In a bid to be politically even-handed, social activist Arvind Kejriwal today targetted Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) chief Nitin Gadkari’s land dealings in Maharashtra. After alleging a sweetheart deal between Congress President Sonia Gandhi’s son in law Robert Vadra, real estate firm DLF and Haryana Chief Minister BS Hooda, Kejriwal today tried to prove that he and his organisation, India Against Corruption, was not ‘soft’ on the BJP as had been alleged by the Congress and civil society earlier.
Kejriwal said Gadkari wrote to Irrigation Minister Ajit Pawar to sanction him 100 acres of land that the government had acquired to build a dam in Khursapur village in Umred taluka in Nagpur district but had been unable to use. Although farmers from whom the land had been acquired wrote to the government seeking the return of land that the government was unable to utilise, their requests went unheeded on the grounds that land was being used to ‘beautify’ the area. But when Gadkari asked for the land, with virtually indecent haste, Pawar permitted Gadkari’s companies to acquire it.
Kejriwal said instead of acting as an opposition party and criticising the government for acquiring land it could not use in an area that is parched for water, Gadkari saw the potential of the land in close proximity to a dam, and quickly bought it.
Kejriwal charged that having got the land, Gadkari then proceeded to divert the water from dams to his mills and power plants. In this he was as culpable in robbing farmers of their livelihood as the government. “This is croneyism of the worst kind and this is what I have sought to expose” Kejriwal said.
“Nitin Gadkari was concerned about the completion of irrigation projects and wrote to Union Water Resources Ministry five times as per his own admission to ask for release of Rs 400 crore to pay contractors. But did he call up any ministry to complain that not a single dam had canals built for farmers?” Kejriwal asked .
Gadkari is now cultivating soya bean in the same land that the farmers had asked for and denied, says Kejriwal. The story did not end there. In 2008 farmers wrote to the local MLA and said that the law provided for return of excess land to farmers in cases of acquisition. On June 21, 2008 the one of the farmers Gajanan Ghadge was called by irrigation officials in the presence of officials from the company belonging to Gadkari. Gadge says he was threatened and he left the village fearing for his life. And when he returned, the land had been handed over to Gadkari, the activists said.
The revelations came to light in a month long investigation done by Anjali Damanya RTI activist and physician who has also joined Kejriwal's newly formed party.
Kejriwal questioned Gadkari's silence in the face of diversion of irrigation water for power plants and the allocation of 71 power plants in Vidarbha. The reason for this conspiracy of silence of the main opposition party he said was that Gadkari himself owned four of these plants, while other parties had their own share.
He said that all parties are an extended family and there was no point expecting either the ruling party or the opposition parties to take up any issue of the public.
He said that this was proved when Sharad Yadav of the JDU recently criticised IAC for its revelations on Vadra. We thought Vadra was Sonia Gandhi's son in law. But it turns out Vadra is every opposition party's son in law, he said.
Nitin Gadkari dismissed the allegations made by IAC as a conspiracy by the Congress to divide the Opposition space. ''It is a move to counter the anti Congress sentiment in the country,'' he said.
He further said he did not take that land for himself but for his NGO. As I have always maintained I am always ready for any probe, he said.
Asked whether businessmen should not be allowed to become politician, IAC member Prashant Bhushan told Business Standard that they can but there has to be transparency about their assets and dealings.
“In various parliamentary committees on subjects like aviation, we often have members who are also owning airline companies. So how fair can they be in ensuring public interest?” asked Bhushan.