Chief Minister Laxmikant Parsekar showed his first direct sign that he was not only beginning to break out of the Manohar Parrikar shadow, but claim the Chief Minister’s space as truly his, when he remarked that the decision to move casinos out of the Mandovi was not his.
“Had I taken the decision? It was not my decision,” said Mr Parsekar.
While this might make him the poster boy of the casino industry and for the right reasons, the remark raises questions about governance much beyond the issue of whether casinos should stay or go, given the fact that they are the single consistent revenue earning source for the government. The concerns are different. Governance is a steady seamless process and much more so when there is a change of Chief Minister from the same dispensation. While many believed that Mr Parsekar would be Goa’s Panneerselvam, (the Tamil Nadu CM who is holding fort for his supreme boss Jayalalitha), occupying the chair because his leader cannot or has other responsibilities; he is indeed showing a bit of his teeth. Herald, for the record, had foreseen this, and had clearly stated that all Mr Parsekar did in the beginning was wear a mask of humility and gratefulness but had the backing of the RSS and the parivar to cut his teeth as his own man.
While there is obviously an agenda, when the Chief Minister officially distances himself from a major announcement of his predecessor, in a manner so casual, the fate of firm promises made by the Parrikar government hangs in balance with this approach. If Mr Parsekar’s casino comment becomes a precedent, then the Chief Minister can take the same exit route and disown decisions of the previous government with the impunity with which he has dismissed Mr Parrikar’s decision to move casinos out of the Mandovi. What if he takes the same stand on the Regional Plan? After Mr Parrikar mocked even the state Assembly, by putting the Regional Plan on hold after promising that the experiment of flirting with the 2021 and the 2001 plans was only a temporary measure; Mr Parsekar might declare even these promises as null and void.
Moreover the same Mr Parsekar as Minister for Ports had sung the same tune and made a statement in the assembly that casinos would be moved out. He said that the “government has in principle decided to shift casino boats from River Mandovi”. Therefore he needs to clarify if the Port Minister’s hat is firmly under the Mandovi waters replaced by the CM’s hat, which is “principally” different.
But this is not, we repeat not, about whether casinos will be shifted out of the Mandovi or not. The fact is that his comment is a dangerous red flag on the way this government will run. The Chief Minister can come back and well state that he is running the state now. But if that is the case, he should go back to the drawing room, look at all policy decisions announced, taken and in the process, of the Parrikar government and announce a Parsekar government’s stand on them. Because we are clearly seeing a governance not of continuity but almost at odds, or at the very least, taking a different path on some key issues. Some may argue that this is better than having a Parrikar controlled puppet CM, but then the state and its people should know where they stand on key issues and this also includes industry as one of the stakeholders. Even industry should know which policies will be reversed and which will be followed.
Let us not forget the next big hope is the implementation of the investment policy and the successful functioning of the Investment Promotion Board and that involves key decisions on land allotment, power and water. This government, if it is showing signs of being independent of the Parrikar era, should re-specifiy its stand on big ticket issues.
For instance, Mr Parrikar had started a backroom negotiation with SEZ promoters whose projects got shelved when the government decided to scrap its SEZ policy. They have now gone to court without returning the lands which were allotted to them. Mr Parrikar was officially planning to allow them to keep 30% of the land which was allotted to them and take back 70% and ask them to set up industry, commensurate with the state’s industrial policy. Now this decision is not a part of any minutes or document but was very much a public policy announcement. In a nebulous zone such as this, the Investment Promotion Board has a right to know if this land will still be available or not. Moving ahead, Mr Parsekar may well say that he will not negotiate and get the SEZ promoters to give back all the land, through the intervention of the Supreme Court where the matter lies, or reiterate what Mr Parrikar had said. Either way, these are important decisions.
On another note, the simple Chief Minister had expressed his desire to ride a bullock cart and steer the bulls through the roads of Sattari, which he did. But with the state’s reins in his hand, he can’t simply say, I’m the rider now. He needs to state how this ride will different from the previous one. We aren’t judging him yet, but we want better clarity to judge him.
