CAMPAIGN FOR ELECTORAL REFORMS
Advaniji’s quest for electoral reforms.
“Electoral reforms had been my favourite subject of study since the mid-sixties. Like many other democracy-loving political activists in the country, I was concerned over two major ills plaguing India’s electoral system: defection and the growing influence of money power. In my very first speech in the Metropolitan Council after becoming its Chairman in 1967, I had observed: ‘Defections are polluting the political life of India. Therefore, there should be a ban on defections.’ The phrase ‘Aya Ram, Gaya Ram’ (Here Today, Gone Tomorrow) was widely prevalent in political discourse those days because of the ruling party’s propensity to flagrantly engineer defections whenever it suited the Congress. After entering Parliament, I helped Atalji raise the issue of defections in a big way in the Lok Sabha in 1970. Apart from defections, Atalji and I identified the corrosive and corrupting effect of misuse of money in elections as a problem plaguing India’s electoral system. The cost of contesting a parliamentary or legislative assembly election, and also the gap between the prescribed limit and the actual expenditure, had grown considerably since the first general elections in 1952-of course, it has risen by leaps and bounds since then. Atalji drew the nation’s attention not only to the financial corruption that costly elections entailed, but also to the immoral act of submitting false declarations by elected representatives. He further demanded setting up a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to comprehensively look into electoral reforms, which also received the support of other Opposition parties, forcing a reluctant government to constitute the first ever JPC on Electoral Reform in 1970. Both of us were on this committee too. During the deliberations, several of our recommendations like reducing the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen years were accepted although the Legislation for it came much later. We also demanded that the election expenses of political parties be publicly funded. The ruling party, however, had strong reservations regarding our demand.
In 1972, Jana Sangh became the first political party to pass a resolution on election expenses of recognised political parties to be borne by the State. The resolution also raised another important issue. ‘Indeed, there is need to review the utility of the prevailing electoral system itself. Under this system, the number of seats secured by a party in the legislature has often no relation to the mass support it enjoys. Therefore, all democrats, irrespective of party affiliation, should ponder seriously over the question and devise ways and means to make the present electoral apparatus reflect the people’s will faithfully.’ It is one of the abiding disappointments of my political life that our political establishment has been unable to introduce comprehensive electoral reforms to cleanse our democratic system of its ills. Apart from the JPC that I have mentioned, several other committees have gone into this question subsequently and made valuable suggestions. Notable among these are the Tarkunde Committee (1974), Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990), V.R. Krishna Iyer Committee (1994) and Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998). The 15th Law Commission also conducted an extensive study of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and made vital recommendations. The NDA government did push forward the agenda of poll reforms with some positive initiatives but I cannot claim that we could make a significant difference”.
END OF THE DARK PERIOD- 1977
Advaniji talks about the Victory of the Janata Party
Although I have participated, either as a campaigner or as a contestant, in every single parliamentary election held so far-from the first in 1952 to the fourteenth in 2004-I would unhesitatingly say that it was the one held in 1977 that is the most memorable one for me. On no other occasion, did the survival of Indian democracy depend so critically on the outcome of the elections. Similarly, no other election became a greater testimony to the innate democratic wisdom of the Indian electorate as this one. The 1977 Lok Sabha poll was nothing short of a silent and peaceful ballot-box revolution, carried out by India’s humble voters. The Janata Party faced many daunting difficulties right from the onset of the poll campaign. Our flag and election symbol were new, and hence little known to the voters. In contrast, the people were quite familiar with the Congress party’s poll symbol of the charkha. Our party was starved of resources, whereas the Congress was flush with funds. The latter also had the entire government-controlled media at its disposal. Since the Emergency was formally still in force, people were generally fearful and suspicious. They were unwilling to openly express their views on who they would vote for. True, the Janata Party’s election meetings attracted huge crowds, but, at least in the initial days, there were no signs whatsoever of an impending anti-Congress wave. In fact, Congress flags far outnumbered the Janata Party’s, both in villages and towns. And, yet, there was a whiff of change in the air. An electoral earthquake was in the offing.
