Regional favouritism under Bhupinder Singh Hooda's Congress rule: What Haryana lost

New Delhi: The state of Haryana, under the governance of Bhupinder Singh Hooda from the Congress party between 2004 and 2014, witnessed what many have described as a stark example of regional favouritism and developmental disparities. 

This period was marked by allegations of systematic neglect of certain regions in favor of others, particularly Hooda's home district, Rohtak.

Model village scheme: A case study in bias

One of the most cited instances of this favouritism was the implementation of the Model Village Scheme. While the scheme aimed to transform selected villages into models of development, its execution raised eyebrows. 

Districts like Sirsa, Mahendragarh, and Panchkula were conspicuously absent from the list of beneficiaries, with a disproportionate number of model villages being concentrated in Rohtak and its vicinity. 

This allocation pattern suggested not just a policy of development but a strategic political move to bolster support in specific regions.

Mismanagement of funds in Gurgaon

The handling of funds collected under External Development Charges (EDC) in Gurgaon further exemplifies this skewed approach to governance. 

Over Rs 1,000 crore from a total of Rs 5,000 crore collected was reportedly mismanaged or unutilised, as admitted in court. 

This failure to effectively utilise funds intended for the development of Gurgaon highlighted a broader issue of resource allocation where funds were either misdirected or underutilised, leaving significant portions of the state underdeveloped.

Political influence over development

The political landscape of Haryana during this period was also influenced by the dynamics of power and rivalry. The neglect of regions associated with political rivals, like Sirsa linked with the Chautala family, was not coincidental but seen as a deliberate strategy to undermine opposition strongholds. 

This political vendetta translated into developmental neglect, where infrastructure, education, healthcare, and other public services in these areas saw minimal improvement or investment.

Economic disparities and public sentiment

Districts like Rewari, Charkhi Dadri, Bhiwani, among others, experienced stunted growth, with development projects either delayed or entirely overlooked. 

This led to a significant disparity in living standards across Haryana, where residents in favored regions enjoyed better infrastructure and services, while others lived in relative neglect.

Public discontent

The governance style of the Congress under Hooda left a lasting impact on public sentiment. 

The perception of being governed by a regime that favoured one region over another led to widespread disillusionment among the populace. This sentiment was not just about missed development opportunities but also about the erosion of trust in the government's commitment to equitable growth.

The model village scheme, fund mismanagement in urban areas like Gurgaon, and the overall neglect of certain districts paint a picture of governance where political strategy often overshadowed public welfare.