The Aryavarth Express
Agency (New Delhi): In a hard-hitting discussion on the controversial electoral bonds scheme, Dr. Subramanian Swamy minced no words in labeling it as the “most sinister” scam he has witnessed, one that is “actually destroying the system.” Swamy was part of a high-powered panel assembled by Virat Hindustan Sangam, a prominent Hindu nationalist group, to dissect the fallout of the Supreme Court’s scathing judgment on the opaque political funding mechanism.
Moderating the discussion, Jagadish Shetty set the tone by accusing the court and petitioners of obstructing Prime Minister Modi’s ostensible plan to fulfill his promise of transferring Rs 15 lakh to every citizen—not directly, but through the coffers of political parties who would then “distribute it during elections.” His tongue-in-cheek remarks drew a volley of rebuttals from the panelists.
J Gopikrishnan, a veteran journalist , wasted no time in dismantling the rationale offered for electoral bonds. “The government wanted anonymity for donors who felt awkward revealing their contributions. But why this secrecy when laws already allowed anonymous donations below Rs 20,000?” he questioned, asserting that major corporations had previously used trusts and electoral trusts to fund parties without transparency issues.
Swamy echoed Gopikrishnan’s skepticism, condemning the scheme as an “enormous fraud committed on the nation.” He lamented that while the judiciary has done a “great job” in scrutinizing the matter, the onus now falls on citizens to identify the principal culprits and hold them accountable through legal avenues, much like the approach adopted during the 2G and other scams.
Chartered accountant Swaminathan, providing a comprehensive analysis, exposed how the scheme was likely designed to circumvent constitutional checks. “The government is competent enough to illegally design laws and challenge litigants to approach the Supreme Court,” he remarked, referring to the scheme’s introduction as a money bill—a move the apex court has reserved for another bench.
Highlighting concerns raised by the RBI and Election Commission, which the government disregarded, Swaminathan revealed how the bonds could be misused for money laundering and foreign interference in India’s electoral process. “The entire trail of real donors is completely erased,” he warned.
The panelists also trained their sights on the State Bank of India (SBI), accusing it of selectively withholding crucial details like bond numbers and purchaser information from the court, prompting the judges to demand a comprehensive affidavit affirming full disclosure.
As the discussion delved deeper, startling revelations emerged about the identities of major donors. Topping the list was a lottery operator, Santiago Martin of the Martin Group of Companies, which contributed a staggering Rs 1,300 crore despite reporting profits of merely Rs 200 crore. “Where did this money come from? This is not a business,” Arvind Chaturvedi, a panelist, questioned suspiciously.
Swamy ominously hinted that the revelations thus far might be the tip of the iceberg. “Those who gave the money, they have been rewarded. That part has not yet fully come out. And once it comes out, then you will know what a racket it is,” he warned, alluding to the possibility of blacklisted entities securing lucrative government projects as quid pro quo.
The panel unanimously condemned the exclusion of corporate heavyweights like Tata, Reliance, and Adani from the donor list, despite their perceived proximity to the ruling dispensation. Gopikrishnan sarcastically remarked, “Ratan Tata is the highest payer of this thing, and now in this electoral fund, Mukesh Ambani’s company’s name is also not there.”
As the discussion reached its crescendo, Swamy advocated a two-pronged strategy: allowing the Supreme Court to complete its proceedings and then filing a PIL or securing a court-monitored SIT probe, akin to the approach adopted in the 2G case.
Jagadish Shetty echoed this sentiment, urging Swamy to lead the charge in initiating legal proceedings, drawing upon his extensive experience in pursuing high-profile corruption cases. “Unless some people show the way, this will keep on going, and public memory becomes too short,” Shetty cautioned.
Throughout the riveting discussion, one theme resonated loudly: the perceived intent behind the electoral bonds scheme was to consolidate the corporate-political nexus while ostensibly curbing black money in elections. As Swaminathan bluntly put it, “The huge corporate contributions channelized to electoral bonds are clearly not acts of philanthropy nor corporate social responsibility. The scheme constituted a major conduit for consolidating and reinforcing the corporate nexus with the ruling dispensation.”
In his concluding remarks, Swamy vowed to identify and prosecute the principal architects of the scheme, once the full extent of its ramifications is unearthed. “A lot of people who are blacklisted have got projects from the government. How is that possible? So, all these have to be clarified,” he asserted, foreshadowing a protracted legal battle ahead.
As the nation gears up for a high-stakes general election, the Virat Hindustan Sangam’s discussion has undoubtedly added fuel to the raging controversy surrounding electoral bonds. With prominent voices like Swamy’s leading the charge, the demand for accountability and transparency in political funding is likely to intensify, potentially shaping the contours of India’s democratic discourse in the months to come.
