With the death of Janaki Ballav Patnaik, I want to vent my observations about the attitude and dealing of three Chief Ministers, JB and late Biju Patnaik and reigning Naveen Patnaik, towards their supports in politics. JB was the most indulgent towards his followers even at the risk of getting defamed himself in the process. In the first write-up headlined ‘His indulgence for tainted supporters undid him” in this column on late JB, I wrote about his suicidal protection to the then Advocate General Indrajit Roy and the Congress men who raped and murdered Chhabirani and his controversial favours to his relatives.
Biju Patnaik was also always inclined to protect his supporters which I will illustrate with what he did in an unsavoury case of his Ministerial colleague Damodar Rout in the early part of 1990s. Rout had allegedly touched a woman panchayat functionary, Basanti Bara, in an inappropriate manner at an official function at Kutra in Sundargarh district. Bara filed a police complaint in this regard. This issue rocked the State, but Biju Patnaik wanted to defend Rout.
An angry Patnaik even went to the extent of telling the media, “What my Minister did was Mardpania (a manly act).” This fuelled the issue further and Patnaik was forced to institute an inquiry with an apparent intention to save Rout as the probe was entrusted to former Chief Minister Nandini Satpathy, then an Opposition Congress MlA and now dead, who was in very cordial terms with Patnaik towards the last phase of her political career.
And as expected, Satpathy, after visiting Sundargarh, produced her report giving a clean chit to Dr Rout. The report said Damodar Rout’s normal habit of sitting was responsible for a wrong impression that he misbehaved with Basanti Bara on the dais at the meeting. Rout’s style of sitting was misconstrued by Bara as offending.
I had been consistently pursuing the issue with stories in The Telegraph then I was working for and writing by invitation in the newly-launched weekly issue of the Samaja, (Saptahik Samaja). After Nandini Satpathy gave her inquiry report, I asked her in the State Assembly lobby if she knew the difference between ‘touching’ and ‘caressing’. She looked blank. I said a woman would feel offended if caressed without her willingness.
Biju Patnaik was standing by his supporters till he became defenceless and let the course of events take their logical courses. But JB Patnaik was supporting his followers to the hilt.
Naveen Patnaik’s case is completely different. He was brought to politics after his father Biju’s death by Biju loyalists to take advantage of the Biju legacy. Naveen had no political relations with any Biju loyalist. So, he lacked, and still apparently lacks, any emotion for his party colleagues unlike his father and JB, who had been working with their supporters since the beginning of their careers.
Imagine the cases of Bijay Mohapatra, Srikant Jena, late Nalinikanta Mohanty and late Ashok Das. All these leading Biju cohorts, except Ashok Das, had to switch over to other parties as they were dumped by Naveen to save his so-called clean image. Biju Patnaik would never have done so for the sake of his continuance in power. For instance, Biju did not shunt Bijay Mohapatra out from his Cabinet in the aftermath of the terrible Cuttack hooch tragedy in the early 1990s in which the latter was an alleged major culprit. Srikant Jena would be critical of Biju on many issues but the big boss would always pardon him as they had a basic emotional bondage. It is to Naveen Patnaik’s fantastic luck that he continues in power for so many years without caring for his party colleagues as long as he himself is safe and ‘clean’.
