For the first time since the controversy over party president Sonia Gandhis son-in-law Robert Vadras business dealings with DLF broke out about 10 days back,the Congress today sought to draw a distinction between the party and a private individual,refraining from joining issue with India against Corruption (IAC) activists on the matter.
Addressing his maiden press conference after his appointment as Congress spokesperson in August,Sandeep Dikshit said that the issues that had been raised had been effectively countered.
He is a private individual and he is welcome to do whatever he wants to do in his business,and on this nothing more can be said, Dikshit said,maintaining that the concerned state government (of Haryana) had already denied the allegations. Kejriwals charges have been effectively addressed by Vadra and DLF, he said.
Dikshits statement signalled a change in the Congresss stand so far,marked by vehement denial of the allegations against Vadra by senior leaders and ministers on the plea that the attack on him was an attack on the Congress party.
The attack is part of a well-planned conspiracy not against an individual but against the Congress and its leadership, party spokesperson Rashid Alvi had said earlier.
A section of Congress leaders were uneasy about the partys strategy to join issue with IAC activists like Arvind Kejriwal and Prashant Bhushan as they believed that the party was playing right into the hands of the activists by engaging them in a mud-slinging match.
Dikshit appeared to reflect this thinking in the party as he also steered clear of the allegations against Union Law Minister Salman Khurshid. Maintaining that Khurshid has very effectively countered the allegations,Dikshit pointed out that the Uttar Pradesh government has already ordered an inquiry and the matter has also reached the court.
We should leave it to the state government inquiry and the court to decide, he said,adding that that after Khurshids press conference,it was clear that much of what was being said is perhaps not true.
The trust does not come under the direct control of the Law Minister. There was nothing that showed either direct interference or culpability. These are different issues. The culpability of a chairperson of a trust is different from other forms of culpabilities, he said.