Guest Column Nilmadhab Mohanty

The political crisis that has gripped the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) since May 29, 2012, is primarily an internal matter of that party. What, however, concerns Odisha’s citizens are its interface with and impact on governance.

The impact is not confined merely to the current administrative uncertainties associated with impending rejig of the state cabinet, but more importantly relates to the style of governance that the people have come to associate with the Naveen Patnaik administration over the past one-and-half decades.

In fact, it is this style of management that possibly has mainly been responsible for the current political turmoil. The contours of the crisis, which started during Naveen’s visit to London, are well known and require no repetition.

However, a significant development during that visit provides a crucial pointer to the root cause of the problem that the chief minister now faces.

Apart from having, at his request, a “private” meeting with Britain’s secretary of state for international development Andrew Mitchell, Naveen was also to address a meeting at Sussex University on Odisha’s development issues and problems. He, however, cancelled this meeting in order to avoid questions from the human rights activists and NGOs who were expected to attend his talk.

By doing this he missed a unique opportunity to explain to an important Western audience about his administration’s development model as well the work that is being done in Odisha for poverty alleviation and welfare of Adivasis and other marginalised groups.

To a great extent this diffidence borne out of an absence of passion for development and lack of interest in going into the details of management and administration (necessary to translate a vision of development into reality) is at the root of the political crisis that he faces today.

For it is well known that he has so far pursued a style of management that saw the party work and governance “outsourced’ to his chief adviser Pyari Mohan Mohapatra and to a limited extent to some top bureaucrats in the state.

That is why his erstwhile chief adviser now claims that Naveen neither knew the details of the party constitution nor did he put even a single brick in building the party’s superstructure. In spite of his efforts, claims his former chief adviser Naveen Patnaik failed to learn Odia, which is the language of the people he serves!

Similar rumblings are heard in Bhubaneswar about the chief minister’s involvement and interest in complex governance issues although the general public seems to be taking an indulgent attitude in this matter.

However, the negative fallout of this somewhat laid-back style of governance is there for all to see. For more than a decade, an extra-constitutional authority was exercising powers in different areas without any formal position in the state government.

Bureaucratic predominance saw ministers marginalised and complaints about regulatory delays, red tape, harassment and corruption at different levels of government common.

While a few selected miners and state officials were targeted through vigilance raids and action, in the state’s mining areas, such as Jajpur-Sukinda and Joda- Barbil, vested interests supported by powerful political elements indulge in anti-competitive and illegal behaviour while a public interest petition seeking CBI probe into these activities remains pending in Orissa High Court. India’s largest FDI proposal for a modern and large steel plant is stuck for the past six years in the sands of Paradip coast and the Naxalites continue their spree of kidnappings and murder in large parts of Odisha.

From time to time Naveen sacks ministers and high officials as evidence of his proactive action against inefficiency and corruption. But as President Truman of the USA had said while deciding to dismiss General MacArthur, his commander-in-chief in the Far East, removal of a senior colleague was in reality a sign of weakness and failure on part of the person taking the decision as he was either not able to select the right man or not able to manage him or both.

Be that as it may when someone exercises considerable power and influence and does most of the political management as Pyari Mohan Mohapatra did, he or she would naturally be tempted to get into the driver’s seat instead of playing a second fiddle. Pyari Mohan Mohapatra of course claims that he was merely trying to meet and ascertain the grievances of his party men, who had many complaints about the manner in which the party and the government affairs were being managed; his manipulative detractors maligned him by describing it as a coup against chief minister Naveen Patnaik.

The truth in the matter is not likely to be known given the conflicting versions being trotted out by the two opposing groups. But, even if one assumes that there was an attempt to bring about a change in leadership, there is nothing unconstitutional or unethical about it, especially because the chief minister had already started distancing himself from his erstwhile chief adviser at least since mid-2010.

In a democratic political party, every member has the right to criticise its leadership, and if greatly dissatisfied, even attempt to bring about a change if he can organise the required support and number. For, as has been said often, in politics there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests!

For now Pyari Mohan Mohaptra has been checkmated and the attempt to change the leadership, if any, has been quashed. Perhaps he will not be able to regain his position of pre-eminence in the BJD ever. But, that does not mean that chief minister will not face any threat to his position in future.

While ‘delegation of power’ is essential for efficiency and good governance, “outsourcing” of responsibilities by the holder of the highest executive office in a state can be a recipe for disaster.