The government had to face acute embarrassment on account of hasty decisions at least on two sensitive issues: the Mullaperiyar dam issue and the chief minister’s legal adviser issue. By exhibiting such unnecessary haste, the government runs the risk of dissipating the tremendous fund of goodwill, on the crest of which it rode to power.

First, the Mullaperiyar issue.

Soon after taking over as chief minister, Vijayan made a statement to the effect that Mullaperiyar dam is safe, which was at odds with the stand taken by the earlier UDF government and a resolution passed by the former State Assembly that the paramount need of the hour was the construction of a new dam. Vijayan’s statement kicked up a controversy, and gave the opposition a convenient stick to belabour the government with.

True, the CM changed his stance in the face of intense pressure from the opposition. The Vijayan’s stance, which came as a surprise to even his own party leaders, caused confusion among the party’s rank and file and caused dismay among the people at large as well.

Likewise on the issue of the CM’s legal adviser, the government had to face embarrassment, which was avoidable had it handled the matter with tact.

The opposition had taken strong exception to his legal adviser, MK Damodaran, appearing on behalf of defendants in several cases including lottery king Santiago Martin, who had cheated the state of crores of rupees in the lottery scam.

The chief minister defended Damodaran’s action, saying that he was not taking any payment from the government! Also, there was no legal bar on his appearing in other cases, including that involving Martin. In that particular case, the government was not a party; therefore, there was nothing wrong in Damodaran appearing for Martin.

That was the defence of the CM. He may be right from the technical and legal point of view. But it was morally and ethically wrong for the legal adviser to do so. After all, he was legal adviser to a CM who heads a government committed to wage an unrelenting battle against corruption and transparency in governance.

The government ultimately yielded to pressure piled on by coalition partner CPI and a petition filed by BJP state chief Kummanam Rajasekharan. CPI ministers met the CM and impressed upon him the impropriety of Damodaran appearing for parties opposed to the government.

Kummanam challenged the appointment of Damodaran on the ground that there was a hidden agenda behind it. He also pointed out the illegality of it all and the possibility of abusing the office. When there is an Advocate General to offer legal advice to the government, there was no need for a separate adviser to the CM: that was the crux of the Kummanam petition.

A worried government made a submission in the High Court when the Kummanam petition came up for hearing thatDamodaran had declined to take up the legal adviser’s post in view of the controversy over it.

The issue also brought out the differences between party veteran VS Achuthanandan and the government.

While the government defended Damodaran, VS vehemently criticised the legal adviser, who he alleged, helped the IUML leader PK Kunhalikkutty in the infamous ice-cream parlour case. VS also rubbished Damodaran’s allegation that VS was behind the conspiracy against him.

In any event, it must be said that the government has emerged from the episode in poor light. The government’s initial defence and subsequent retraction has cost it dearly in terms of goodwill and public support.

In the process, the government also, albeit inadvertently, gave the depleted opposition a potent weapon to grill it.

It is of utmost importance that the Pinarayi government learns appropriate lessons and avoid repeating such serious lapses in future. (IPA Service)