‘Individual MLAs may be in trouble but the government has done very well’

If Congress returns to power, what issues and challenges would you like to address first?

First of all, one has to ensure one is constantly in touch with the people. Next, to continue the policies which are enhancing the purchasing power of households. And after that would be infrastructure.

In this round of polls, what have been the more challenging moments in trying to convince people to vote for your party?

For me, in particular, my not being present in the constituency, as I have been as an MLA. Once you are in government, a lot of time gets taken up by official work. There was the Covid-19 pandemic— people will not like to understand and would like you to be pres­ent—so I feel my biggest personal negative was that I was not in the constituency as I would have liked to be. For the party, I think it has performed pretty well. We have had this round of surveys—we have these professional groups working as independent informa­tion providers—and I have also had a round of surveys done for my part, and I can count about 15 surveys that were done. I had sur­veyed 45 constituencies. Of the 45 seats I had surveyed except my own, almost every seat—all 45—showed a considerable degree of satisfaction with the government. Where they would have put up questions regarding particular MLAs—the MLA being a bit down or considerably down—the same survey shows the government as doing pretty well. So, the overall view that gets across is that the government’s performance has been good.

Your government has been at the forefront of helping farm­ers in the state by giving them attractive rates for rice and waiving off loans. How sustainable are these measures? Are you concerned about their fiscal impact?

Chhattisgarh happens to be one of those states which have one of the best track records on fiscal management and the economy within the state seems to have picked up. If you see it in terms of what is being sold and bought, you have created a purchasing ca­pacity and in its turn it is showing that sales have gone up. When you do a farm waiver, what do you achieve? A minimum of ` 20,000 per acre stays with the farmer, otherwise it goes to the bank. What the bank does with it and where it puts that money is another story. But straightaway you increase the purchasing capacity of the farmer for that year when the crop has also been affected. You can’t do farm waivers every year; that will not be sustainable. So, we are not doing it every year. This year happens to be an election year. This also happens to be a year when rainfall has been scattered and inconsistent, and the paddy crop in Bastar as well as Sarguja area and some in the middle area of Chhattisgarh has been affected and the farmers would have been impacted negatively.

When we started with the bonus (for farmers), the Union gov­ernment issued written letters through its food department that for any state providing bonus for its paddy, its rice would not be picked up beyond the PDS quantity through the Food Corporation of India (FCI). So they, sort of, twisted our arms to not be able to implement what we had announced as a bonus above the mini­mum support price (MSP). We had said that we would give at least `2,500 per quintal, which would have been, in a reducing manner, supported by the state government. So when they came up with this arm-twisting we went into input subsidies. The prime minis­ter and the Union government are themselves providing `6,000 per farmer; we made it `9,000 per acre. And we achieved not only that minimum of `2,500 but we also took it up to ` 2,650 last year and this year, pre-election, it is `2,783. `2,173 as MSP, `9,000 for 15 quintals—which works out to, say, `600 per quintal—so just short of `2,800 per quintal.

What we wanted was to empower these households. How are we achieving that? For a farmer in Uttar Pradesh—from where the prime minister is an MP—paddy there is sold at between `1,200 and `1,400 per quintal. We are able to provide twice that value for the same product to our farmers in Chhattisgarh. So that is the sort of model we have adopted. In any of the schemes we have taken up, at the back of our mind is not a freebie to get votes but empower­ing the family economically. All this has worked without a glitch: we are not in debt beyond acceptable limits. We are within FRBM limits and the limit of 25 per cent of GSDP. We may not even have crossed 20 per cent. So, we have the capacity to borrow, within the norms. Chhattisgarh has done well.

Chhattisgarh is also among a handful of states that have gone back to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS). Do you see challenges on that front? There are long-term consequences of that shift.

OPS was being demanded by people in the (government) service. When the National Pension System (NPS) was introduced every­one seemed to be okay with it. But what they realised was that there is a lot of difference between NPS and OPS. Talent drain was also an issue. The economics of it all was also there and today, within the comparatively shorter time­frame, we will not be burdened for the next 20 to 25 years, maybe 30 years. Our projection, which we had worked out through our departmental heads and experts, indicated 2070-72 as the time when the government might start coming un­der stress. Till then we are saving up to `1,400 crore annually by not contributing that amount. And if we contribute that amount and we have a fund of our own against which we can borrow and use for the state, then we have that option. So it is a misplaced concept of certain economists. We would like to hear all of them and take a call as public representatives in the interest of the people, with a mind to the consequences. This is not being done with a closed mind.

Last time, your party won a majority of the 29 seats reserved for Adivasis. Do you think you will be able to repeat that performance?

Chhattisgarh by itself has been a pro-Congress state. The results in this geographical area over the last 15 elections show that 10 have gone in favour of Congress. Of the five that have gone in favour of the opposition or BJP, three have been consecutive when Raman Singh was chief min­ister. That apart, the tribals seem to have gone along with Congress in Chhattisgarh. There was a good bonding between the Congress ideology and the tribal interest. They have traditionally been supporters of Congress because of Congress supporting their interests. Congress has never talked about stopping reservation for tribals— time and again the National Pension System (RSS) or BJP has flirted with that idea, tested the idea, burnt their fingers, gone back on it. But they have tested doing away with the reservation. Congress has never done that.

In these five years (2019-23), we have tried to address one of the deep-seated needs/demands of the tribal community—of having Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Rules. You had the Act but you did not have the Rules. We have gone a considerable distance but an important but considerable step is yet to be taken whereby the right of land comes into the equation. Then, whether there is consent or consultation (by the local community in ques­tion). That is the step we would like to take once we see that the empowerment of the gram sabhas is in place and they are function­ing with reasonable responsibility.

That apart there are some sections of the tribal community who were earlier a social organisation but are now participating in the elections, such as the Hamar Raj Party of Arvind Netam and others who have thrown their hat in the ring. The consequences of that are yet to be seen.

About The Author

Siddharth Singh

•