does not know Odia, the order is followed in the breach without any qualms. Like every other state in India, the rule in Odisha is that all public servants must pass Class 7 in Odia before holding public office. This is not merely as issue of identity; there is a strong moral reason why persons holding public office should be able to talk to the general public, the farmers, the adivasis, the women, the weaker section of society, the last poor person with tears or anyone who wants his grievances to be understood and attended to by a public official. Even British colonial administrators learnt the local language compulsorily as almost a religious duty. Isn’t this an absolute moral principle that father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi had preached? Isn’t this the reason why the Indian constitution recognizes 22 languages?

So, there should be no ifs and buts on the language issue. There can be no ideological and moral ambiguity.  The people, political parties and circumstances create leaders in a democracy. Also, they are created by ideologies and principles. It is time we stand up for principles for which a generation of Odias like Madhubabu, Fakirmohan, Gopabandhu made so much of sacrifice.

Why did I decide to blog ?

I had to get rid of inertia, hesitation and lack of familiarity with social media before blogging. But, as they say, it is better late than never.

The youth of the present generation are bright and aware of the world a lot more than I was at their age. Equally, we have failed to communicate with them and answer their questions satisfactorily. They acquire information from the social media as much as from Text Books. They find politics, not so noble a word and politicians as corrupt and manipulative. When we were in schools and colleges, the country was fortunate to have some great and inspiring political leaders, who had fought for India’s freedom from British rule. Our first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had spent more than 10 years in Jail. That these leaders had sacrificed for the greater good of the Indian people and were patriots could hardly be doubted. As young men and women we were inspired by the spirit of public service and sacrifice that these leaders represented and truly believed that the problems of poverty, hunger and unemployment can be solved.

My generation of politicians had not fought against British rule. We had not gone to prisons. We had made no visible sacrifices. So, we were perceived as beneficiaries of power and office rather than servants of the people.

The economy had not delivered as promised and there were glaring cases of abuse of power. So, what was required was major economic and governance reform. But, no alternative economic or governance policy was articulated. Instead, political parties went to people blaming those in power with single-minded devotion. Besides, political parties resorted to identity politics around caste, religion and region, which they offered as a solution to economic and governance problems. Once this approach to politics was taken people had to choose from various groups of politicians. But, the problems continued whilst divisive politics produced social fragmentation and group violence. Basically we drifted away from policy and programs to vilifying opponents and personality-oriented politics. I watched the Presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mit Romney on 4 October. Here was two political leaders arguing on two possible ways of dealing with problems faced by the American people and the voters are asked to make a choice. But, what if the debate had been reduced to each candidate abusing the other? People will still make a choice, but hardly would the choice be rational or well informed since it will be made on the basis of negative campaign and abuses. Let the Indian political leaders and parties spell out their policies and programs clearly. Let these policies be debated and let people make an informed choice. The Indian youth and the larger public should reject ‘personality-oriented’ politics and politicians and question the leaders, big or small, on specific policies each is advocating. Let the politicians be asked to answer:

How do they propose to create jobs?

How do they prevent abuse of power and rampant corruption?

What is their proposal for improving fiscal management like a balanced budget, proposals for revenue collection, keeping deficit under control, attracting investment etc.?

Let there be a debate on performance.

If a politician, big or small, is unable or unwilling to answer such questions he or she should be rejected. The focus should be on performance, performance and performance.

I will present my views on different aspects of Governance and issues as they affect Odisha on this blog and hope to be educated by your views, criticisms and suggestions and hope that blogging will be a rewarding experience.  The social media not merely narrows down distance, it also brings in equality. Everyone and anyone can blog, can accept or reject views. These are ways of a modern democracy.