From Indias largest newsroom, I'm Arun George and this is the
Times of India podcast. It was nearly a month after the
Supreme Courts landmark verdict that data on electoral bonds was
made public. As of Saturday the 16th of
March, when we recorded this episode, we know who donated,
how much, who received and how much.
However, we don't know many of the donors.
Like we don't know which Yashoda superspeciality hospital chain
donated over 100 crore rupees because three prominent hospital
chains named Yashoda deny that they bought electoral bonds.
But there is greater detail coming.
The Supreme Court has insisted that the State Bank of India
share further details to allow correlation of who donated and
to which party. We also don't know how some of
the biggest donors to the electoral bond system managed to
do it given the amount they donated was more than what they
officially said they made as profit.
Since the data came out. There are many who claim this
revelation undoes their donors privacy.
Some say it will spark a return of unaccounted cash and
political funding. Despite the government resisting
every attempt at transparency on electoral bonds, Home Minister
Amit Shah refuted criticism and claimed credit for a system
where donor names are being revealed.
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitaraman also struck back at
analysis which showed many companies bought electoral bonds
soon after raids by the Income Tax or Enforcement Directorate.
Linking it with Ed, I think, is absolutely sitting and having a
cup of tea in the lounge and having a little merry chat.
However, the opposition says the data only shows the
institutional rot within India. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi
claimed the government is using all its institutions to run an
extortion racket. Political.
A petition in the case which resulted in the electoral bond
system being struck down is the Association for Democratic
Reforms, or ADR. Retired Major General Anil Verma
had featured in an earlier episode before the verdict to
layout what was at stake with electoral bonds.
We spoke with him again on Saturday, the 16th of March, to
understand how to decode the data that has been released so
far. We asked him what was the
biggest revelation for him so far, whether there is any
obvious illegality in the data that's out so far, and he also
suggested a potential alternative to OPEC political
funding systems. With regard to the electoral
bond data being released, is this the most data we've ever
had with regard to political funding?
No, I won't say so because you see political funding data we've
been analysing for the last so many years, Electoral bonds
scheme was a new thing which was introduced, but the earlier
systems of political funding were carrying on, you know,
direct donations through electoral trusts and all the
other systems which were there, cash or whatever.
But yes, the type of disclosure which has happened now, you
know, pertaining to of course the entire amount is still not
this thing. But still, out of the 16,500
crores worth donations through electoral bonds, 12,000 Some
crores details are at least available in the public domain,
thanks to the Supreme Court judgment.
So then, OK, with regards to the data itself that is out there, A
major question is, on the face of it, does the data reveal that
there have been illegalities that have taken place?
See for that Arun, it will require detailed investigation
by, you know, experts because the scheme was designed in such
a way that it's very difficult to.
And the way the data has come out, you know, SBI was literally
being kicked and pushed by the Supreme Court.
They were screaming and kicking also while giving it, but they
have given it. But there's a lot of confusion
still. You see, nobody from the State
Bank is there in the media or anywhere to give their except in
the court, whatever they have said.
The other part is the political party say we don't know who the
donors are. They've got the money in their
current account from the bonds, but they say we don't know who
the donors are. Now that the Supreme Court has
directed that the State Bank should also give out the unique
numbers, the hidden numbers, which are there.
Now The thing is, let's see, once that comes out, will we be
able to do the matching or the corresponding of the, you know,
who the donor was and who the party was to which it went?
We'll have to wait and watch as to how that thing develops, but
it'll be interesting to see how it goes.
Even with your question about the current data, you must have
seen so many people have got on the job and they had prepared
for it. The moment the data comes out,
we'll start doing the matching. So the matching which is being
done currently is in the forms of raids which were carried out
on these companies. They are checking the balance
sheets of these companies, those that are listed.
And by the way, there are not very many which are listed out
of the 300 odd, I believe just 2025 are listed companies where
you can find the detail. I mean I'm not saying that this
is true or false, but this is what is coming out in the media.
There is a company which has assets of 50 crores and it has
donated 90 crores electoral bond.
So these type of instances are coming out now to establish the
veracity and the correctness of this will require detailed
investigation. But it does point to some
serious misgivings in the way the funding has happened via the
electoral bonds. This then brings the question
also that if there is like not on the face of it, there's no
obvious corruption. But why should we know then who
donated and how much to a political party?
