Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar (right) with Chief of Bureau Maneesh Chhibber at The Indian Express office. (Express photo by Ravi Kanojia) Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar (right) with Chief of Bureau Maneesh Chhibber at The Indian Express office. (Express photo by Ravi Kanojia)

An RSS pracharak, Manohar Lal Khattar was handpicked by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to lead the first BJP government in Haryana in 2014. He is the first non-Jat leader in 18 years to occupy the state chief minister’s post. During the Jat quota agitation in February this year, the first-time MLA found himself on the backfoot, but Khattar insists that his government did well to control the situation

MANEESH CHHIBBER: Before you took charge, there was speculation about many Jat leaders being in contention for the Haryana Chief Minister’s post. Were you aware of it?

I enjoy good relations with everyone because even though it is my first time in electoral politics, I have been politically active since 1980, and in Haryana for the past 22 to 25 years. All of today’s leaders have come after that. Those who belong to that time have good ties with me. Yes, there were many contenders (for the CM’s post), about five to seven people. If people project themselves as CM candidates and contest elections, I will only be happy. By doing so, there will be an increase in their supporters and a difference of 4,000 to 5,000 votes. Everyone would want to be CM, but there are certain principles of democracy, and there needs be consensus on a name.

Watch Idea Exchange With Manohar Lal Khattar



ASHUTOSH BHARDWAJ: Haryana has the most skewed sex ratio in the country. But it is also estimated that more women, as compared to men, have primary- to middle-school qualification. What do you think is the reason for this? Have you set any tangible targets?

The skewed sex ratio is a thing of the past. The situation has changed now. On January 22, 2015, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a rally in Panipat, the sex ratio was 827. But our education department, health department, and the Ministry of Women and Child Development have made efforts in this direction. We formed a team and assigned one person in the CM’s office the job to ensure better coordination between departments. We raided clinics that conducted sex determination tests and have filed around 200 FIRs. After six months, in July-August, we noticed that the sex ratio had risen. You will be surprised to know that in March it had touched 907. It crossed 900 in December. Our target is to get to 950 in our tenure.

ABANTIKA GHOSH: Soon after a non-Jat CM took over, there was the Jat quota agitation. There are chances of the stir erupting again. What do you think were the reasons for the protests?

Apart from the ‘Jat-non-Jat’ issue, there is another factor. In the corridors of power, there are many corrupt elements who have become middlemen. Many of them have lost influence, with this government coming to power. They used to make frequent trips between New Delhi and Chandigarh, visit ministers, legislators and bureaucrats alike. When this system changed, they became unemployed. So the ‘Jat-non-Jat’ issue was forced into the picture. Jats want Jats to prosper, non-Jats want the same for their members. It is an emotional issue that has instant appeal. Corruption was an issue but so is reservation.

We needed to reach an agreement (with the Jat protesters), but certain sections remained adamant on their demands. We will allot quotas, but only under constitutional principles and methods. Whatever transpired in those two to three days (of the Jat agitation, February 2016) was unfortunate. It shouldn’t have happened. But we controlled the situation. Incidents like this will not be repeated in the future.

We have clarified our stand: we will act against the guilty. Cases will be filed and the guilty will be produced in court. Let the law take its course. As of today, 400 to 450 people are in jail. There is pressure to release them, but if we do, this may be repeated. If we don’t, it might send out the right message. We believe in the rule of law.

MANOJ C G: The Congress claims the BJP is to blame for the agitation. That it didn’t act against its MP Raj Kumar Saini, who issued statements against the stir, and so couldn’t control the violence. The Congress argument was that you wanted to divert attention away from the failures of your government.

The Opposition will say many things, it is its job to do so. When it comes to Saini’s remarks, I do not endorse them. We believed then (during the agitation) that the situation would improve. We assessed everything and controlled the situation within three days. At the time of the Mandal Commission in the ’90s, there was a similar movement that lasted for three months and could not be controlled. We did it in three days. We did not use force without warning. Dialogue was given preference. When we felt it would fail, after February 19, paramilitary forces were deployed. The Army was also called in, curfew was imposed, shoot-at-sight orders issued, we took every measure in the book. About 30 people died despite us taking all these steps. It is unfortunate that lives were lost and losses worth crores were incurred. (But) after February 22, not one violent incident has been reported.

VARINDER BHATIA: Do you think law and order was maintained during the Jat agitation?

