Press
Briefing Friday, 11th February 2011
Shri
Abhishek Singhvi addressed the media today.
Shri Abhishek Singhvi said certain newspaper reports
report a former Minister of Telecommunications
suggesting that he has complained to the Prime Minister
or to the PMO regarding certain issues. It is most
unfortunate and most regrettable that such sweeping
allegations are being made in respect of a person of
impeccable reputation and integrity like the Prime
Minister of India. Subject to checking in a more
detailed manner, you will appreciate that time is being
short; I can say that there was absolutely no
communication of any kind on such matters by the
concerned person to the Hon’ble Prime Minister or his
office and therefore, I said that it is most unfortunate
and regrettable because it is a traversty of truth and
indeed a conscious attempt to confuse and confound to
mislead and misinform. Secondly, the timing of this
policy of C&C and M&M (confusion confound and mislead
and misinform) is significant. Why the former Minister
is exercised about this issue after so many years of the
alleged incident - indeed after so much time of his
alleged communication. It defies explanation, it shocks
the imagination but most importantly it raises very
serious questions - about the true motivation, of this
allegation, of the former Minister’s true motivation, of
the party to which he notionally belongs – their true
motivation. It raises these issues because even assuming
what he says is true, why did he not bring these facts
into the public domain much-much earlier. Thirdly, why
are such sweeping allegations made just after a Shivraj
Patil Committee report – a one main retired Supreme
Court Judge report, and as you know, that report has
catalogued, specifically with facts and figures certain
illegalities and irregularities by successive
governments, as far as the bureaucracy and Ministers of
that department are concerned, as you know, from 2002
till date. Why should the former Minister, whose remarks
are reported in a section of the press today, take that
report so personally that instead of defending himself,
he is, without any basis of facts, attacking the Prime
Minister? He is, of course, fully capable of defending
himself but he cannot and should not lounge a broad side
allegations based on absolutely no facts because there
is no communication, to the best of my knowledge, at all
on this subject because he was at full liberty to
otherwise bring them into the public domain. Why should
he do so after the report is published – after so much
time? Is it to divert attention to digress from the
issue whether for himself or to the BJP. Instead of
diverting and digressing, the BJP should have enquired,
as this government has done, irrespective of politics or
colours or successive government. If there are
allegations, they should have enquired and we would like
to have seen some administrative, political, procedural,
criminal or some civil action on any of the alleged
delinquencies instead just purely to sensationalize and
to divert this kind of, somewhat wild, allegations that
are being made.
On the reaction of the Congress party on the statement
of Mr. Arun Shourie in August / September 2009 that he
met the Prime Minister personally and showed the
documents and subsequently met the then Director CBI,
Shri Singhvi said there has been no communication and
had there been such a communication as his grievance was
suggesting, for at least 2 years, nothing prevented him
from bringing the same into the public domain. Why has
he brought it into the public domain in February 2011
after January 2011 report of a commission?
On another question on the source of information on this
subject, Shri Singhvi said he is reacting as the
political party i.e. Congress party which is the lead
party of the UPA which is in power in the government and
he is speaking in that capacity and further said his
sources are dependable than that of the journalists. He
is talking obviously of the misinformed deliberately and
distorted statement.
To another question on the statement of Shri Subramaniam
Swamy in the Supreme Court that Mr. Vahanvati should
recuse himself from the 2-G spectrum case; Shri Singhvi
said it will be decided in the Court. Fortunately or
unfortunately the comments in Courts are privileged.
Recusal or non-recusal is entirely in the domain of the
Court. Let the proceedings go on. Shri Singhvi further
added that this is exactly the subject matter of both
Supreme Court and the CBI and if you think any of the
allegations are correct, one is to wait for the outcome.
There is no question of deciding them by
short-circuiting and picking out issue individually
while there are at least eight proceedings and two very
important proceedings going on.
On the reaction of the Congress party on the remarks of
the Supreme Court that no government wants strong
judiciary, Shri Singhvi said I am not going to join the
issue on a comment made by the Court during the court
proceedings.
On the question of the reaction of the Congress party on
the tripartite talks going on relation to the creation
of Gorkhaland and the role of the centre, Shri Singhvi
said if media is trying to rope in the central
government for everything and anything, it is more than
unfair. It is not only the centre but the Congress
governments, historically, if you see, which have
attempted, and in many cases, found full or partial
solutions to the problems. All major initiatives,
earlier and now, have been taken by this government.
Gorkhaland is another issue. It is not taken lightly.
This is purely a local agitation. Wherever the auspices
of the central government are required; the central
government is always ready.
On the reaction of the Congress party on the statement
of Ms. Jayalalitha on Shri Karunanidhi, CM of Tamil
Nadu, Shri Singhvi said that elections are round the
corner in that State. Media knows very well how much of
political love is lost between these two parties and
also that these are political adversaries in this
context. Media should think twice before taking such
comments seriously.
On a question asked over registration of a case against
Shri K. Rahman Khan in Karnataka, Shri Singhvi said he
is not aware of the latest developments. I can, however,
share with you that some months ago; a detailed
statement giving various details about this issue, was
issued by the person concerned. It was pointed out,
among other things, that this is an old case which has
sought to be revived.
Tom Vadakkan
Secretary, AICC
