Seeking premature retirement the 1989-batch IAS officer Jasbir Singh Bir said that when he was Divisional Commissioner of Patiala he received several complaints from people against the illegal plying of private buses including that of the Badal family's Orbit Transport Company in S.A.S. Nagar. He sent several communications to senior district police and civil officers of both Patiala and S.A.S Nagar to check the buses illegal operations which caused losses to the exchequer and virtually turned a commercial/residential area into a bus terminus. On December 15 last year, he convened a meeting of district officials of both Patiala and S.A.S.Nagar and reprimanded them for ignoring his orders. On December 22, he was transfered from Patiala and was posted as Director, Culture at Chandigarh, a post meant for PCS officers. Not able to bear his “humiliation for performing his public duties” he sought premature retirement..

Bir's case is not a solitary case in which officers refusing to serve politicians vested interests are punished usually by posting them to unimportant posts. His is the case of an officer revolting against the system which allows the rulers to misuse their powers to protect and promote their business interests.

The Badals case is not an exception where the ruling family has used the levers of power for its vested interests. Politics has become a business today. Politicians fight for power as this would enable them to promote their economic interests and also make money through corrupt means. Bosses of regional parties conspicuously figure in the list of such assets amassers. Among the examples are Mayawati, Lalu Prasad Yadav and a South Indian Union minister. Instances of how some Congress and BJP bigwigs at the Centre and in some States also misused their powers for their vested/ businesses interests and also made money through corrupt means are galore.

Nearer home, the examples are those of Chautalas and Badals. The CBI has already filed cases against the Chautala family members for amassing disportionate assets worth over Rs.1400 crore during Om Parkash Chautala's Chief Ministership. About the Badals this is what a page of my 1998 personal Diary states.

APRIL 13,1998

“I met Chief Minister Bansi Lal for 105 minutes. He says Madan Lal Khurana had once asked him whether he could meet (Parkash Singh) Badal. Bansi Lal told him that he had no objection in meeting Badal but there should be no talk about Badal's land which was allotted to him during the Devi Lal (Badals family friend) regime at throwaway price for setting up Orbits Resort promoted by Sukhbir Singh Badal near Delhi Airport. Later, during Bhajan Lal's rule the allotment was cancelled. The court rejected Badals' appeal after which he has approached the higher court. Khurana promised that there would be no talk about the Badal's land case. But when they met, Khurana asked Badal to talk to Bansi Lal about his land case. Badal asked for Bansi Lal's help. Bansi Lal told him that as the case was in the court, he would not like to interfere in the court's proceedings. Badal said he should tell Haryana Government's lawyer to keep mum during the case's hearing. But Bansi Lal refused and instead said if the court rejected the state government's case, Haryana would file an appeal before a larger bench.”

Sometime after Om Parkash Chautala became Chief Minister by toppling his ministry in 1989, Bansi Lal told me that the Badals won the case after the Chautala Government's counsel kept mum during the case's hearing. In its detailed reference to the case, the Comptroller and Auditor-General also said “Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation has not only favoured to the extent of Rs.80.94 lakh in the allotment of land for the holiday and health resort (Orbits Resort), but also violated the guidelines contained in the industrial policy of the state”.

Apart from the Orbit Transport Company case which has led Bir to seek premature retirement, the opposition has also charged the Badals with misusing their powers to control some businesses including mining and TV cable net works. There can be no objection of a ruling family owning TV channels as in some Southern States. But when a ruler strangulates freedom of expression and curbs communication means through proxy monopolization of TV cable networks, it is unquestionably a cause for worry.

The Jasbir Singh Bir case symbolises the pathetic state of Punjab politics. It is a warning signal for the Akali-BJP government which instead of improving governance is adding to its deterioration. Such situations nibble at the image of governments and contribute to ruling parties electoral debacles. The divided opposition stands virtually paralysed and has failed to mobilise public opinion against the government's failures and its autocratic trends. (IPA Service)