The BJD, which claims to be equidistant from both the Congress and the BJP, supported the government on both issues of no-confidence motion and the Delhi Services Bill, leaving the Opposition red-faced. Leading the charge for Naveen Patnaik’s party was Pinaki Misra who almost played lawyer for the NDA government, stressing that while one can vote against the Bill, it cannot be challenged on a point of law.
News18 caught up with Misra to understand the BJD’s point of view, cooperative federalism and Opposition’s barbs at the party.
Edited excerpts:
What is the reason that the party decided to support the government on these two crucial issues?
Look, the no-confidence hasn’t happened yet. We have only, in principle, made a statement. We find that the no-confidence motion in itself is fairly meaningless at this time because it is brought by the Congress. Our party’s entire existence is based on non-Congress-ism. So anything that the Congress party brings to Parliament as a motion, it is impossible for us to support that in any case. But that’s for another day.
As far as the Delhi Services Bill is concerned, I haven’t spoken fully on the Bill yet. The Bill was due for discussion on Wednesday. Inexplicably, the treasury benches started raising a ruckus so Parliament was adjourned. Hopefully, Parliament will have the occasion to debate the bill again in which case I will give my well-considered reasoning for the BJD’s support. It is after a proper evaluation of the Constitution Bench judgement, the subsequent order passed by the honourable Supreme Court referring the fresh issues to another Constitution Bench etc. So, I don’t want to say too much now. I would rather say it on the floor of the House.
The BJD has been equidistant from both the UPA and the NDA. Even during the 10 years of the UPA, there were issues on which we supported them which were in national interest and in the interest of the state. That has always been of paramount importance for Naveen Patnaik. He basically sifts the grain from the chaff, sees what is in the interest of the state and acts accordingly.
Similarly, as far as the NDA is concerned, there have been issues on which we have supported them. On Wednesday, for instance, I spoke on the off-shore mineral exploration Bill which I think is an excellent initiative by the government and will help the state of Odisha enormously in terms of garnering further royalties for us. So obviously we will support that.
We opposed the NDA on, for instance, the farm laws. We voted against them. So, therefore it should not cone as a surprise when we either support them or protest against them. Politically, we fight them on the streets in Odisha. There is no question on that score. They are our principal opposition party and therefore, we are constantly in a political dogfight with them.
But, as far as the Centre is concerned, Patnaik has always felt that it has to be constructive cooperation, cooperative federalism or call it what you may. There is no point in needlessly fighting with the Centre, in just being adversarial for the sake of it because that only cripples the state’s finances. The Centre becomes more and more obdurate and hostile. In this federal polity that we have, with the GST architecture for instance, no state can today be at constant war with the Centre and yet do something for the people. The reason why our economy today is in this extraordinary state in Odisha is because we do not fight with the Centre. We work in cooperation with the Centre and try and get our just dues. It is not that we always do. Very often, the Centre has deprived us of our just dues. We fought on those issues with them.
You mentioned two points — you voted against the Centre on farm laws and that the chief minister believes in cooperative federalism. If I remember correctly, on the farm laws, you walked out of both the Houses of Parliament and did not actually vote against it. And when you talk about the Delhi Services Bill, it is the very principle of cooperative federalism that is being raised by opposition parties.
I think what you have to see firstly is that on the farm laws, there was no voting in the Rajya Sabha. In the Lok Sabha, our numbers did not matter and therefore we walked out but after making a speech against the laws and saying “we oppose it”. In the Rajya Sabha, we would have opposed it but there was no vote because there was a ruckus and the Bills were passed in a din.
Number two, as far as the issue of federalism is concerned, I think you have to see the legalese behind the Delhi issue. There are laws involved in this. This is not just a political statement. Yes, on federalism, Patnaik has been next to none. But Delhi is very peculiarly situated in terms of our federal polity. The SC itself has recognised that.
Therefore, if you look at the last order of the Supreme Court by which the Delhi government’s writ petition against the ordinance was admitted and referred to five judges — which I will quote extensively on the floor of the House — you will realise that there is a case to be made out for what the government has done. You could vote for it, you could vote against it but I think in the given circumstances, Patnaik felt this is not an issue of pure federalism per se, given the legality of the situation today. There is much more to it than that and I will explain that on the floor of the House.