It takes time to control a situation… If we had to call in 50 companies of paramilitary forces, there must have been reasons for it. The agitators were in large numbers and police alone would not have been able to tackle the situation. There were 25,000 people on the streets of Rohtak alone. Houses, shops and showrooms were being set on fire. The situation was worsening. We had to call the paramilitary forces. We called in the Army too.

SHYAMLAL YADAV: Now that the Jats have been given OBC status in the state, do you think they should be included in the Central list as well? Also, doesn’t the government’s move to relent to the demand of the protesters following the violence, send out the wrong message?

We didn’t do anything unique. There was already a 10 per cent reservation for the community, but this was done through a notification. That is why it was rejected by the Supreme Court (July 22, 2015) and stayed by the (Punjab and Haryana) High Court (July 28, 2015). The agitators wanted us to formulate a legislation. We agreed. Even then it is Parliament which will have to pass it. There are similar cases from 10 to 11 states where communities have been seeking inclusion in Schedule IX. Jats will be a part of Schedule IX once a Bill is drafted and passed in the Lok Sabha.

ABANTIKA GHOSH: Delhi is witnessing the second run of the odd-even scheme. Your government was contemplating doing something on similar lines. Some members of the BJP though, like Vijay Goel, have been critical of the scheme. Why consider introducing it in Gurgaon then?

Democratic parties give their leaders the liberty to talk in the interest of their regions. Haryana will see a change if this scheme is put in place. Traffic, pollution may be reduced. People with cars will be forced to switch to alternatives like carpooling, etc. Even my commuting time today (to The Indian Express office in Noida) was shorter, from 30 minutes to 20 minutes (with the odd-even on in Delhi).

MANEESH CHHIBBER: Why was Gurgaon’s name changed to Gurugram?

Every place has its own history; every society has its own cultural identity. A lot of people had been demanding that the name be changed to Gurugram, which is the city’s historical name anyway. The village (that was Gurgaon) was named after Guru Dronacharya, who had imparted education to both Kauravas and Pandavas. So bringing that historical name back generates some kind of enthusiasm. Moreover, foreigners used to face a lot of difficulty pronouncing Gurgaon. Foreigners can pronounce Gurugram better than Gurgaon.

MANEESH CHHIBBER: During the 2014 campaign for the Assembly polls, you had raised the issue of the alleged favours shown by the Hooda government to Robert Vadra. Where do things stand now?

Some of their misdeeds were political, which we are dealing with politically; then there are matters where he (Robert Vadra) benefited from policies of the previous government. We had constituted a panel, the (one-man) S N Dhingra Commission (May 2015), which, after its six-month term, asked for an extension of another six months. So we will act once the panel’s term ends on June 7 and it presents its report.

UNNI RAJEN SHANKER: While you have changed Gurgaon’s name to Gurugram, the infrastructure in the city is still in a shambles.

We have been working on it. Several infrastructural projects are underway. A link road has been planned. A bypass, which will be a National Highway, will run to Manesar. Construction work on an underground stretch from Dwarka Sector 21 metro station (in Delhi) to IFFCO Chowk station (in Gurgaon) will begin soon. These steps will ease the traffic situation, keeping in mind the connectivity of these routes to Delhi.

As far as power supply is concerned, Gurgaon will have electricity 24×7 within a year. A project worth Rs 12,000 crore has been planned, of which a Rs 1,200-crore project is already underway… We are ensuring that power supply to any finished structure — a firm, a residential colony, a commercial establishment — is not hampered.

ASHUTOSH BHARDWAJ: You have been an RSS pracharak. In recent times, we have seen the Sangh change. What do you think has triggered this change in the organisation, and in what areas do you see the change being reflected?

See, change is of two kinds — one that is visible at the outset and the other is of opinion. I don’t think the RSS has undergone an opinion-based change, it hasn’t happened in the past and I don’t see it happening in the future either. Issues concerning the nation and society are matters of faith, and to work for our country is part of our ideological background, our commitment. We consider the society greater than the human being. So it’s the nation first, then I. Up until now, political parties used to follow the ‘I first, nation later’ policy. And this is what sets the RSS apart from others, this is the fundamental difference.

On the other hand, you must have noticed that the organisation has changed its uniform. Such changes have taken place several times — sometimes it is the uniform, sometimes the mantras they chant or the prayers — from Marathi and Sanskrit to only Sanskrit now. In Leh (Ladakh), they still conduct prayers in Bodhi and Sanskrit, hoist two flags. So changes happen with time. But changes on the outside have no relation to those pertaining to ideology. The RSS that I have known, understood and seen from up close, it is still the same.

