Political-Business Nexus
By Shivaji Sarkar
India is going through myriad paths. Seven decades ago, Delhi was made the country’s capital to keep the Bombay Club far from politics. Now its shadow is being seen in the corridors of power in Delhi. In such times,sweeping and counter accusations become integral part of the political discourse.
And it’s not restricted just to a few business houses but goesfar beyond. It appears governments short of funds and political parties’ lure for it, happily woo the industry. On the other hand, the industry needs the government even beyond the licence permit raj for smooth functioning of their business. One such case is the recent questioning of TMC MP Mahua Moitra by the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee which involves two major business houses Hiranandani and Adani and she is hitting back. The other cases include the Rs 8000 crore corporate electoral bonds (EB) and Singur in West Bengal.
Singur’s land arbitration award of Rs 766 crore to Tata Motors is curious. Whether it’s faulted or not is for the courts to decide. More so as it’s glaringly contrary to the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision calling the acquisition “illegal and void”. While declaring so the top court said the acquisition failed to meet “requirements under the Land Acquisition Act 1894”.If that is the case, how could a tribunal order compensation on illegal acquisition?
Recall, the Singur plant for producing the Nano car was closed in 2008 following protestsagainst the then Left Government headed by Buddhadeb Bhattacharya. The small car was the gigantic gain of Trinamool Congress, wiping out a ‘pro-capitalist’ CPM. It was also the landmark moment of industry houses gradually getting involved in the “politics of growth” aggressively and setting in the mindset of selling robust public sector units.
Big business houses always had some links with the powers-that-be. Even in 1950s and 1960s it was alleged that several MPs from different parties were on the rolls of industry houses and asked questions on their behalf. This has continued, but names of business houses and MPs have changed. And it was no secret but saying so officially was taboo. Many of the honchos had access to even different prime ministers and it wasn’t hush-hush, but never so blatant either. Mundhra to Mehtas, it has been so.
Moitra boldly dared her detractors by countering a vicious attack and even walking out of the Ethics Committee meeting accusing it of asking “personal questions” amounting to”vastraharan” (disrobing). She even argued that no House rule barred her from sharing a site’s password and it wasn’t her email. Ethics Committee Chairman Vinod Sonkar shot back saying she behaved in an angry, rude and arrogant manner.
Neither it is the issue here nor is it to justify it. Moitra has asked 51questions on Adani group and BJP’s Nishikant Dube alleges she got cash in return. Moitra says asking questions is her right, as the society must question. That’s right. The industry houses roaming the corridors of power trample on the rights of the voters. The people’s quandary is how could their right be compromised for someone enjoying proximity and enjoying power?
Parallely, the issue of electoral bonds (EB) being discussed in Supreme Court also speaks volumes. The court is asking searching questions about the “only person being deprived knowledge — the voter”. The bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud asked Attorney General R Venkataraman, “As it is everybody knows it (who EB donors are). The only person who is being deprived is the voter. The party knows it, your contention that voters don’t have the right to know is slightly difficult”.
The bench then observed that a company making losses also could donate gives credence to shell companies being used by big corporations to make donations to political parties. “This (EBs) should not become a legitimisation of the quid pro quo”. It also observed that this system puts a premium on opacity. “It has to be removed”, the bench said.
This is critical. Asking searching questions, Moitrabeing tried to be fixed by the Ethics Committee and the Singur arbitration must be studied in this context. The top court’s observations are to restore a system that defies transparency. Moitra being framed for asking questions also involves the issue of transparency. It is obvious the country has moved far beyond the “decency and coyness” of the powerful seeking some favours, now trying to capture the portals of power. For what? Obviously for profits and more. Has the court sensed it?
Let us go from Singur to Saanand. Once Singur was denied to Tata Motors, it was given 1100 acres land at Saanand for the Nano project. After a few years, Nano was abandoned. The Rs 400 crore land remains with the Tatas. It also purchases a Ford unit at Saanand for Rs 725.7 crore. The Nano land also has appreciated by almost 20 percent.
The CPM realised Rs 400 crore for Singur land from Tata Motors. In 2011, the West Bengal government under Mamata Banerjee re-acquired the land. In 2016, Supreme Court declared entire acquisition null and void. How could the West Bengal arbitration awards Rs 766 crores plus 11 percent interest on it?
There may be many more such situations. Is this the reason that public sector organisations are being shut down and weakened? If private entities become so powerful as to decide policies everywhere, it does not bode well for the country.
It’s not only happening in India but even in the US. But America has ‘anti-trust’ — anti-monopoly – laws. Despite that the US society is concerned over their growing clout. The US levied penalty of $170 million on Google You Tube for flouting children’s privacy issues, $722 million on Alstom, $115 million State Street Corporation, $2.1 billion on Johnson and Johnson for talc powder causing ovarian cancer, $125000 on lobbying firm Carmen.
India has on the other hand done away with the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act. The Competition law is too weak. The increasing nexus between political parties and companies is undoubtedly a matter of great concern. While questioning itself is being curbed through various means, it is crucial for society to address and navigate the complexities arising from the growing nexus with companies.
Interference with transparency, ethical practices, and accountability not only jeopardises the foundation of a more equitable future and a functioning democracy but also undermines the trust that citizens place in their institutions, highlighting the urgent need for vigilant oversight and robust reforms to safeguard the integrity of our democratic processes. It can even convolute the process of growth. — INFA