Almost sixteen months after coming to power, the BJP in Karnataka has realised that its ministers have not learnt the job. Hence, a seminar lasting about four days has been arranged for the Ministers of Mr.Yadiyurappa. Who can be the best teacher, but the person who has traded the path of development of State successfully? It is not surprising that the choice of being the first teacher fell on Mr.Narendra Modi, the much beleaguered, but one of the most successful chief ministers of our country.

When Mr.Narendra Modi does something or says something, his detractors cannot be far behind, nor can they keep quite. Predictably tirade has started against him. One more round of condemnation of Mr.Modi for Gujarat riots, questioning the wisdom of holding classes and seminars for ministers sixteen months after coming to power, "what are the ministers doing sitting in the class room, when the state is reeling under heavy rains and floods?" (you can read drought for rain etc), 'why hold these classes in the precincts of a monastery?". "Why outside Bangalore when it results in vacuum in the State Secretariat?". Next, why should RSS men come and lecture to the ministers? Why did not the CM make the seminar more broad based by inviting management experts?

Of course, detractors can ask any question and any number of them. It is their right. In fact, the right to oppose is more valuable than the right to agree.

Firstly, the ministers are ultimately answerable to the public, at least in the final analysis when they approach the voters for votes in the next election. Thus, a successful politician is in a better position to tell the ministers what the performance should be and how that should be made to reach the knowledge of the voters. No management expert can successfully tell the politicians how to relate with voters. There can be no better person to tell that than a successful politician like Mr.Modi. Why not he? He is one of the most dynamic CMs, notwithstanding the controversies that surround him, even his detractors concede that he has brought about sea change in Gujarat in the last one decade time. Of course, the detractors say that he has managed it because of his autocratic style of functioning! If a minister is autocratic in dealing with the bureaucracy, what is wrong. Autocracy should not be directed at the public as was done during Indira Gandhi's regime.

If the seminar were held in Bangalore, few if any would have attended the seminars, what with the demands of supporters within the State Capital. It was a good idea that it was held away from the madding crowd. Next, how does the choice of venue matter, be it a resort, or a monastery? When the Government spent about five lakh rupees for similar brain storming session few months back, the opposition parties condemned government for wasting public money. Now, if the seminar is held in private precincts without spending those precious few lakhs, the government is again condemned for choosing a monastery as the venue! Best example of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

The fact that such programme was not held soon after the ministry was sworn in can hardly be a justification for not holding it now. That criticism hardly meets common sense. The Government has another three and a half years to go through its term. It is not necessary that the ministers must continue to flounder without direction for the rest of the term also. That hardly makes sense.

As regards flood, or drought or rains, is it necessary that the entire ministry should stay in capital or in the place of trouble? Isn't there a government functioning? Aren't there plans to meet the exigencies? What could be wrong in making bureaucracy responsible for meeting the emergencies?

If good ideas can come from unusual sources, and responsible governance can be taught by unusual people what is wrong? Once in a way, even RSS might have some useful idea to tell the government. There is a old Sanskrit adage, "listen to the valuable advise coming even from a small boy, or a parrot!" (Yuktiyuktam shrunot tavad baladapi shukadapi).

Criticism should not be for the sake of criticising. It should be constructive. It must contribute to what little good work done by the Government. The opposition parties must realise that their job is to be a watchdog and ensure that the Government performs responsibly for the larger benefit of the public. Scoring Brownie points may get the opposition politicians publicity. That neither benefits the Government, nor the public, certainly not the politicians mounting them.