Chautala was an amiable ally, a fierce opponent

WITH the death of former CM Om Prakash Chautala, an era in Haryana politics has come to an end. Known for his strong likes and dislikes, ‘OPC’, as he was known to many, was equally amiable when he chose to be. He could be a fierce critic of his political opponents at one moment and dining with them the next moment, if it suited his interests. He would often say there are no permanent enemies or friends in politics. He put this philosophy to use on several occasions.

In 1998, his party, the Indian National Lok Dal (INLD), contested the Lok Sabha elections in alliance with the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) in Haryana. He assured the BSP supremo Mayawati that he would never go with the BJP or the Congress. But immediately after the elections, he extended support to BJP leader Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

Chautala had a strong reason to do so. At that time, Bansi Lal’s Haryana Vikas Party (HVP) was heading the government in the state in alliance with the BJP. Chautala hoped that his support to Vajpayee would lead to collapse of the Bansi Lal government. But due to Sushma Swaraj’s firm support to Bansi Lal, the BJP continued its alliance with the HVP.

Within months, however, Chautala got another opportunity when after 13 months the Vajpayee government collapsed. In the 1999 General Election, Chautala’s party won five seats. The Vajpayee government was again short of the majority mark.

Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) leader Parkash Singh Badal played a crucial role in persuading Chautala to again extend support to Vajpayee. Badal and Chautala’s father, Devi Lal, shared a very close bond. They were known to be ‘pag watt (exchanging of turbans)’ brothers. OPC and the entire Devi Lal clan used to treat Badal like the patriarch of their family. However, this time Chautala agreed to support Vajpayee only after getting a written assurance from him that the BJP would withdraw its support to the Bansi Lal government within a few months.

Soon, the INLD formed the government in Haryana in alliance with the BJP and a few defectors from the HVP.

Chautala was known for his strong-arm tactics. He would often say a chief minister is of no use if a sleeping person does not jump out of his bed on hearing his name. In 1999, Chautala, however, worked hard to change this image, at least for the first few months. Once I jokingly told him “Chaudhry sahib aap ki yeh shaleenta aap ko suit nahin karti (this modestly does not suit you)”. He laughed and said one changes with time.

OPC called for a midterm Assembly poll in 2000 and gained absolute majority. After that he was back to his old self.

In 1991, when Chautala became the Chief Minister after his father Devi Lal became the Deputy Prime Minister, OPC had to become a member of the Assembly within six months to meet a constitutional requirement.

Two byelections, Meham (Rohtak) and Thanesar (Kurukshetra), were due. Several delegations from Kurukshetra met Chautala and urged him to contest from their constituency. In Meham, his protégé Anand Singh Dangi, who had fallen out with him, challenged him to contest from there.

When Chautala visited Ambala where I was then posted, I asked him why he was not contesting from Thanesar from where his victory was assured. The GT Road belt had never got a chief minister from the area and its people were yearning for one. He said: “Nyota to vapas karna padta hai (Challenge has to be answered).” When I insisted that in that case why not contest from both the constituencies, his reply was what is the use of causing another byelection later. However, after the infamous mayhem in Meham, Chautala contested from two places to become an MLA.

Whenever he was extremely polite with someone, it used to be an indication that the person was in for trouble. Once during an Assembly election, Karan Singh Dalal, a fierce critic of Chautala, crossed him to go to the Speaker’s podium. Chautala politely asked Dalal how was his elder brother. Dalal was very surprised at the courtesy. It was only after Dalal came out of the Assembly that he learnt that his brother had been booked in a murder case.

Towards the middle of his term (2000-05), Chautala became a little arrogant, almost bordering on audacity. Once he boasted in the Assembly that “Jab tak main zinda hoon, iss kursi par main hi baithunga (Till I am alive, only I would be the Chief Minister)” The entire House was stunned. During the next elections, the voters reduced the INLD’s strength to nine in a House of 90.

Though Chataula never said so, those who saw him from close quarters feel that he was inspired by two politicians and wanted to surpass them — Bansi Lal in administrative skills; and Bhajan Lal in political ‘jod-tod’. Like the former, Chautala kept the bureaucracy on a tight leash. Not many in the Haryana Secretariat could say ‘no’ to Chautala. Anyone who had the courage to do so, preferred to go to the safer route of Central deputation.

It was the eagerness of certain officers to please him which ultimately led to his and his elder son’s conviction and jail term in JBT teachers’ recruitment case for 10 years.

It is a strange coincidence that the top leadership of the INLD and the SAD not only shared close family ties but also copied each other in governance and other models. It is also another strange coincidence that the fall of the political fortunes of the two parties have also traversed a similar course. The parties which were once calling the shots in their respective states, are now virtually in a political oblivion.

Will Chautala’s death push his estranged sons to come together once again in a bid to keep the legacy of their grandfather and father alive? Divided they are bound to fall. Only time will tell.