We were a bit surprised to see the BJD supporting the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill. Is this a one-off or is the BJD reviewing its ties with the Bharatiya Janata Party?
We supported the MMDR Amendment Bill in the Rajya Sabha after the amendments were moved to certain sections to the amended Bill. We had actually opposed the government legislation in the Lok Sabha.
For instance, we were opposed to extending the leases without further negotiation from five years to 15 years. In the Lok Sabha, when the government brought the bill, we actually moved amendments and also pressed for division. But because the government had a majority, its version of the bill was passed.
When our amendments had to be taken on board in the Rajya Sabha and the changes came back for ratification to the Lok Sabha, I got up to ask why the government had not accepted the changes we had proposed in the first place? If it had done so, it would have got our support from the beginning.
Unless and until they accept the changes proposed by us, why should we support everything they propose?
So, the BJD is in the happy state of taking one position in one house of Parliament and a diametrically opposite position in the other house?
We have always said that we are a constructive opposition. We don't believe things should be opposed simply for the sake of opposition.
Take the land acquisition law. The government has made changes in its version of the law. Of the nine changes they have made, four were proposed by us.
It is not that all our concerns have been taken on board. We continue to have some worries. These relate to land being acquired for private institutions such as private medical colleges and hospitals. What will be the mechanism for compensating the land losers and those who lose their livelihood?
We had asked the government to provide a clear-cut definition of 'industrial corridors' and the land on the two sides of such corridors, so that there was no ambivalence for the land losers. That has now been defined. The suggestion that officials who are engaged in the takeover of land should be immune from enquiry or prosecution was our suggestion. That has been taken on board. That farm labour -- and not just the owner of the land -- be compensated was our suggestion. That has also been accepted.
But there is one more issue that remains.
When land is acquired for an economic activity, all land losers should become partners in that activity. That means, they should become a shareholder in that economic activity. This should ensure that just as a shareholder gets dividend in a profit-making company, a land loser must get an annual or a monthly income from that economic activity. Whether it is toll tax from the road that is being built or the proceeds from an industry, a proportion of the money must come to the land loser. The details can be worked out. But if a land loser gives his land for economic activity, he must be taken care of, for life.
This was a part of our election manifesto for the 2014 Assembly elections. After that, the cabinet endorsed the policy, so it is part of the Odisha government's policy.
Between the National Democratic Alliance and the United Progressive Alliance, which government do you find more receptive to your ideas? Which alliance listens more to you?
We find this government responsive and receptive to creating consensus. We are conscious that it is on the other side and it is the government's responsibility to create a consensus. We feel that we have something to say and if the government needs our help, it needs to talk to us and tell us so. We are not going to put out our hand -- if they need our help, they need to come to us. If our help is in the national interest, we will not be the ones to hold back.
The previous government was too obstinate and adamant. It never reached out to us. It never sought our support. It never thought that it was necessary to talk to us. At one point of time, they said: 'Money doesn't grow on trees'.
The context of that statement being?
The person who made the statement knows the context.
Who represents the principal opposition in Odisha?
The Congress part, which has 16 members in the assembly out of 147, is our chief opposition in the state. In the Lok Sabha, out of 21, in 10 seats the Congress was second. And in 10, the BJP was second. The BJP won one seat. The rest were won by the BJD.
The Congress is very much present in every Panchayat. The BJP is trying to expand its network but has a long way to go. In the land of Lord Jagannath, communal forces have little impact. Note: I am saying communal forces, not national forces.
Some Janata Party elements are regrouping to form a new merged entity. Given that the BJD was part of that grouping some decades ago, are you considering joining it again?
We have not been invited and we are not interested in joining. We are happy with developing our state. Our chief minister does not have a pan-India programme. He is more interested in the development of Odisha.
What about a joint front of parties like yours, with the Trinamool Congress?
There are a number of regional parties in this Parliament like the TMC, the Telugu Desam Party, the Telangana Rashtra Samithi, the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam... These are parties that are in power in their state and also have a distinct regional identity. We stay in touch with them.
As for a united front, let us see...
What is the BJD's overall view on economic reform?
We feel that justice has not been done to the emerging states -- neither by the 14th Finance Commission nor by the Budget, nor by the Raghuram Rajan Committee. The states that are revenue deficit and laggard have benefitted from the recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission. This is a point of concern.
Odisha has managed its finances and its fiscal responsibility very well. We have reported 9 per cent-plus growth. But these two criteria have not been weighed by the 14th Finance Commission while making its recommendations and we have lost out as a result.
But on the other side, because of the auction of mines and coal blocks money is flowing back to states via royalty. This is a new trend, as a mineral-bearing state now has more funds. Our complaint is that more funds should have come to Odisha. Its finances were in a very precarious state in the 1990s. The state has turned around in the last few years. But there is no reward.
But Posco represents an international embarrassment...
The state government is not responsible for the Posco imbroglio. Posco wanted 10,000 acres of land.
Nobody told us no impact assessment study had been done. It is now satisfied with 4,000 acres. Thrice the Odisha government has recommended that the land be given to them.
But the decision is pending with the central government. Tribal Affairs Minister Jual Oram has said let Posco think of some other mines. It is now the prime minister who has to take a decision.
The Odisha government is not opposed to the mining of the Khandadhar iron ore reserve.