"Somebody had to take the rap. That somebody was me"

It is a bit disturbed, partly because of our candidate’s defeat and partly because of the disciplinary action. But all depends on who the next MPCC president will be. If he comes with an open mind and is able to take all into confidence then there should be reason enough to spring back.

Do youagree to comments that the controversy was created deliberately when such accidents have happened before?

May be that is true to a certain extent. All these people who were waiting to find fault jumped into action and took advantage of the situation.

How is it that you have been punished for the cross-voting by your party MLAs while the actual culprits are free?

We have given the All India Congress Committee (AICC) the names of those 8-10 MLAs. Unfortunately, the AICC has not started action against them.

Why?

Because they say there is no proof. It was a secret ballot.

Then how come you have expelled Nagpur MLA Satish Chaturvedi when 10 others apparently did the same thing that he did?

That is because we had proof against Chaturvedi. Our observer at the RS polls, Vayalar Ravi, had complained to the party high command long before the polling day that he was indulging in anti-party activities. He was warned.

Would you say your role in the debacle was minimal and yetyou took the major share of the responsibility?

Normally such elections and other legislative affairs are handled by the leaders of the legislature party, in this case the leaders of the opposition. But since we do not have a chief minister here, someone had to accept the moral responsibility. And that is what I did.

Did you even have a clue as to the danger that one of your candidates might face?

No. We were not expecting the debacle. On the contrary, we were sure of more support than we had for both the Rajya Sabha and the Legislative Council seats and believed that after that the Shiv Sena-Bharatiya Janata Party government would either have gone or been put into certain danger.

So you did not expect any cross-voting from among your MLAs?

We were aware that some of them would vote against the party line. That is why we increased the quotas of both our candidates to 45 from 42 first preference votes. Unfortunately, the cross-voting was much more than we thoughtpossible.

Critics say that if you had not attempted the audacious game of putting up an independent candidate (Vijay Darda) in the Rajya Sabha to counter the other independent (Suresh Kalmadi), this debacle might not have happened.

We can’t blame the decision. The idea was to get an additional seat in the two upper houses because we were expecting massive cross-voting from other parties towards us; not so much against us as eventually happened.And was that decision yours or Sharad Pawar’s?

I have been misquoted before on this. My statement was twisted to make it seem as though I was blaming Sharad Pawar. But it was a joint decision.

Myself and the two leaders of the opposition (Madhukarrao Pichad and Chhagan Bhujbal), in consultation with Pawar, settled on the scheme.

In that case do you believe that you have been unfairly made the scapegoat in the ongoing battle said to be raging between Pawar and Sonia Gandhi?

Someone had to accept responsibility. After my resignation wasaccepted, I met Soniaji and assured her that I would continue working for the party as before, with or without a post. I also told her that I am a true loyalist.

Not like these other claimants for the `loyalist’ label who have crossed over from the party for greener pastures and returned when they got nothing.

I am a loyalist from 1972. I was with Indira Gandhi in 1977. I was the Maharashtra Pradesh Youth Congress president between 1978-80. I did not leave the party for even a second and I will continue to be a loyal party worker. Who is a loyalist like this today? Most of the `loyal’ people have travelled around a lot.

And what about your relationship with Pawar? Have they soured?

No they have not!

It is said that a certain `loyalist’ group engineered the cross-voting that has led to your current problems?

I have no comment on that. According to me, four-five MLAs voted against the party line simply for the lure of money and four-five others out of sheer politicalvindictiveness.

If you know all that why are you shooting off in the wrong direction by concentrating on the 10 MLAs who signed on Arun Mehta’s nomination forms instead of homing in on the RS culprits?

The cross-voting in the RS polls was less than that for the Council. There, even I lost four votes. But the AICC is unable to understand the difference. Their contention is: if Arun Mehta could win, why not Ram Pradhan? But the fact is that there was money-play in the RS and no cash going around for the Council. Those who voted for Darda and Kalmadi also did so for Mehta merely for goodwill. Arun Mehta’s votes cannot be counted as Congress votes. An accident is an accident and there can be no explanations for why that accident occurred.

So what are your remedies to prevent this kind of mischief again?

Cross-voting has happened before but the problem has got exacerbated with the introduction into politics of industrialists and businessmen in the last five-six years. At the time of YeshwantraoChavan and Vasantrao Naik no one who was not a politician was ever accommodated in such an election. Then again there is the problem of Independents. At least 10-11 of them took money from both sides (Darda’s and Kalmadi’s). Who knows which side they voted?

Aren’t these Independents all essentially Congressmen who were denied tickets last time round?

No. They are just self-seekers. They were Congressmen when the Congress was in power. When the Sena-BJP came to power they became Shiv Sainiks and BJPwallahs. There should be no room in the Congress for such non-committed self-oriented people. And that is a thought for the Sena-BJP as well. Otherwise if it was Ram Pradhan today, it might be Satish Pradhan (Sena’s RS MP who barely made it) tomorrow.