Mr. AR Antulay has won the “distinction” of being the first former chief minister to face prosecution under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. And the Maharashtra governor, Mr. IH Latif, that of becoming the first governor to have sanctioned such prosecution. Both would have, of course, done anything to escape the “honour”, Mr. Latif no less than Mr. Antulay. But neither of them could. By confirming the Bombay High Court’s judgment that the governor must decide the issue of allowing or disallowing the prosecution of the former chief minister on his own without reference to the state cabinet, the Supreme Court left him no choice but to wear the crown. He has not hesitated to don it, as is evident from the speed with which he has acted – within hours of the verdict. This is to the credit of Mr. Latif and the Union government, which has not tried to prevent the governor from exercising an independent judgment in this extremely important case. So far so good. Mrs. Gandhi personally attracted a great deal of criticism from a variety of sources, including this newspaper, for her failure to take note of the serious charge against Mr. Antulay and remove him from the office of chief minister. But she can claim that it would not have been fair for her to anticipate the findings of the courts and that she has respected their verdict. By allowing Mr. Antulay’s prosecution, she has fully lived up to her original promise that she would respect the judgment of the courts.
It is not too premature to say that she has done this at some risk to herself, though the full extent of the risk she has taken will become obvious only on August 4 when Mr. Antulay has threatened to hold a press conference. We do not know what the former chief minister will say on that day or, indeed, even whether he will, in fact, implement his threat. But there can be little doubt that he is angry and desperate. Not long ago, he gave an interview to Mr. Kuldip Nayar in which he is reported to have warned his detractors in New Delhi that “they could not push me further” and that “if they continue to push me. I will hit back.” Mr. Nayar then wrote: “He showed no evidence to prove the complicity of others, but he claimed to have plenty of it.” The implication is quite clear. Mr. Antulay conveyed to decision-makers in New Delhi that if they took any further action against him, openly or covertly, he would “expose” their involvement in his activities. They have ignored the threat in that they have not tried to prevent Mr. Latif from allowing his prosecution and he has now threatened to hold a press conference on August 4. If the two are put together, as they must be, it would be difficult to resist the inference that he is threatening to besmirch the reputation of some others in Mrs. Gandhi’s circle, family or political.
We shall have occasion to deal with his charges against the others if and when he makes them. Meanwhile, a couple of points may be made. Mr. Antulay has had enough opportunities to clear himself of the charge of abuse of his office to collect money for his trusts – before Mr. Justice Lentin and Mr. Justice Desai and Mr. Justice Rele of the Bombay high court – and he will have other opportunities when the cases are launched against him. As such, he cannot justly claim that he is a victim of a conspiracy or a vilification campaign. He has been heard by qualified judges and found guilty. If he is a victim, he is a victim of his own inordinate ambition, his arrogance and his total disregard for any norm, moral or procedural. Without perhaps knowing it, he has condemned himself out of his own mouth. In the interview cited above, he is quoted as having said: “The people had started comparing me with Shivaji. One editorial wrote that I was Shivaji reborn … You know I have the habit of signing papers even while descending the stairs of the secretariat.” He perhaps forgot to mention his residence. No further evidence is needed to show that the man suffers from delusions of grandeur, fed partly by sycophants, who abound near any seat of power in India, but mainly by his vanity (“even now wherever I go, thousands of people come to listen to me even at an hour’s notice”), and that he was completely arbitrary in his actions as chief minister. It is only proper that the veracity of what he says (or is the threatened press conference another bluff?) on August 4 will need to be assessed carefully.
Mrs. Gandhi, for reasons best known to her, has chosen to carry many heavy crosses, the Antulay one being one of the heaviest. The courts have helped her lay down this cross, but many others continue to hang round her neck. The Antulay episode should enable her to appreciate the futility of continuing to do so. Such men are not grateful and loyal. They swear by her in order to carry on with their aggrandizement without let or hindrance, and when she cannot keep them in office, they are as willing to turn on her as her worst detractors. If anything, they are more dangerous because they can claim to be privy to secret wrong-doing in high places.