Forty years ago, that is March 13, 1984, in a dramatic development, the Congress (I) high command reversed its earlier decision to "save" former chief minister A R Antulay by amending the Prevention of Corruption Act of Maharashtra.
The episode actually relates to former chief minister Abdul Rehman Antulay and Maharashtra's powerful couple, Chief Minister Vasantdada Patil and his wife Shalinitai Patil. And it will tell you how 'corrupt' system worked during the period.
 |
| A R Antulay on righ: Patil couple -- on Left |
"If I am guilty, others are equally guilty," Antulay had famously said in 1984 during the peak of his legal battle amid power tussle with Vasantdada Patil and supposed attempts made by the Congress party to save him.
The corruption was linked to 'funding' for a private trust the Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan. The issue, according to Antulay linked to generous funding to the same by Patils.
Antulay also had claimed that the trust deed for the Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan was drafted by Ramrao Adik and Rafiq Zakaria, leader of the Congress(I) in the Rajya Sabha. Both were trustees.
The Patils as office-bearers of certain sugar cooperatives had donated generously and they were surely "duty-bound to find out if the trust was a private one before playing with the poor farmer's money", Antulay contended. At one stage, the Congress leaders in Maharashtra wanted to 'protect' Antulay --- but later gave up the idea after the intervention of the then AICC general secretary Rajiv Gandhi.
In fact, Chief Minister Patil was even summoned by Delhi and reprimanded by Rajiv Gandhi. The Congress backed out from making any amendments to the Corruption law in Maharashtra. Earlier move was to bring a legislation that will
hold that an MLA is a 'public servant' and hence beyond the reach of prosecution without the sanction of the legislature.
Ironically, many years later Rajiv's son Rahul Gandhi made news with regard an Ordinance on corruption law.
Nevertheless, in 1984, the idea to 'protect' Antulay was dropped "perhaps by fears" that the Rajya Sabha elections might be sabotaged.
It is of course true, while a state cabinet is (was) allowed to legislate on criminal law the amendment would have been undoubtedly 'challenged' in court. And of course, the Congress(I)'s bonafides for maintaining public morality would have fallen.
Remember this was also an era when Indira Gandh grew conscious that everything should be done to present Rajiv Gandhi as a 'Mr Clean' of Indian politics. And ....Bofors row came in no time within four-five years when Rajiv Gandhi became Prime Minister and his mom had expired following assassination on Oct 31, 1984.
The then BJP Vice-President Ram Jethmalani, senior counsel, had maintained that Antulay's remarks were part of his attempts to blackmail "witnesses including the prime minister, who is one of 130 witnesses listed by the prosecution".
There was a major dispute about whether the Prime Minister had given her consent to allowing her name to be used by the trust.
"For CM Vasantdada Patil, Antulay's latest campaign is the climax to a shaky 13-month tenure in office in which he has spent most of his energies keeping his detractors in his own party at bay. The odds are against him in his battle for retaining the chief minister's gaddi for long: a high command which views him with suspicion thanks to his past disloyalty, a majority of his party MLA's antagonistic since he is termed an "outsider", rejoining the party only shortly before the 1980 Lok Sabha election and a host of rivals waiting in the wings," -- runs an 'India Today' report.
No comments:
Post a Comment