(From left) The Telegraph resident editor Devdan Mitra, Devesh Thakur, Imtiaz Ahmad, Shiv Visvanathan, Pawan Varma, Tariq Anwar, Shazia Ilmi, DN Gautam and roving editor Sankarshan Thakur at The Telegraph Bihar Debate 2013 at Maurya on Friday. NK Choudhary left early. Telegraph picture

The Bihar model of governance has been projected as an alternative to the Gujarat model. Here’s what the speakers had to say:

Shiv Visvanathan (For)

The development model of chief minister Nitish Kumar is full of ideas.

When you compare the Bihar model of governance with Narendra Modi’s in Gujarat, the Bihar one is far better. It is inclusive. It empowers women and Muslims. In Gujarat, Muslims are treated as second-class citizens.

The Bihar model is just not a model; it is like story-telling. It talks about everyone and gives priority to health, education and agriculture. Nitish Kumar is a policymaker and a master of the art of governance. His model of governance goes beyond the voice of Lalu Prasad. He has created stability in the state and maintained law and order.

The audience at the debate. Telegraph picture

NK Choudhary (Against)

Bihar is not ruled by ministers, it is ruled by secretaries and super-secretaries. Ministers are good as slaves.

The model of governance in Bihar is defunct and inefficient. There is hardly any difference between the development model of Bihar and that of Manmohan Singh. Both are corporate-centric.

Out of 38 districts in Bihar, the annual agricultural growth in 28 districts is negative — minus 8.9 per cent. Is this the kind of development you are talking about? Corruption has increased several times in the past seven years. Rs 3 crore was allegedly charged for the appointment of vice-chancellors. The governance has gone from bad to worse. There is no law and order. There is no democracy. Only an Anna movement can end the dictatorship of Nitish Kumar.

Imtiaz Ahmad (For)

The model of development in Bihar would shape the future of India.

Bihar has led the country in the past. Right from the days of Nandas, when the first centralised state came into being, to Sher Shah Suri who resurrected the state, and from Mahatma Gandhi’s Champaran Satyagraha to the JP Movement, Bihar has always led the country. These specific instances give confidence that Bihar can show the light.

The Bihar model of governance provided several new visions. The state focuses on inclusive growth and development for justice, which is evident from the fact that it has empowered the marginalised sections of the society through schemes like RTPS, RTI Jaankari, Hunar, Auzar, Utthan Kendra and Talimi Markaz. Some of these steps have even been replicated by the Centre later and talked about in a neighbouring country (Pakistan).

DN Gautam (Against)

There cannot be any model based on individual; rather the model of governance should be based on the Constitution.

All schemes are formulated at the central level. Financial assistance comes from the Centre. So there is nothing like Bihar model. Bihar is no longer a republic like it was during Bimbisar’s reign.

People say that India has the biggest written Constitution but the fact is that it has the biggest unwritten constitution, which comes into play. Governance can be done through the state of education and certainly not from shiksha mitras, who cannot write their names properly. We have a people-less democracy.

Devesh Thakur (For)

What ministers of the earlier regime did was the job of doctors of cosmetics and dentistry, who change your face and help you to get better set of teeth. But Nitish Kumar has operated upon a cancer patient — Bihar.

When Bihar was bifurcated, the state was left with few resources. The scenario of the health sector was bad. Primary health centres hardly used to get around 60 patients per month but now the number has increased to 5,000.

Now, we have big institutions like AIIMS, CIMP and CNLU. Earlier, Bihar was known for all bad things — kidnappings and murders. This state government has already constructed 20,000km of roads. Thanks to this initiative, the travel time has come down drastically.

Tariq Anwar (Against)

This state government has done a cosmetic development. When you talk about development, there are certain areas you have to work on — infrastructure, agriculture and power. But I don’t think there has been any remarkable improvement in any of these sectors.

Industrialisation is the most important thing for development, but tell me how many industries have cropped up or how many people have invested their money in Bihar. According to Ficci’s report, the Bihar government signed MoUs worth Rs 92,000 crore but so far only Rs 62 crore has been invested. The state government is continuously exerting pressure on the Union government for according special status to Bihar, but if we see the most developed states, they were not given any special status.

Pawan Varma (For)

There is no model which is perfect. Every model requires improvement.

The governance in Bihar is good. It has laid focus on infrastructure improvement, women empowerment, inclusive growth and power generation. In the Lalu era, there was no governance.

Chief minister Nitish Kumar’s statement that he would not seek votes next time if the state doesn’t become power-reliant by 2015 is a bold step. The special category status that he is demanding for Bihar is not only for Bihar but also for all underdeveloped states that have been neglected for decades.

Shazia Ilmi (Against)

Nitish Kumar has not done enough to propagate the Bihar model of governance. Nitish is talking about corruption-free government but the Lokayukta in Bihar is yet to be notified. The government controls the Lokayukta in Bihar.

The Nitish model of governance is an attempt by some people to counter the Gujarat model of governance. Despite the state government’s claim that the education scenario has improved, students from Bihar still move to other states for higher education and jobs.

If asked to choose from Nitish, Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi as the leader of the country, I would go for Nitish. But that doesn’t make him a good leader. I would go for him because he is comparatively better. It shows the bankruptcy of good leaders in our country.