Because there is this argument that there should be privacy
about it. For this, Arun, I'll take you
back to the ADR landmark judgment of 2002, 2003.
That is how ADR started. Incidentally, we are in the 25th
year now, and this is the second landmark judgment which has come
about South. In the first one also, it was
the same issue about transparency and the voter's
right to know, because at that time there used to be no
affidavits. Our whole thing was that the
common man, the citizen, should know the antecedents and the
background of the candidates which the political parties are
fielding. Not that it has made much of a
difference. The criminality and muscle and
money power is on the rise after every election.
That's a different thing. But that says something about
our society and our voters and our political parties.
It's not a compliment to them. So what I'm saying is the court
had upheld that and all the political parties at that time,
22 of them, had got together to oppose it.
The government, again, it was an NDA government.
They passed an ordinance. President was Sushi Abdul Kalam.
First time he returned it, second time he had to sign it
and then again ADR went to the Supreme Court and finally the
Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional.
That ordinance and that is how this thing came in the public
domain. So there also and that judgment
still holds good. There also the Supreme Court
Constitution bench had said that the right to know is fundamental
to this thing. So your question relating to the
secrecy of the donors is not valid and this whole electoral
bond scheme was designed around this, that the donor's identity
should not be disclosed because of years of reprisals By 70
years system. How many reprisals have taken
place? Or even if they have, is it such
a thing that you introduce a scheme which is more opaque?
Or you call it transparent but it is more opaque than the
previous system? With the data that has been
released so far, and we are still waiting for that
alphanumeric code which will allow the matching.
But what for you is the most significant finding so far?
Our whole thrust of the application which we had given
was that the common man, the citizen, the voter has a right
to know under that article of the Constitution, you know, and
that is what has been upheld. See first is the background
details of the candidate, the common man.
The voter should know. Similarly, where is the funding
coming from? The voter should know now with
such a interest which has been created around this, at least
people will know what type of funding is going on.
I mean if lottery kings are donating 1100 or 1200 or 1300
crores out of 16500 crores and they are loss making companies
which are so. So it puts a big question mark
on the political funding system of our political parties, right.
So do we want to continue in this?
On one hand we say we are against corruption, we want to
root out black money, we want to reduce the use of cash and all
that. But on the other side, under the
table you are doing all these. So I mean, isn't there a need
for improvement in the whole system, more transparency, more
checks and balances, more disclosures, more regulation by
some, you know, I would say independent bodies?
One thing you pointed out is the corporate governance issues that
this data already raises. What is it that you're hoping to
see in the coming days with the data getting more granular in
terms of what we can tell from it?
We are hoping that as the Supreme Court said also that
this scheme is scrapped. Now it is for you people to come
up with a better scheme, which is less so.
System has to be evolved in a like I mentioned various things,
accountability, transparency, checks and balances, disclosure.
You know all these things have to be monitored by somebody.
You can't pay lip service to this.
OK, we are the 4th, 5th largest economy in the world, but we are
spending more than the US elections of 2019.
When we spend in our general elections, look at the size of
their economy and our economy. We say we are 140 crores people.
We have huge number of voters. So that is why we need more
money. Agreed.
No political party can function without funding.
No elections can be conducted without funding, without
expenditure. Agreed.
But there has to be some sort of a limit.
Now there is no limit on the political party's expenditure.
They can spend any amount. There is a limit on the
candidate expenditure, but we all know that it is more often
breached than followed because in the expenditure reports which
they submit after the elections, nobody spends more than 60 to
65% of the limit laid down, whereas on ground we all know it
is 10/20/50 times more than what is shown in the report.
So there is this type of duplicity, hypocrisy and double
standards which are being followed and everybody's wink,
wink, OK, then you take the question of freebies, OK, cash
is given, kind they are giving or everything is giving.
Supreme Court judgments are there which declares it illegal.
So I mean there is a mismatch between, you know, on one hand
you say the law will take its course, we follow the law, but
who's following the law? And then you come to the
question of seizures. The Election Commission staff,
if you see the last assembly elections of 2023, the seizures
went up by four to seven times in certain states.
