Staff Reporter :
An analysis of interventions by nine MPs from Vidarbha in the 18th Lok Sabha reveals a
structural weakness: despite raising relevant issues, the near absence of starred questions has limited their impact
In a region marked by persistent agrarian distress and uneven industrial growth, parliamentary intervention is not measured only by the number of questions asked, but by how effectively those questions force accountability. An analysis of interventions by nine MPs from Vidarbha in the 18th Lok Sabha reveals a structural weakness: despite raising relevant issues, the near absence of starred questions has limited their impact.
Limited use of starred questions: Starred questions, which allow oral answers and supplementary queries, remain the most effective parliamentary tool for extracting accountability. Vidarbha MPs have relied heavily on unstarred questions, reducing their ability to press the Government in real time.
Even among the most active MPs, starred questions are sparse and unevenly distributed. Dr Namdeo Kirsan stands out with 10 starred questions, covering issues such as bank locker safety, air pollution, post-COVID cardiac deaths, Jal Jeevan Mission funding, PM-KISAN implementation, tribal scholarships in Gadchiroli-Chimur, and railway expansion in Gadchiroli. Despite this, the spread of topics dilutes sustained pressure on core regional concerns. Sanjay Deshmukh has raised six starred questions, focusing on crop insurance delays, disaster relief for farmers, healthcare concerns such as rising heart attacks, skill development funding in Yavatmal-Washim, and hydroelectric projects. The concerns are directly linked to Vidarbha’s agrarian economy, yet limited follow-up reduces their effectiveness.
Shyamkumar Barve, with 8 starred questions, has addressed groundwater depletion in Nagpur, coal supply issues, MSP guarantees, poor-quality seeds in Ramtek, and stalled Railway projects.
These are structurally significant issues, but lack escalation through repeated oral questioning.
Balwant Wankhade (6) has raised questions on coal stockpiles, disappearing urban forest cover, railway deaths, and Swachh Bharat implementation, indicating attention to infrastructure and environmental risks.
Anup Dhotre (8) has focused on women empowerment funding in Maharashtra, Panchayat training in Akola-Washim, agricultural sustainability, organic farming, and farmer attrition.
His questions reflect long-term rural transformation concerns.
Nitin Gadkari, MP from Nagpur and Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways, has no questions as he is part of the Union Government. Same is the case with Prataprao Jadhav, MP from Buldhana, who is Minister of State for Health and Family Welfare.
MPs with issue-specific focus but low escalation: Pratibha Dhanorkar has consistently raised Vidarbha-specific concerns: financial relief for farmers in Chandrapur, PMFBY insurance delays, forest service vacancies, water supply, and rural road maintenance. However, the absence of sustained starred questioning weakens policy pressure.
Dr Prashant Padole has focused on employment (National Career Services), reservoir monitoring, coal mine safety, steel pricing, Skill India Digital, malnutrition schemes under POSHAN Abhiyaan, and educational infrastructure in Bhandara-Gondia. Amar Kale has raised questions on Swachh Survekshan Grameen (2025), indicating engagement with rural sanitation metrics.
Active, but below national intensity: In numerical terms, several Vidarbha MPs exceed the national average of 40–60 questions, with some crossing 150. However, this still falls short of high-performing MPs like Supriya Sule, who have crossed 200 questions with stronger use of starred interventions.
The gap is not in relevance, but in parliamentary strategy. Vidarbha MPs are raising the correct issues—farm distress, forest rights, employment, infrastructure, and healthcare—but are not leveraging the most effective mechanisms to amplify them.
Structural implication for Vidarbha: The consequence is measurable. Without frequent starred questions, issues such as delayed crop insurance, groundwater depletion, or industrial stagnation remain documented, but not debated. The absence of oral follow-ups reduces visibility, weakens ministerial accountability, and limits national attention.