In his report to Gandhi, while offering his resignation, Ramachandran is learnt to have asserted that “the entire blame” can’t be put at his door since as PCC chief he had “limited functional role” in view of the dominance of “two groups” in the state Congress and also given AICC teams have been managing various aspects of the election, it is learnt.
Ramachandran, a seven-term Lok Sabha MP, took objection to how a mere email was sent to him, asking him to “log in” and appear before the AICC’s poll debacle probe team led by Ashok Chavan.
When Chavan subsequently telephoned Ramachandran, he told the former that a PCC chief is not a subordinate and explained the established procedures in an AICC team’s engagements with a PCC chief, ET has learnt. While his report to Gandhi – with copies to Rahul Gandhi, A K Antony, and AICC general secretaries K C Venugopal and Tariq Anwar – is learnt to have thanked the Gandhis for their support and cooperation since his 2018 appointment, Ramachandran also conveyed some bitter truths.
He reportedly said his functional space as PCC chief has been severely limited between the two dominating groups – led by Oommen Chandy and Ramesh Chennithala – that controlled the party from PCC down to booth committees, therefore, making him dependent on consensus for making decisions and appointments even while working to reinforce party organisation.
Besides the two groups, some “other so-called senior leaders” too were on their own trips, the report said. Yet, he chose to slog and struggle rather than becoming a “deserter PCC chief”.
Referring to AICC managing many election and campaign affairs, Ramachandran’s report said AICC appointed the Chandy-led election strategy management committee comprising of some senior state and AICC leaders, but the PCC chief was not even made a coordinator but a mere member.