Once again there is talk of Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami expanding his Council of Ministers, which could also involve a reshuffle in portfolios and even dropping of a minister or two. More than three years have passed without a full Cabinet, with presently there being five empty ministerial positions. What does this indicate? Are the ruling party’s MLAs so incompetent that they are not considered fit to become ministers? Or is the state leadership so insecure that it is unwilling to share power with those outside the immediate coterie? Are the incumbent ministers handling their numerous portfolios with the required effectiveness?
The BJP claims to be a democratic and genuinely representative party. However, going by the way it has functioned in Uttarakhand, it seems to have little faith in its elected MLAs. It is true that sometimes concessions are made to caste and lobby considerations while choosing candidates for election, and merit is not the highest criterion. Even so, most have come up the political ladder through grassroots activism and surely have some understanding of what needs to be done for their constituencies. Why have they been denied the opportunity to serve as ministers?
What is the purpose of dangling cabinet posts before the MLAs well past the three-year mark in the government’s term? Has the power equation within the state unit of the party shifted, requiring adjustment? Was the brief display by former CM and present MP Trivendra Singh Rawat of dissatisfaction with the state and national leadership a bargaining ploy for placing his supporters in the Cabinet?
Obviously, all this internal politics will have impacted on the performance of the state government thus far. It is a fact that the people of the state largely favour the BJP in the present, as successive elections have shown, but it is not something to be taken for granted. It must not be forgotten that much of it is due to the general nationalist sentiment that supports PM Modi. But is it also not the duty of the local politicians to win some support on the basis of performance as a government? There is a difference between a Chief Minister acceptable to all and one who delivers the goods. Also, it cannot be a one-man show in a situation where it is the team that must operate. Mere survival in office is not the name of the game – there also should be substantial and clearly visible progress where it matters – on the ground.
