Eminent lawyer and Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi had received a fair degree of acceptance from his partymen as a successful chief spokesperson of their party ever since his appointment to this post. With his undoubted abilities as a lawyer, sound knowledge of the nuances of the politics of the country today and his

competence as a good debater, it looked as if the Congress had made a good choice for this post. Therefore, the decision of the Congress to bar him from briefing newsmen and to refer his case to the disciplinary action committee of the party has come as a great blow to his reputation and standing as a responsible leader of his party.
The provocation for this decision was his appearance in the Kerala high court a few days ago on behalf of one Santiago Martin, agent of certain lotteries based in Bhutan, Sikkim, et cetera. Martin had filed a petition on behalf of his agency, Mega Distributors, to invalidate an ordinance passed by the Kerala government introducing certain regulations in the operation of lotteries in the state. The peculiar feature of Mr Singhvi accepting the brief of Santiago Martin in this petition is that both parties have accused Martin of having given huge bribes to the other party for buying support to continue with his business without having to abide by any serious restrictions or regulation. These allegations have become particularly significant in today’s politics in Kerala as the elections to the local bodies are to take place within a few days and the freedom given to Mega Distributors by the Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led government in Kerala had already become an important issue in the election campaigns. In order to meet this criticism against the CPI(M), the state government had issued an ordinance introducing several regulations for the conduct of lotteries.
Mr Singhvi maintains that there has been no conflict of interest in his taking over the brief for Mega Distributors and that he was strictly within the limits of his responsibilities when he decided to appear on behalf of Mega Distributors in the Kerala high court. However, in doing this, Mr Singhvi seems to have forgotten that a spokesperson for any party or group means a person who speaks for the party or group who had chosen him for this job and it is not for a person to interpret the scope of duties of a spokesperson in a manner that suits his professional interests.
Why is it that certain leaders in the Congress have chosen the role of sharp critics of some of their colleagues in the party? Or, as in this case, why is it that the chief spokesperson of the party chose to go against the strong plea of the party leaders in Kerala? It has become a habit with some middle level and even some senior leaders of the Congress to issue statements out of turn on matters with which they are not very familiar.
Sharp attacks by some Congress leaders on the integrity and fair conduct of persons outside the political class have also taken place in recent times and it has given rise to the widespread feeling that some people in the Congress can get away with such statements without suffering the consequences. They perhaps think that such action on their part is in keeping with what they consider to be inner-party democracy; or some of them think that expressing their opinions on any issue is necessary to assert their credentials as senior leaders of the Congress. In this context, I am constrained to write about the manner in which I became the victim of a totally unfounded attack by a leader of the Congress in June 2010, but have been keeping quiet about it after expressing my deep sense of hurt to the Prime Minister.
Immediately after the pronouncement of the orders of the court on the Bhopal case a few weeks ago, a senior member of the Central Cabinet, who was not in any way connected with this matter, came out with a statement in an apparent attempt to play the role of one responsible to save the good name of the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, accusing me, who was then the principal secretary of the Prime Minister, as having been personally responsible for arranging Warren Anderson’s exit from India without being detained for any legal action by the government.
He further accused that I had become a new convert to the “Bharatiya Janata Party-Shiv Sena anti-Congress camp” and that this was a “motivated” attempt on my part to malign Rajiv Gandhi as revenge for his party not supporting me when my name was sponsored by the National Democratic Alliance as a candidate for election as President of the country in 2002. I was deeply hurt by the charges made by this minister accusing me of gross disloyalty to Rajiv Gandhi’s memory and wrote to the Prime Minister requesting him to prevent his ministers from making public statements on subjects about which they have no direct knowledge or responsibility. I was confident that a Prime Minister like Manmohan Singh, who himself maintains high standards of decency and fairness in public life, would take necessary action on my letter. This is exactly what he did. He promptly wrote to me that necessary instructions in the matter would be issued very soon. It appears that Dr Singh was already considering issue of such instructions to his party colleagues in the Cabinet when a complaint like mine reached him. Anyway, I was quite satisfied with his prompt response, though I am referring to this matter now in the background of the action taken against Dr Singhvi.
However, the trend does not seem to have been effectively curbed as we still hear of such statements from certain middle and high levels of leadership in the party. A practical suggestion that could be offered for this problem is that all political parties, particularly national-level parties, prescribe a “code of conduct” for their senior functionaries. Also, it will be advisable to discontinue the practice of combining several responsibilities in one person except in a very few highly deserving cases. The arrangement of assigning posts of general secretaries in charge of one or more states in addition to other responsibilities, like minister at the Centre, give such people the complex of being more important in the party than others. Some partymen in the states even put up welcome arches with huge photographs of the general secretary when he visits the state. These tendencies should be controlled if the general secretaries are not to function as super-presidents of the state units of the party.
If the high commands of the parties take serious note of all departures from the prescribed norms of conduct, that itself would be a deterrent to the present tendency of not observing the discipline expected from these functionaries.

P.C. Alexander is a former governor of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra