By Swapan Dasgupta
If the old Chinese saying about the finger pointing
to the moon and the idiot pointing to the finger ever needed validation, it was
provided by the Indian political class, cutting across parties.
Last Thursday, the Janata Party president
Subramanian Swamy held a press conference about certain curious developments
involving the Congress Party, the Associated Journals Limited which once
published the now-defunct National Herald, and a newly-formed not-for-profit
company Young Indians controlled by members of the Gandhi family. Swamy
levelled potentially serious allegations of illegality against all three
entities. A functionary in Rahul Gandhi’s ‘office’ dismissed the charges as
bogus and threatened Swamy with legal action (presumably defamation) if he
persisted with his campaign.
As if on cue, various Congress leaders sprang out of
the woodwork and questioned Swamy’s motives and credentials. On TV, I heard
Information and Broadcasting Minister Manish Tiwari suggest that Swamy expend
his energies looking at the businesses of BJP President Nitin Gadkari who, by
the way, has been alleging a media conspiracy to discredit him and his Purti
group.
For the sake of argument let us assume that Swamy is
a dodgy politician who in the past has hurled many charges against Sonia
Gandhi. Certainly, there are grounds to believe that Swamy has cried ‘wolf’ on
too many occasions in the past. This probably explains why there was initially
a hesitation both among the media and the political class to take his claims
seriously.
At the same time, Swamy has not been a consistent
maverick. His Janata Party may well be just a letterhead but there is also no
denying that it was his tenacity plus a great deal of relentless excavation of
facts that led to the 2-G scandal getting the attention of the Supreme Court.
Swamy has indeed miscued at times but there is no reason to believe that he has
lost the right to make a serious intervention. And his intervention last Friday
was indeed very serious.
It was grave enough for two things to happen. First,
after a show of bravado in the late hours of Thursday, Rahul Gandhi’s so-called
office quietly dropped all suggestions of slapping Swamy with a defamation
case. Presumably, someone had alerted the boy scouts of the serious dangers of
all three Gandhi shareholders of Young Indian, not to mention Motilal Vora and
Sam Pitroda, being dragged before some Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court and
subjected to insolent questioning under oath. On Friday, at the AICC briefing,
party spokesman P.C. Chacko said that “If Swamy has the guts he should sue
Rahul and Sonia Gandhi”.
Secondly, again presumably on legal advice, the AICC
General Secretary Janardhan Dwivedi was compelled to admit that it had indeed
given an interest-free loan of Rs 90 crore to Associated Journals Ltd. According
to the report in Hindu, Associated
Journals, he added, was “a companion organisation of the Congress, and it is
the party’s duty to revive the institution and the newspapers under it.”
It is best left to the Election Commission and the
judiciary to determine the legal status of a “companion organisation” and to
assess the validity of the AICC claim that the Representation of People Act has
“strict accounting rules about inflows but there is nothing on how you spend
it.” But the Congress’ interpretation of statutes opens up fascinating
possibilities.
Does it, for example, mean that it would be
perfectly in order for the BJP to show an equal measure of generosity towards
the “social entrepreneurship” ventures of its beleaguered President?
Alternatively, will the Congress nod in approval if the BJP decided to bankroll
RSS initiatives like the Vanvasi Kalyan ashrams and the Saraswati Shishu
Mandirs? In value terms these bodies could well qualify as “companion
organisations”.
Dwivedi has suggested that there is no bar on
political parties spending their income in any manner they deem fit. The AICC
once chose to loan—it seems more like a donation—Rs 90 crore to the publishers
of National Herald. What prevents it from extending generous loans of varying
sums to other media organisations that choose to apply for “companion” status?
The EC has been expending its energies trying to put an end to the menace of
‘paid news’ during elections. They needn’t worry any longer. The AICC has come
up with a perfect way out, which it claims is not only legal but operates by
appointment to the owners of the Congress Party.
Why restrict the potential benefits to the media?
The AICC-Associated Journal-Young Indian precedent has shown the way for anyone
with a measure of dirty money to whitewash it. The method is simple: pay the
cash to a political party and, by arrangement, ensure the party extends a
zero-interest loan (which can subsequently be written off) to a nominated
individual or company. It is so simple that I don’t know why politicians bother
with shell companies and fictitious addresses.
Sunday Pioneer, November 4, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment