Former Congress MP Akhilesh Das and the Superintendent of Vellore Jail have, in their own ways, drawn national attention to the ?non-accountability? of the party'sso-called first family. As the Gandhi siblings? style of functioning has a direct bearing on the polity, it is time to subject them to greater scrutiny.
Whatever the personal provocations of Shri Akhilesh Das who was dropped from the Union Council of Ministers last month, he dramatically resigned from the Rajya Sabha and the primary membership of the Congress, lambasting a ?coterie? around Amethi MP Rahul Gandhi. Shri Das had seven-months left in his Rajya Sabha tenure, so his decision to resign prematurely was doubtless propelled by weighty considerations; doubtless his political future would figure among these.
Shri Das has cited loss of ?faith and confidence? in the Congress, and this should be viewed as a direct attack upon party president Sonia Gandhi. He evaded direct confrontation by blaming the rise of a ?coterie? around Rahul Gandhi, which was becoming an ?unconstitutional power centre.? This is reminiscent of the ?caucus? through which the late Sanjay Gandhi once dominated the Congress and the Central Government, and is a direct indictment of the ruling family.
Shri Das has alleged that his removal from the ministry was due to this coterie, and that several senior leaders and even Cabinet ministers were suffering at the hands of this clique. He has been too timid to say if he tried to take his grievances to Smt Sonia Gandhi directly; presumably he did, but failed. The letter of resignation addressed to her mentions the appointment of Rahul aide Kanishka Singh'sfather S.K. Singh as Governor of Rajasthan despite being close to Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje and former External Affairs Minister K. Natwar Singh; and the appointment of Rita Bahuguna Joshi as UP Congress chief though she had lost her deposit in the last Assembly election.
Voicing concerns previously associated with the rise of the late Sanjay Gandhi, Shri Das told the media that Shri Rahul Gandhi was ?in-charge of the country… He is only general secretary of Youth Congress and NSUI but he is controlling the entire Congress party and he is controlling the entire nation. If he is not happy with you and his coterie is not happy with you, you cannot be in the party??
These are warning signals that Congress can ignore at its own peril, especially as they come after the virtual projection of Shri Rahul Gandhi as the party'sPM-in-waiting. Given the known history of the Gandhi family, it is entirely believable that decision-making is coterie-based and non-transparent; this will upset both those who have genuine grassroots support as well as those who suddenly lose patronage, like Shri Das. The extent of his grassroots support will now be known if he gets the Bahujan Samaj Party nomination for Lucknow during the next general elections. For that appears to be where he is heading, having indicated a tilt towards the BSP by alleging that the Centre failed to provide Uttar Pradesh with additional funds despite several requests from the state government.
Meanwhile, despite a friendly media agreeing to clamp down on the controversy over Smt Priyanka Vadra'smeeting with Nalini Murugan, convicted in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, there is need for deeper investigation into the facts of the visit. Following an RTI filed by lawyer D. Raj Kumar, two things happened. First, Smt. Vadra admitted that the March 19, 2008 meeting took place, through a statement read out by a Congress spokesman, and the Vellore Jail Superintendent denied such a meeting had taken place!
This has various possible implications, and the nation has a right to know what did transpire. As previously argued, the meeting could not have taken place without the explicit consent and logistical backing of the Central and State Governments. Smt Vadra and Nalini'slawyer S. Doraisamy have admitted that the meeting did take place.
This leaves us with the questions of the venue where it occurred, and the motive. The Superintendent of Special Prison for Women, B. Rajasoundari, has filed a written reply that nobody met Nalini Murugan on March 14 and March 19. The veracity of this claim can easily be checked with other prison inmates, guards, and the interrogation of Smt Vadra, her state-provided security, and Nalini. If the meeting took place in the jail, the Superintendent must be asked to explain why it was not recorded, and why Smt. Vadra was not made to sign the visitor'sregister. Prison security is never lax unless it is ?arranged? to be so. If smt Vadra'svisit was not recorded, it could only have been at the behest of the Centre or State Government, and the authorities concerned should speak up, rather than leave the officer to take the rap. This raises questions about the motives of the meeting.
The second possibility is that the meeting took place somewhere else, possibly the famous ?golden temple? Smt. Vadra admitted visiting that day. If so, we need to know if Nalini'sexit from the Vellore Jail was recorded by the authorities; who authorised her departure; who handled her security outside the jail in view of a known threat to her life; and what were the motives behind such grand liberties with the legal system. Since the government does not exist to indulge in the childish pranks of Smt Vadra, there has to be a political answer to these questions. The search for personal closure is a nice story, but there is no reason why it could not wait a few years till Nalini became a free person. She could then have been invited to 10 Janpath and given employment under NREGA!
Obviously, the political powers that permitted the meeting were not prepared for Nalini'slawyer using RTI to put the meeting on record, and thus bring unwelcome scrutiny on the Gandhi family. Conveniently, Nalini'spetition seeking release from jail is now in court; before the courts decide the matter, the full truth behind the Priyanka-Nalini meeting must be made public.