MANEESH CHHIBBER: Since taking charge as CM, how much guidance have you received from the Sangh? Also, how involved is PM Modi in the affairs of the state?

The fact that the organisation’s (RSS) guidance helped me reach this far means that it has had a deep impact on me. The outcome can’t be conditional. The Sangh’s ideologies have left an impact on me, the nation and society is supreme for us. Beyond this, the Sangh does not interfere. It, however, does what you could call a ‘review’, asking us if it’s still ‘nation first’. As long as it’s nation and society first, then there’s no corruption, no personal desires. Even now when we meet Sangh leaders, that’s the target we set before us. But the Sangh itself doesn’t interfere in our day-to-day activities.

As for Narendrabhai Modi, he doesn’t interfere in the day-to-day activities of the state either. He does show concern on development-related issues and projects. He evaluates projects, in fact, sometimes our government’s chief secretary directly holds a video conference with him.

ABANTIKA GHOSH: Coming back to the Jat agitation, there have been allegations of three gangrapes in Murthal during that period. A few days ago, even a witness was reportedly attacked. So why is it taking this long to act in that case?

This is a very complicated issue. The delay in action is not because of delays from our side. There is no complainant yet. We want anyone with any information, or a complainant, to come forward. According to Indian law, we need a complainant to proceed with the case. Just a witness coming forward and alleging something is not enough. We will find the guilty, but for that, a complainant needs to come forward. We have kept all our options open. We have even formed an SIT for the case. We are willing to take all necessary action in the case, but the action cannot be taken only on the basis of a witness’s statement.

ABANTIKA GHOSH: In cases of rape and murder, can’t the police or the law act suo motu?

Yes, they can. But even to act suo motu based on media reports, a complainant is required. If not a complainant, at least a victim has to be found. This case has many angles — some clothes have been shown that were allegedly found at the spot, there has been talk of foreigners being targeted, a truck driver has apparently claimed he is a witness. But when these people are called in, they say they were asked to do this, they know nothing. We are ready to take the strictest action in accordance with the law, but that can’t be done on the basis of random witness statements.

ABANTIKA GHOSH: But police have also claimed there was a family angle in case of one of the complainant.

That case is about one particular woman, who has made such allegations against her family members in the past too, which have turned out to be false. This case is a family matter, it has nothing to do with the alleged Murthal rapes.

MONOJIT MAJUMDAR: About the Satluj Yamuna Link (SYL) canal, you have written to Punjab CM Parkash Singh Badal and even asked your Delhi counterpart Arvind Kejriwal to not play politics over it. What is the situation now?

The SYL issue has been going on for the past 11 years. It was stuck in the Supreme Court and there were no hearings on it. The previous governments had not pursued it. After we came to power, we started pursuing it actively and I am grateful to the court for having taken it up. Now, there are regular hearings every six to eight days. The Centre, the governments of Punjab, Delhi, Haryana, have all put forward their views and hopefully, a decision in Haryana’s favour should come soon. The amount of water that Haryana is supposed to get has already been decided. Now the issue is over how to get that water to Haryana. The SYL is just a carrier. We are not asking for extra water.

In not constructing SYL, Punjab’s interests are being served, and hence it is putting in all sorts of obstacles, like resolutions in their Assembly. One person went to the extent of saying that they would have the canal filled up with mud. We alerted the Supreme Court, which immediately took action and said the dam was the responsibility of that state’s secretary and other officials. Now these court orders can’t be violated without attracting contempt proceedings. Since the issue is sub-judice, there isn’t very much to say on it.

MANEESH CHHIBBER: Arvind Kejriwal is with you on the National Capital Region Planning Board. Recently in Punjab he opposed the SYL. Have you spoken to him about this?

It is better you put this question to Arvind Kejriwal. He keeps changing his statements: he says different things in Punjab, in court and in Delhi. All I have to say to him is that he should not play politics over the issue. After all, Delhi too has a share in the SYL water. Without SYL, we have been giving water to Delhi from our share. When the SYL water share was originally awarded, Delhi was to get a part of it. Now if we say we will not give Delhi this water till the SYL is built, the capital will suffer too. But the SC has asked us not to get into any kind of sharing issue and just keep the Wazirabad and Haiderpur reservoirs full. So now we are concentrating on just that. Otherwise, this can worsen Delhi’s water woes. So I would like to ask Kejriwal to focus on Delhi.

📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App.