It is difficult to decide which is worse for a democracy: lack of information or misinformation. That is what the effort is likely to be in the next few days as everyone tries to make sense of the information (not data) that State Bank of India reluctantly revealed. That it could do so in a few hours notwithstanding a few months that it asked for, deserves to be understood in the context of its capability versus its ability. Or was it simply lack of “comprehension” of a straightforward order as it disingenuously pleaded? I would presume that this pioneering and premier institution of the country is competent enough to provide whatever information is sought by the Court in public interest even if we might never know if there was an invisible force holding it back.
So, what are the people to make of the information that has turned everyone into serious, not necessarily sincere, sleuths? Does the knowledge that the sun rises in the east automatically enable you to harness solar energy? While the nation may justifiably “want to know” the entire plot of this episodic serial, sleuths are trying to connect the pieces that can unravel the unvarnished truth. Krishna Behari Noor, the Urdu poet sums it up well when he says “सच घटे या बढ़े तो सच ना रहे, झूठ की कोई इँतहा ही नहीं” (Truth ceases to be if anything is added/subtracted, whereas falsehood has no limits).
Who donated to whom
What we have in store for those trying to delve deep into the morass of the Electoral Bonds (EB) is a multi-layered excavation. While all the excitement is centred around who donated to whom, we need to focus on different levels of inquiry so that we can see various folds of this reality.
First, people have a right to know if the companies that purchased the bonds were in profit. A scrutiny of their accounts would reveal how far their ability to donate is consistent with their financial performance. Does it augur well for the companies and their investors, including lenders, if the companies made political contributions despite being in losses? Would it mean that the amendment removing the provision pertaining to profitability and the limit of corporate donations was done without realising its implications for the right of lenders to exercise oversight over the borrowers’ business? Keeping shareholders in the dark robs them of their right to know if their money is being used for purposes not related to the core business of the enterprise. It vitiates the canons of corporate governance and amounts to cheating and misappropriation of shareholder wealth.
Second, those in the business of data analysis must find out whether the EB donors as revealed in the list, have made contributions to political parties before this ingenious instrument was invented. That will show whether these donors have been committed to the cause of democracy always or it was the secrecy of this arrangement that converted them into overnight champions of democracy, including seducing shell companies in the game.
We then come to the issue of matching the data of the purchasers and the recipients to establish a link between the two. Whether the SC’s original order covered the disclosure of the ‘invisible’ number on the bond will be known when the matter is heard. SBI can surely make the exercise relatively easy by throwing light on that number.
That link then leads to the tricky question of quid pro quo because the provision of non-disclosure has already created a convenient legal alibi of ignorance for the recipients. A political party could well argue that they were not aware who the donor was because their identity was not disclosed in the instrument. This would be the Chinese wall between donations and favours that will be challenging to scale though but not impossible. Those who think that it is only the central agencies that flexed their strong arm, may be undermining the coercive power of state agencies. The ruling dispensation, wherever it might be, is capable of exercising power to corrupt itself. We are a nation that have not taken kindly to political corruption even in unproven cases in the past, and people have a right to know whether the bonds in anyway were used to promote corruption in public life.
While investigative media persons and civil society organisations try to dig deep, there are fundamental, long-term issues of political funding that should also engage the attention of all stakeholders.
Two principal stakeholders would be engaging with each other in a few days from now in the general elections. The voters who are the principal stakeholders in a democracy will have to understand how critical the issue of malpractices in political funding is. The political parties being the other stakeholder must also be evaluated on the basis of the priority they accord to electoral reforms, including concrete measures regarding political funding, in their election manifestos. The track record of all political parties so far has been fairly dismal on this count.
Also read: ‘One Nation, One Election’ was the past, can be the future. Kovind panel shows the benefits
The Fund
The setting up of a National Election Fund is a suggestion that needs serious consideration but can the Fund by itself eliminate or minimize the use of black money in elections? What happens to the contributions that have already enriched some parties disproportionately? Will the allocation from the suggested Fund on the basis of votes polled continue to favour the winner by handing them more resources, making the field uneven for the losers? How will the losers find the resources to match the financial muscle of the winner, if political parties are barred from receiving any kind of donation? Would it not be fair to the taxpayers if donations are allowed but tax exemptions are removed in case a National Election Fund is established? These are questions that need an open and well-informed debate.
Political parties have been consistent in their opposition to transparency as they demonstrated in their united opposition to attempts of bringing them in the ambit of the Right to Information Act. The problem with electoral reforms will continue to be that everyone knows ‘what’ should be done but nobody knows ‘who’ will do it.
The author is former Election Commissioner. Views are personal.