The national debate today is whether Article 356 of the Constitution should be used to dismiss the Naveen Patnaik government in Orissa for its abject failure to protect the life and property of the people of the state. But to me, this debate is of little consequence. The bigger debate ought to be about Naveen Patnaik's complicity in aiding and abetting the rioters in the state.

Dismissing the Naveen Patnaik government is of little consequence to him as that would offer itself as another platform for him to polarize the electorate on communal lines and bounce back to power. The issue is: if he must pay for his acts of omission and commission in legal terms. If he is entrusted with the task of protecting the people from the onslaught of the marauders, but if he is unwilling and\or incapable of discharging his responsibility resulting in large-scale loss of life and property, should he not be held accountable before the law and be prosecuted.

 Is not Naveen Patnaik as much accountable as Narendra Modi was as the mastermind of the Gujarat riots? The only difference is that Narendra Modi, a self-proclaimed communal messiah, personally supervised the master plan for the anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat. While Naveen Patnaik -- who wears the mask of a secular politician -- has left the task to his coalition partner, BJP, to undertake the anti-Christian crusade in Orissa.

It is true that the Sangh Parivar (the RSS and its offshoots) have been active in the Kandhmal region of Orissa ever since independence. Swami Laxmananand Saraswati, whose killing on August 23 this year sparked off the current conflagration, was living in the area since 1969 as the representative of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). But the fact is that the Sangh Parivar's base and influence was rather limited in the region in almost half a century after independence.

It is only since the BJP joined the ruling coalition in the year 2000 that the activities of the RSS outfits have increased manifold. Hindutva votaries came there in large number, huge amount of money poured in and aggressive planning to win the heart and minds of the tribal population of the area began in earnest. Though the BJP was the biggest beneficiary of this expansion strategy, Naveen Patnaik's BJD had nothing to lose, but everything to gain from the ally's success. So his government extended all support for the saffron campaign to succeed while he told the world that he was the worthy child of his father, Biju Patnaik, who would not brook any communal appeasement.

But his mask fell off when large-scale anti-Christian riots were unleashed by the saffron brigands on August 24, the day after the killing of the VHP leader. If Naveen Patnaik had the safety and security of the people in mind, he would have quickly acted to apprehend the murderers of Laxmananand Saraswati and quelled the unrest. But the saffron group had different plans. It was looking for an opportunity to flex its new-found muscle that it had acquired as the coalition partner in the government and give a taste of it to the Christian converts from Hinduism who had refused to return to the original fold.

 The murder of the VHP leader provided the spark. The national leaders of the VHP descended in the state capital and warned Naveen Patnaik to lay his hands off the whole affair and let the Bajrang Dal goons deal with the matter on their terms.

When the Christian world expressed its concern at the unabated violence and the attention of the world came to be focused on the state, only then he swung into action. After more than a month, the government admitted the rape of a nun and arrested supposed killers of the Swami. His government found a scapegoat in the local Station House Officer and the Superintendent of Police.

But how can an SP or an SHO discharge his duty when the head of the government patronises these forces?

If the justice has to prevail, then the patron must be taken to task. Naveen Patnaik must be held accountable and proceeded against in the interest of the people of Orissa, living or unborn.