NEW DELHI: The Indian National Congress is in the throes of its worst crisis since 1977, as party MPs overwhelmingly realize that they have to find a new leader to replace PV. Narasimha Rao following his alleged direct involvement in two scandals in quick, succession. Animated discussions among senior Congress MPs last week ranged to whether the Congress had any future at all.

Rao loyalists spoke of the inevitability of a split if Rao’s leadership was challenged. So, most MPs appeared to be waiting and watching, hoping that Rao himself would announce his exit at the CWC meeting if the CBI files a fresh FIR naming him in the JMM bribery case by then.

Rao, however, was “in no mood to yield. “Said a confidant and former cabinet minister. Rao attended a dinner at finance minister P. Chidambaram’s residence for UF and supporting MPs, His mask was firmly in place and he gave no indication that he was worried.

A member of the CPP executive estimated that perhaps 5060 Lok Sabha MPs may be against Rao now but that nothing could happen until that figure reached 70.

However, some rebel leaders estimated that there may not be more than 4050 staunch Rao loyalists among the 142.

There is likely to be a demand from K. Karunakaran, Balram Jakhar, Ghulam Nabi Azad, Rajesh Pilot and Ahmed Patel, at the CWC meeting for him to resign, on the principle of one man one post.

If he does not oblige, they plan to demand an AICC session and to requisition one if he won’t, a senior leader close to Rao said he had heard Rao would agree to call an AICC meet.

Among the many group meetings last week was one at Karunakaran’s residence. Rajesh Pilot and Balram Jakhar were among the participants; Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Digvijay Singh and Himachal Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh were among the leaders in the capital last week.

A section of party MPs spoke of proposing AK Antony’s name for party president ship, since his clean reputation would help the party get over Rao’s alleged involvement in scandals, Antony’s backers pointed out that Kao was chosen for being noncontroversial and affable.

Antony is believed to have said that, once the CBI files an FIR against Rao, the party could not keep him on as party president.

Sharad Pawar, the most obvious contender for Rao’s twin jobs, had orchestrated a campaign over the past few weeks that the only way to stabilize the Gowda government was for the Congress to participate, after Ruo gave up the leadership.

Kamaluddin Ahmed, whom Rao had removed as APCC president some time ago, made this demand last week.

Pawar has the support of only eight to 10 of the 15 Maharashtra MPs and the committed support of Kamaluddin Ahmed, Y.S. Rajshekhar Reddy and Priya Ranjan Das Munshi among other Lok Sabha members, one of his critics estimated. That is surely an exaggeration and Pawar has been in touch with a large number of MPs in the past few weeks.

One of Pawar’s leading detractors said that “we will certainly put up a candidate against him if he contests the election in December” to become party president.

A.R. Antulay, whom Rao fielded as the party’s lead speaker m the debate, digressed to say the CWC meeting would decide whether his party should participate I the government or not and then asked what difference participation, would make, since five or ten Congress members could become ministers, out of 140.

Mamata Bannerjee immediately shouted: “None.” Leaders with a mass base in slates where UF constituents are strong are opposed to joining this government since it would compromise their politics in their home statics.

Pilot is another contender for one of Rao’s jobs but many consider him too junior. During his speech on the confidence motion lust week, he wished Gowda the strength and courage to punish all the guilty, and recalled that “our leader, “Rao, had often said the noose was above the law.

There is so much confusion in the party establishment over the future that routine press briefings have been cancelled. AICC spokesman V.N, Gadgil has said that he would not brief until after the CWC meeting.

The Central Bureau of Investigation registered cases against former Prime Minister P.V, Narasimha Rao, former Union ministers V.C. Shukla, Satish Sharma and R.K. Dhawan, and industrialist Lalit Suri after the supreme court rejected the CBI`s special leave petition in the bribery case involving four MPs of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha Sources say the FIRs will be registered in the “next few days.”

In his complaint, Ravinder Kumar, president of the Rashtriya Mukti Morcha, had alleged that Rao, the three former ministers and Suri had paid money to the four JMM MPs in return for voting against the confidence motion against the Rao government on July 28, 1993.

Investigations carried out by the CBI revealed that over Rs 1.5 crore were deposited in the bank account of one of the MPs Suraj Mandal between July 27, 1993 and August 1, 1993. The three other MPs who allegedly also received payoffs were Shailendra Mahato, Shibu Soren and Simon Marandi.

While dismissing the CBI appeal against the Delhi high court judgment, a division bench of the Supreme Court Justice A.S. Anand and Justice SB. Majmudar said they saw no reason of interfere in the order of the high court passed on May 24 in the light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case.

The CBI earnestly pleaded for the expunction of four paragraphs of the high court order which had made harsh observations against its conduct of the case.

The Supreme Court declined to delete them, but allowed the agency to move the high court again for expunction or modification of those observations.

Ather end of the proceedings, CBI counsel K. Para saran asserted that the high court will “commend” the bureau for its performance in the JMM case once it appreciated the facts. The petitioner’s counsel, P.N, Lekhi, retorted that such recommendation must from his side.

The main argument of Para saran was that the high court should not have taken up the case when the Supreme Court had barred all courts in the country from taking up hawala related cases. The division bench presided over by Justice JS. Verma had passed an order to that effect to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Counsel said the CBI could not conduct two investigations at the same time into the same affair. The JMM case was an offshoot of the hawala case which is before the apex court, counsel stressed.

The judges asked CBI counsel what objection the agency could have against the high court order which had only asked it to file a case if there was a cognizable offence, this was the duty of the CBI in any case, the judges said.

Article extracted from this publication >>  June 12, 1996