In the first case Hooda divested the dissident and senior most Minister Capt. Ajay Singh Yadav of his important portfolios of Finance and Irrigation and Mahender Partap Singh of his Power portfolio. Both Yadav and Mahender Partap were members of the dissident group which was very active against the Chief Minister during his first 2005-2009 tenure. The group then also included the then Finance Minister Birender Singh, Union Minister Kumari Shelja and Bansi Lal’s daughter-in-law Haryana’s state Minister Kiran Chaudhry. Hooda had often found himself helpless in taking any action against his detractors obviously because of their clout in Delhi.

The most glaring example of this was his having to restore the money spinning Environment portfolio to Kiran Chaudhry within 48 hours of her being divested of the portfolio. There were signs of the ambitious Kiran Chaudhry trying to emerge as a parallel power centre in Haryana.

But after the 2009 elections when Birender Singh lost and Kiran Chaudhry was not included in the new Hooda ministry, the dissident group became dissipated. After her long wait Chaudhry was, however, later inducted into the ministry. She has since been lying low.

In the past few months, differences emerged between the Chief Minister and the two dissident Ministers on some important issues. The most crucial was Capt. Yadav’s reservations on the state government’s land acquisition policy. Although the policy was acclaimed by the central leadership which recommended it to the other state governments, Capt. Yadav wanted changes in the land acquisition policy. He pleaded that fertile land of farmers should not be acquired and those whose land had been acquired should be given a share of the land.

Difference of opinion is the basic tenet of a functioning democracy. But choosing his cabinet colleagues is the prerogative of Chief Minister. Yadav committed the mistake of airing his differences with the Chief Minister in the media and from public platform. In the light of having been forced to restore Kiran Chaudhry’s portfolio during his first tenure, Hooda must have taken the central leadership’s prior approval for divesting the dissident Ministers of their portfolios.

Irrespective of the outcome of the dissident Ministers efforts to retrieve their image and the attitude the central leadership adopts on the issue, one cannot rule out the possibility of breaking out of fresh stirrings in Haryana Congress politics in future. Ambitions in politics do not readily die.

In this era of scams, one should not be unduly surprised at the alleged involvement of Hooda ministry’s two members in the jobs-for-money case. In brief, the case follows the allegation leveled by former sarpanch of village Kambopura, Karnal and the prime witness in the case Karam Singh that Jain and Sharma had refused to return Rs.12.45 lakh paid to them to secure three government jobs for their kin. Karam Singh and Chamel Singh were later found dead in mysterious circumstances. Their angry relatives complained that the police was trying to cover up the murder and putting pressure on the deceased’s son to record a ‘doctored’ statement. The police said it had requested the state government that “in the interest of fair justice” the case should be referred to CBI.

This is not the first case Haryana has requested the CBI to investigate. In May, the state government had referred the Kurukshetra Dalit girl Sweety’s murder case to the central investigating agency as the police had failed to solve the case.

One could understand Hooda’s decision soon after coming to power in 2005 to refer the disproportionate assets cases against the former Chief Minister Om Parkash Chautala and his sons to the CBI. He did not want to be charged with indulging in political vendetta, by getting these cases dealt with by the state police, the course followed by Punjab’s Congress and Akali governments during the past ten years.

But the increasing trend in Haryana of referring the normal crime cases to the CBI is a reflection on the poor functioning and impartiality of the state police. It also shows the worsening law and order situation in Haryana against which the people have been resorting to protests and hartals. The police has been increasingly finding itself in the dock with even some of its own officers involvement in criminal cases in the past.

Haryana’s jobs-for-money case symbolises the level of corruption that has prevailed in Haryana under different parties rule and is also rampant at national level. It is often argued that expensive elections are the mother of political corruption as politicians need money for fighting elections. Apologists of corrupt politicians argue that if elections are made less costly the level of corruption may also come down. They are not wrong. But will less expensive elections suppress the get-rich quick urge ignited by the prevailing rotten market culture?

The aam aadmi will perhaps feel somewhat relieved if corruption at the administration’s cutting edges is checked. In this context, Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit’s comments on the Lok Pal controversy assume significance. She said: “We should be more worried about eradicating corruption for the common man, making sure that he gets his driving licence, property registration and so on without having to pay a bribe”

When Hooda became Chief Minister in 2005, even some of the senior and experienced Haryana politicians had doubted his capability and ability to rule. But in the six years he has been in power, he has learnt the art of political management. He has proved himself to be an efficient political manager beating the record of many of his predecessors.

However, where Hooda is vulnerable is in the field of efficient governance, particularly in checking corruption at the Administration’s cutting edges and in police functioning. It is a crime and corruption-free environment which plays a vital role in deciding polls outcome. (IPA Service)