NEW DELHI: In what appeared to be a major salvo against the leadership, the former Maharashtra chief minister, A.R. Antulay, Jan.20 said that the Center could not absolve itself of any responsibility for the communal incidents in Bombay.
He demanded creation of a new post in the AICC to “assist” the party president, a view rejected by the Prime Minister, P.V.Narasimha Rao Tuesday.
“Communal situation is the primary responsibility of the Center and then of the state. The Center cannot absolve itself of is responsibility,” he told reporters.
Sharply, disagreeing with the Prime Minister’s reported statement that there was no need for a working president or vice president of the party as there was no provision in the Constitution, Antulay said “When the Congress party is afire, do not go into the niceties.. put out the fire first.” “Intellectual like Rao must have made the statement in a fit of forgetfulness,” he said. Because it would mean that Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi committed an “unconstitunonal” act by appointing leaders like Kamalapati Tripathi, Arjun Singh and H.N.Bahuguna as working president, vice president and secretary general, he said.
The “party constitution was not meant for convenience,” he said that such posts were created ‘as there were conventions of the Constitution.
“What is wrong if such a post was created as my Prime Minister is very busy and therefore in need of assistance of someone, “he said. It would “not set Yamuna afire,” he added.
Asked whether he was making the demand out of his frustration for not getting a cabinet post in the recent reshuffle, Antulay said it was not the case, “I have become accustomed to remain outside.”
To a query whether ho believed in “one man one post” norm, Antulay said that there was no such thing in the constitution. “This thing was floated by Sharad Pawar first, you ask his reaction, and then I will comment.”
The defense minister, Pawar also could not absolve himself of responsibility for what has happened in Bombay, he said.
Asked what a senior Congressman like him planned to do in the present circumstances, Antualy said that he was watching the situation and if the leadership failed, he would certainly “do something.” He rejected a suggestion that appointment of a working president or vice president of the party would result in the creation of a “rival center of power.”
“The party president used to be a different person than the Prime Minister from 1947 to 1980. Even when Pandit Neh was the Prime Minister, U.N.Dhebar was the “party president,” he said. “Since we talk of Nehruvian model, why not we follow it here,” he asked.
Asked to comment on the role of the Shiv Sena during the recent disturbances, Antulay declined to be drawn into the controversy.
Article extracted from this publication >> January 29, 1993