You have attracted a lot of attention because of your intervention because it suddenly gave a different perspective to everybody who was listening to that debate. It is one of the most discussed and watched issues today in the country. Why are AAP and opposition members saying that unless the no confidence motion issue is resolved, you can’t bring any issue of any substantive legislative business onto the floor of the House and since it is already under challenge in the SC, why discuss it now?
Look, the ordinance is under challenge. The Supreme Court has refused to stay the ordinance expressly. Once that is so, the ordinance will lapse unless the Bill is brought to Parliament. That’s the law. So therefore, the government is fully within its right. The SC in a speaking order has said that prima facie, it appears that once the law has been amended, there is no occasion for a stay but there is a larger constitutional issue which can be discussed. Therefore, the no-confidence motion and the prime minister coming to the floor of the House, which is the demand of the Opposition, I believe is completely misconceived.
There is absolutely no gain in disrupting the House. All you do is give the government a free passage because the government keeps on happily passing its legislations in the din and you get no debate. Once the debate would have been underway on any other legislative issue, we could have raised a number of incidental and ancillary issues, including Manipur.
Patnaik has said from Day 1 that the people of Manipur deserve the country’s undivided attention, not divided partisan attention. We must also speak in one voice for the people of Manipur. We must all come together to ensure that some succour and some relief reaches those very unfortunate people. So therefore, we have not been in agreement from Day 1 on the strategy of the Opposition in the manner in which they obstructed Parliament needlessly. They should have allowed Parliament to function. By all means, bring the no-confidence motion but the legislative agenda of Parliament cannot be obstructed simply by bringing the motion.
Perhaps the scheme of the Constitution is that something substantive like a constitutional amendment ought not to be brought until the government shows its majority but that does not mean that routine legislations cannot be brought. That’s an absurd proposition. Because otherwise, the rule would be that you drop everything and first hear this. Why does the rule say that it can be heard any time in the next 10 days? So what happens? Everybody goes to sleep for the next 10 days or what? That’s not the scheme. That’s not what the Constitution makers wanted. Therefore, this is a completely ill-conceived argument again. Routine legislative work has to go on. That’s the job of Parliament. Let Parliament do its job. You do no body a favour, including yourself, by blocking Parliament needlessly.
You must have read P Chidambaram’s tweet in which he has asked whether the BJD actually supports officers becoming more powerful than ministers. He has been extremely critical. How would you respond to him?
May I straightaway say Chidambaram has his point of view on this. He is entitled to his point of view. Does he countenance the 467 people who have been appointed as consultants by the AAP? Does Chidambaram feel that it’s conscionable? And the SC has remarked on that. So therefore I am sorry, neither side has done itself any credit on this matter, least of all the AAP government in Delhi.
How would you respond to Raghav Chadha who said that ‘kuch toh wajah hogi, yun hi koi befawa nahi hota’. AAP leaders have taken digs at the BJD, saying perhaps the party is not aware that BJP can do to BJD what it has done to other parties.
Firstly, there is no occasion for us to show any ‘wafa’ (loyalty) to the AAP. They have fought elections against us in Odisha so I don’t see where the occasion comes to show any ‘wafa’ to them. Secondly, I don’t want to personalise the comment but everybody knows that the one party or person against which the central agencies are least active is in Odisha. I assume he [Chadha] means that there are some central agencies at play. They keep talking about the ED, the CBI, and the IT department. The agencies are least active in Odisha. There is a very simple reason for that. Patnaik runs a squeaky-clean government. Let Chadha be under no illusion. There is no pressure on us. All that we have done is looked at the merits of the issue and Patnaik has, on the merits of the issue, done wide consultations both among the MPs as well as the party and then taken a considered view. There is nothing more to be said for that. People may say what they like.
Do we see greater coordination between the BJD and the BJP and how does it work on the ground in Odisha? You had a very tough contest in Puri against Sambit Patra. If you supporting the BJP at the Centre, why should people not support the BJP on the ground in Odisha?
You have to ask people why they have voted Patnaik to power five times. And they are clearly going to vote for him for the sixth time. Clearly, he has done something for the people which they have appreciated.
I think there is no conundrum on this. We can continue to fight them as the principal opposition party in the state and support the central government. We don’t support a political party at the Centre, we support the central government. So this is not a party Vs party issue. This is cooperative federalism. Therefore, I have no doubt that the people of Odisha will recognise the merits or demerits of both parties and vote as they have in the past. I am sanguine about that.
Comments
0 comment