Karnataka: Ugrappa Proposed trust vote with CM Siddaramaiah's nod

One can agree or disagree with him but no one can ignore V.S. Ugrappa,  senior Congress MLC and a close confidant of Chief Minister, Siddaramaiah. Ugrappa was in the news recently after he pioneered a no-confidence motion against Legislative Council chairman, D.H. Shankaramurthy which was defeated, leaving the ruling party red-faced. His friends jocularly say Ugrappa quotes the Constitution even while ordering food in a hotel. A lawyer, bred in the Deve Gowda school of politics, Ugrappa is a tough fighter too. He’s honest to the core and has landed in more controversies than one because of his penchant to take the opposition head-on. Last year, his campaign against Upa-Lokayukta Subhash Adi blew up in the government’s face. In an interview with Deccan Chronicle, Ugrappa explained that it was a collective decision to move the motion and not his own. Here are excerpts.

To begin with, what are the charges you levelled against the Council chairman?
It is strange that we do not have any forum to discuss the legislature secretariat’s illegal affairs- we can’t discuss these issues on the floor of the House. As per convention, the Council chairman or Assembly Speaker should preside over the proceedings and not supervise any work. Unfortunately, this gentleman (DH Shankaramurthy) got involved in work related matters  too. In the Upper House, rules are not being followed, protocol is frequently violated. Go and see his chamber. Till the other day, the CM’s photo was not there. Then we hear about benami transactions like awarding civil contracts. So I raised the issue including work on the Gandhi statue. 

You were with H.D. Deve Gowda for a long time. You know  his style of politics. How could you go wrong in assessing his moves during the vote on the no-confidence motion?
I know Mr Deve Gowda but his children are different. We never underestimated anyone. In this country, we have two ideologies, secular and non-secular or communal. The Congress represents the secular agenda. The regional parties generally prefer secular ideology. In this context, the JD (S) stands exposed. It is very clear now that they are closer to communal ideology. Till Thursday morning he (Mr Gowda) was in favour of the no-confidence motion. Remember this decision (to move the motion) was taken on May 28 in the presence of the KPCC president and the CM when the AICC general secretary was around. After we moved the motion, Dr Parameshwar met Mr Deve Gowda. Mr Kumaraswamy was not available. They claimed they would maintain equi-distance. We thought they would practise what they speak. But they failed. This proved that JD (S) is an opportunist party and not ideology-driven.  There is no confusion now on whether the JD (S) will join hands with Congress in the Cauvery heartland in the 2018 polls. It is clear they won’t.

You spoke about irregularities and corruption. If you had information, you could have petitioned the DPAR and PWD which could have held back bills and ordered a probe. Why did you not take that route?
 In the administrative hierarchy, the Council chairman comes above the CM. Those who take over such posts are statesmen, so they are generally not suspected. They should not indulge in such work. This is our convention. But such conventions are misused.

The Gandhi statue issue was discussed in the Upper House last year and the PWD minister has already given a reply. He did not mention any irregularities...
No opportunity was given to discuss the issue in detail.

We have a Congress government here. You could have convinced your government to inquire into the matter first, before taking the issue to the House?
We have a wrong notion that an inquiry should not be ordered against the chairman and Speaker. Who is involved here? Who has to conduct the inquiry when he (chairman) is higher than the CM as per protocol? Under such circumstance, people holding high offices should subject themselves to an independent scrutiny. That is the best way to come out clean. Let there be a probe, I will provide evidence. Don't assume that I do not have anything.

Many in the party felt Mr Ugrappa has brought disrepute to the party after the Congress lost in the trust vote. Senior leaders reportedly took you to task. Is it true?
(visibly upset) That’s wrong. I have not taken this decision alone. If I was the only one who took the decision, why would 36 legislators could come together to vote for the no-confidence motion? The party and the CM approved the idea of moving the motion. Has any MLA left us now after we lost it? Siddaramaiah was never angry with me, your reports are not right. This Ugrappa too has contributed to bring the Congress to power. Risking my life, I exposed illegal mining which was taken notice of by the Lokayukta resulting in Mr Yeddyurappa (former Chief Minister) going to jail. If Siddaramaiah had taken me to task after we lost the vote on the motion, I would have left the party. 

Perhaps, you had a big plan: once Shankaramurthy goes, the Congress can get the chairman’s post and you could even become chairman. 
Did I say anywhere that I was an aspirant for the chairman’s post? It’s very unfair to make such an assumption.

You fight against corruption and unethical practices is selective. There are doubts about several government programmes and decisions but you do not raise your voice. 
I cannot set right everything everywhere. I alone can’t fight the system. Within my limitations, I continue my fight. Do you know what I said in the recent Congress Legislature Party (CLP) meeting? I can’t keep on banging my head against the wall. If any  scam happens, it is the opposition’s duty to expose it. I can confidently say that this Congress government has given good governance. I do not indulge in making hit and run  allegations. Otherwise, I would not have gone to jail in my college days (during the Emergency). My honesty is non-negotiable. As a human being, I might have committed small errors, but I can say I have not indulged in blunders or brought disrepute to the party. You should not speak in such tones about a farmer’s son who does not have strong (political) backing.