And this is the tip of the iceberg.
We all know that, isn't it? I mean the actual amount which
goes around drugs, cash, liquor and what have you, it is
horrendous. I would say, you know, one is
election Commission has to be more proactive and the, you
know, the law enforcement authorities, unfortunately, they
also get swayed by the political party which is in power.
They do not do their job as they're supposed to do.
If everybody was to do their job, as they are supposed to do,
a lot of things could be sorted out on their own.
One thing that ever since the Supreme Court judgment has come
out that political parties and many others would argue is that,
oh, the death of the electoral bonds would mean that.
Political parties will. Fall back to black money, they
will. Just.
Take unaccounted for cash, which will then flow into the system
anyway. What is your view on that?
See, my thing is it never stopped.
There were still raids being done on various people and you
saw mountains of cash still being found, counting machines
being deployed for days to count.
This logic, which the Solicitor General gave in the hearings in
the Supreme Court in October, November, have been demolished
by the Supreme Court, they said. Where is the proof that the cash
and the black money has reduced? You are saying it has reduced
because of the electoral bonds. It hasn't.
That is why I've said there has to be a limit on the
expenditure. There have to be control on the
expenditure. Why do we need so much money and
cash and this thing, and we say kid naying, this is the done
thing, black money, hoga badega. Cash will increase.
Why should it? It requires A concerted efforts
on the part of the political parties and various other
organizations, the constitutional organizations and
the civil society and the voters to ensure that this thing is
sorted out. So then people say OK then what
is the solution? Do you stop corporate funding
like even in this data which has come out 93% of the funding is
from corporates. Do you want your democracy to be
run in such a fashion that the money is applied to the this
thing crony capitalism goes on and good for Pro is there and
whoever gives money, their projects are signed and deal is
done. Is that the way democracy should
function or should it be a, you know, participatory direct
interaction with the voters and with people?
And then what do they want? Do those things improve the
governance? So the ultimate thing comes as
to how should the funding be done.
Now one of the suggestions which is quite popular but which
unfortunately nobody does, I think even in the Law Commission
report, 155th Law Commission report, it was recommended that
a fund could be set up. Now this fund could be either
managed by the Election Commission of India or they
could have a member in it and there could be an independent
body which could, you know this thing and let people donate into
that fund. People meaning individuals,
corporates, firms, whoever, Indians, not foreigners.
Those are details which can be worked out.
You know which party get. Because one of the main
allegations in this was also the unequal playing field.
We said it doesn't matter whether center Oregon states it
is whichever party was in power they were benefiting from the
electoral bond scheme. It is evident you have seen now
TMC and BJD and so on and so forth.
So why do the corporates give to them?
For the simple reason that they expect something in return.
I mean, there's no, there's not rocket science.
So if you have a system where there is a particular fund and
then you workout a way, OK, depending on the vote share of
that party or whatever way, and then you distribute that money
to the political parties. But then the direct funding
system has to stop. If you introduce a fund, you
can't have, you know, like my cake, I'll eat.
And you know, this thing also. Yeah, both ways.
This is also one thing that many donors have questioned and again
this is on social media, so we don't know if the actual donors,
but then why their identity should be revealed if they have
made political donations and then per SE making a political
donation isn't an illegal act, what would you say to that?
It is not an illegal act. But then why do they want to
hide their identity? It is because the pathetic state
of our political system where a donor feels afraid of reprisals
by the other people. But like I said 70 years earlier
also this system had been carrying on.
So why should a person, you know, feel afraid of any
reprisals? It is more to do with the quid
pro quo and this thing, you know, wherein they want to hide
that. And by the way, I mean my
experience last 10 years, I have seen all the major donors.
They donate to the major parties.
They may give a little extra to somebody, but by and large they
keep everybody happy because you never know tomorrow who will
come into power. Today's episode was produced by
Jayaraj Singh and Sahil Gupta. For a daily spotlight on people,
ideas, and stories that matter, subscribe to us.
We're available on TOI Plus, Spotify, Apple, Google Podcast,
and all other platforms of your choice.
For any new steps, e-mail us at TOI Podcast at Timesinternet dot
in.