Electoral Bonds Timing
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
The State Bank of India has wittingly or unwittingly come to the aid of the Modi government. The much-awaited exposure on who the donors were to the electoral bonds worth Rs 35,660 crore unfortunately will not be known till after the big battle of elections 2024. This as the SBI on Monday last petitioned the Supreme Court to extend the deadline for submitting the details on the purchase of these bonds to the Election Commission of India by June 30, instead of March 6 as directed following the landmark judgement striking down the bond scheme.
Importantly, the Opposition will not have authentic ammunition, details of the donors which were to go on the ECI website by March 13, to flog its charges against the government of being pro-rich, during the ensuing polls. Some reactions to the SBI plea are worth a mention. The Congress said, “Narendra Modi is leaving no stone unturned to hide the business of donations. When the Supreme Court said it is the right of the people of the country to know the truth about the electoral bonds, then why does SBI not want this information to be made public before the elections?” The CPM said, “This would be a travesty of justice. Is the SBI seeking extension till the general elections are over to protect Modi and the BJP from exposure of the ‘quid pro quo’ that the Supreme Court apprehended. In this digital age, all this information is a mouse-click away. Seeking extension raises suspicious apprehensions.”
Interestingly, in its plea to the top court the SBI said that while it ‘intends to comply with the directions issued, there are certain practical difficulties with the decoding exercise…due to stringent measures undertaken to ensure that the identity of the donors was kept anonymous…’
Indeed, the timing of the exposé would have played a significant role in these crucial elections and the delay tilts the balance in favour of the government.
It’s no denying that money power in polls has put a big question mark on the country’s reputation of a vibrant democracy. The availability of vast financial resources, mainly to the ruling dispensation, obviously gives their candidates an unfair advantage over others, leading to an uneven playing field where those with more money dominate the political arena.
The verdict of the 5-bench constitutional had referred to how large, anonymous donations by the rich to the ruling party can lead to “quid pro quo” in the form of influence over policy making and thus sought details – amount, date, donor and recipient – relating to every electoral bond purchased and cashed over the past six years, since April 2019.
It was rightly felt that electoral bonds far from curbing black money and preventing money laundering has steeply increased the income of political parties from ‘unknown sources’ to a staggering Rs 11,829 crore during the years 2018-19 to 2021-22. The share of income from unknown sources for national parties rose from 66% during 2014-15 to 2016-17 to 72% during the years 2018-19 to 2021-22. Between 2019-20 and 2021, the bond income has been 81% of the total unknown income of national parties.
Close on the heels of this development, the Congress wrote to Union Finance Minister Sitharaman citing information available on ECI website, furnished by the BJP itself, which showed how 30 companies hounded by the CBI, IT and ED paid Rs 335 crore to the ruling party in what looks like a quid pro quo. Reports, it said, “suggest that 30 companies embroiled in the net of central agencies which have become extortion agents paid Rs 335 crore donations to the BJP”. The above letter referred to reports that chronicle instances wherein the probe agencies arrested, searched or seized assets of certain companies and later were apparently coerced to donate to the BJP.
According to the Association for Democratic Reforms, the total funds raised by political parties through electoral bonds between 2017-18 and 2022-23 was around Rs 12,000 crore out of which the BJP’s share was as high as 54.8%. Even if this is considered white money, the party has raised much more money for its expenses, which also includes ‘buying’ legislators and political leaders.
According to Prof. Atul Sood of the Centre for the Study of Regional Development, JNU, multinational companies were involved in tax abuse to the tune of Rs 75,000 crore per annum.
The pro-corporate ruling party has thus allowed tax concessions of around Rs 1 lakh crore every year to Indian domestic corporate houses but most of these were not increasing their investments.
Recall that the court verdict pointed out: “Economic inequality leads to differing levels of political engagement because of the deep association between money and politics. At a primary level, political contributions give ‘a seat in the table’ to the contributor”. It had rightly rejected the Centre’s argument that by ensuring anonymity, the scheme not only disincentivised money-laundering and the stashing of black money but granted immunity to the donor from victimisation by parties to which he did not make sufficient donations.
According to available figures 47% of contributions to parties have been through bonds and 94% of these have been in the denomination of Rs 1 crore. Electoral bonds obviously created a genre of corporate kingmakers, who would have a big say in policy making with an additional incentive of anonymity.
While the Supreme Court analysed the issue with specific focus on the right to information of citizens to the identity of the donor, which in turn would impact his/her choice of voting, of greater significance is that the judgment has strengthened the constitutional ideal of free and fair elections. Anonymous and exponential funding with no cap is possible only by corporate giants, who could claim illegitimate entry into governance. That money so obtained in donation can be used by political parties for any purpose and not necessarily for election expenditure, makes it not only unjust but also unjustifiable. Will the striking down of the electoral bond scheme make a big difference? Fear is another ingenious scheme would replace it and role of money power, not only in elections but governance itself would remain.
Whether the country’s political leadership is at all interested in strengthening laws related to campaign, finance and enforcing transparency in political funding will need to be watched. Bolstering independence of institutions like the Election Commission and law enforcement agencies, under question, can be a step towards ensuring what is sought: free and fair elections.
Addressing such challenges requires a collective effort from citizens, political parties, and the government. Transparency, accountability, and a culture of ethical politics is the need of the hour. It remains to be seen whether India can safeguard its democratic principles in the coming years and halt the political leadership’s schemes to undermine the republic. As said, if there’s a will, there’s a way. — INFA