Commentary/T V R Shenoy
The Congress is not a political party; it is a business house
No foreign contribution shall be accepted by any political
party or an officer of a political party.
-- Section 4 (i),
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act
That is clear enough, isn't it? Please understand that there is
no question of taking the proper routes and channels. It is a
blanket ban, period.
What is more, that legislation has been in existence for over 20
years. Which means that the Congress has no excuse whatsoever
for ignoring it.
Mark that I say the Congress, not Congressmen. A party can't
be condemned in toto merely because it has its standard issue of
crooks. If individual members of the Congress, or the Janata Dal,
or whatever indulge in transactions, it is their own problem
if they are caught.
But what if a party as a unit is caught braking the law? That
is precisely what the income tax authorities discovered when they
went through the returns filed by the Congress.
The party records revealed remittances from abroad worth several
crore rupees. The donors weren't named -- there was just the notation
'NRI' in the relevant column.
This is a grey area. Indian citizens domiciled outside the country
can't be called foreigners. So the ban on foreign donations may
not apply to them.
But NRI remittances must be channeled through the Reserve Bank
of India. As far as anyone knows there is no record that
the RBI gave the go-ahead to the Congress. Which means the party
broke the laws of the land whichever way you look at it.
Of course, the notation 'NRI' against the donor's name could
be a red-herring. To date, the banks in Hong Kong, Singapore,
and Dubai haven't indicated who actually sent the funds. For all
we know, it could be foreigners, not NRIs.
If so, Narasimha Rao (who accepted the bank drafts) and Sitaram Kesri
(who deposited the cash) were acting in the true traditions
of Indira Gandhi's Congress. I can recall at least two instances
where foreign funds were allegedly used by the party.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once the United States ambassador in Delhi, mentions two occasions
when the Central Intelligence Agency was the Congress paymaster.
The first was in 1959, when Indira (then Congress president)
engineered the downfall of the Communist ministry in Kerala. The
second was in 1969, when (by then prime minister) Indira Gandhi presided
over the split in the Congress.
One decade later it was the turn of another country. In 1980,
when Indira Gandhi returned to power, Libya welcomed
her through press advertisements. (This was non-alignment in action;
I can't imagine two greater foes than Gadaffi and the CIA!)
At the time I remember there were rumours that the Congress had
stashed its pre-1977 loot in friendly countries. Many believed
that Libya was one of these.
But no officer bothered to investigate. How could they with the
Congress back at the helm? Doing so would have been suicidal for
any ambitious officer in, say, the Enforcement Directorate.
But that isn't true now. Of course, the Gandhis aren't
in the jurisdiction of any earthly tribunal any longer. But her
successors are still around.
It is a matter of record that Narasimha Rao and Sitaram Kesri
accepted money from abroad at a time when the former was Congress president and the latter its treasurer. These funds were
used in the elections.
No democracy can possibly approve of such maneuvers. Both the
US president and the vice-president are in
trouble for taking foreign 'donations', and their party
has been forced to return the money. Do we think money would be
any less effective in India than in the wealthy US?
Narasimha Rao, it has been established, used
millions to bribe members of Parliament to keep the
Congress in power. Do you think he would hesitate
to use money to win votes?
Unfortunately, Rao has been indicted only for buying MPs. He,
and the Congress as a whole, are being allowed to get away on
the second count -- using funds from abroad to interfere in domestic
politics.
There is one final point. Nobody gives hard cash for nothing.
What price did the Congress agree to in exchange for the money?
Of course, the Congress may not be guilty as charged. The law
quoted above mentions 'political parties.' And it is
my firm belief that for a very long time now the Congress hasn't
been a political party, but a business corporation!
On the other hand, business houses too are expected to follow
certain rules and regulations. When you come right down to it,
the only difference between ITC and INC (Indian National Congress)
is a single letter!
Tell us what you think of this column
|