Commentary/T V R Shenoy

The Congress is not a political party; it is a business house

No foreign contribution shall be accepted by any political party or an officer of a political party. -- Section 4 (i), Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act

That is clear enough, isn't it? Please understand that there is no question of taking the proper routes and channels. It is a blanket ban, period.

What is more, that legislation has been in existence for over 20 years. Which means that the Congress has no excuse whatsoever for ignoring it.

Mark that I say the Congress, not Congressmen. A party can't be condemned in toto merely because it has its standard issue of crooks. If individual members of the Congress, or the Janata Dal, or whatever indulge in transactions, it is their own problem if they are caught.

But what if a party as a unit is caught braking the law? That is precisely what the income tax authorities discovered when they went through the returns filed by the Congress.

The party records revealed remittances from abroad worth several crore rupees. The donors weren't named -- there was just the notation 'NRI' in the relevant column.

This is a grey area. Indian citizens domiciled outside the country can't be called foreigners. So the ban on foreign donations may not apply to them.

But NRI remittances must be channeled through the Reserve Bank of India. As far as anyone knows there is no record that the RBI gave the go-ahead to the Congress. Which means the party broke the laws of the land whichever way you look at it.

Of course, the notation 'NRI' against the donor's name could be a red-herring. To date, the banks in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Dubai haven't indicated who actually sent the funds. For all we know, it could be foreigners, not NRIs.

If so, Narasimha Rao (who accepted the bank drafts) and Sitaram Kesri (who deposited the cash) were acting in the true traditions of Indira Gandhi's Congress. I can recall at least two instances where foreign funds were allegedly used by the party.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once the United States ambassador in Delhi, mentions two occasions when the Central Intelligence Agency was the Congress paymaster. The first was in 1959, when Indira (then Congress president) engineered the downfall of the Communist ministry in Kerala. The second was in 1969, when (by then prime minister) Indira Gandhi presided over the split in the Congress.

One decade later it was the turn of another country. In 1980, when Indira Gandhi returned to power, Libya welcomed her through press advertisements. (This was non-alignment in action; I can't imagine two greater foes than Gadaffi and the CIA!)

At the time I remember there were rumours that the Congress had stashed its pre-1977 loot in friendly countries. Many believed that Libya was one of these.

But no officer bothered to investigate. How could they with the Congress back at the helm? Doing so would have been suicidal for any ambitious officer in, say, the Enforcement Directorate.

But that isn't true now. Of course, the Gandhis aren't in the jurisdiction of any earthly tribunal any longer. But her successors are still around.

It is a matter of record that Narasimha Rao and Sitaram Kesri accepted money from abroad at a time when the former was Congress president and the latter its treasurer. These funds were used in the elections.

No democracy can possibly approve of such maneuvers. Both the US president and the vice-president are in trouble for taking foreign 'donations', and their party has been forced to return the money. Do we think money would be any less effective in India than in the wealthy US?

Narasimha Rao, it has been established, used millions to bribe members of Parliament to keep the Congress in power. Do you think he would hesitate to use money to win votes?

Unfortunately, Rao has been indicted only for buying MPs. He, and the Congress as a whole, are being allowed to get away on the second count -- using funds from abroad to interfere in domestic politics.

There is one final point. Nobody gives hard cash for nothing. What price did the Congress agree to in exchange for the money?

Of course, the Congress may not be guilty as charged. The law quoted above mentions 'political parties.' And it is my firm belief that for a very long time now the Congress hasn't been a political party, but a business corporation!

On the other hand, business houses too are expected to follow certain rules and regulations. When you come right down to it, the only difference between ITC and INC (Indian National Congress) is a single letter!

Tell us what you think of this column