I distinctly remember one election meeting that I addressed in Amethi in Uttar Pradesh during the election campaign. As I was passing through the main market, I could see only Congress flags fluttering outside every shop. I went into a small shop and started talking to its owner. He was initially reluctant to be dragged into any discussion about the elections. Once he developed enough confidence in me, I asked him, ‘Who will win from this constituency?’ I was taken aback by his reply, ‘Of course, the Janata candidate will win hands down. No doubt about it.’ I said, ‘How can you be so sure? I don’t see any signs here that the Congress is going to be defeated. Even your own shop has displayed a jhanda (flag) of the Congress party.’ ‘Bhai sahab, you only see the jhanda. Don’t forget that there is also a danda there, on which it is hoisted. We fear the danda, which is why we have put up the Congress jhanda.’ In a flash, I learnt one of the greatest lessons in democracy: never underestimate the common people’s political understanding or their commitment to democracy. India’s voters may be illiterate or semi-literate; sometimes they may even be swayed by caste and religious considerations. But when it is time to defend big ideals like democracy or freedom, the multitudes rise like a mighty, united force.
This was resoundingly proved when the results were declared on 20 March. The Congress was defeated for the first time since Independence. The Janata Party won a clear majority by securing 295 seats in a House of 542 seats. The Congress tally was abysmal: only 154 seats. In terms of voteshare, too, the Janata Party’s performance was spectacular-41.32 per cent as against 34.52 per cent for the Congress, a difference of nearly seven per cent. For the ruling party, the defeat became more humiliating when news spread that Indira Gandhi was defeated in Rae Bareli and her son Sanjay was trounced in Amethi, both being their own constituencies. The official media tried to suppress the news of the Congress debacle and, especially the defeat of the Prime Minister and her son as long as they could. This gave rise to many wild rumours and speculations. I later came across an account of what happened on that fateful day in the memoirs of K.P. Krishnanunny, a PTI correspondent. Once the results of the counting in most constituencies showed that the Janata Party was heading towards a great victory, Krishnanunny typed out the story whose lead line was: ‘The 30-year Congress rule in India has ended and a non-Congress Ministry will assume office soon….’ To his surprise, his Editor asked him to hold on to the story, and according to Krishnanunny, told him that Indira Gandhi was meeting the three chiefs of staff ‘apparently to know their mind whether they would extend support to her if she continued in power despite adverse election results’. Only after ascertaining that the ’service chiefs had turned down Mrs Gandhi’s attempt to remain in power’ did the Editor release the story. Emergency was officially lifted on 23 March 1976. With that ended the darkest period in the history of the Indian Republic.
THE BOFORS SCAM
The unfolding of the Bofor’s Saga
“Rajiv’s ‘Mr Clean’ image received a huge jolt when then Bofors corruption scandal broke out. The Swedish State Radio (16 April 1987) had broadcast a startling report about an under-cover operation carried out by Bofors, Sweden’s biggest arms manufacturer, whereby sixteen million dollars (equivalent to rupees twenty crores at the time) were allegedly paid to ‘members of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress’ in connection with the purchase of 155 mm Howitzer guns by the Government of India. The Swedish radio’s report hit India as a thunderbolt. It was, expectedly, dismissed by the government as ‘false, baseless and mischievous’. However, the murky details of the payoffs in the Bofors deal soon came to light thanks to a meticulous and sustained journalistic investigation carried out by N. Ram and Chitra Subramaniam and published in the Hindu. In a stiff competition for the purchase of artillery guns between Bofors and a French company, the Army had settled for the latter. In spite of this, the order went to Bofors because someone had swung the deal in its favour by getting the government to work at breakneck speed, under instructions from none other than the Prime Minister himself. Who could it be? The capital was abuzz with talk about a certain ‘Italian connection’ in the Bofors deal.
In what must certainly rank among the finest examples of investigative reporting anywhere in the world, Ram and his colleague presented voluminous documentary evidence to show that the middleman was indeed an Italian named Ottavio Quattrocchi. Close observers of Rajiv Gandhi’s government had already known that Quattrocchi, who was working as the Delhi-based agent of an Italian multinational, had developed extremely close ties with the Prime Minister’s family due to his links with Rajiv’s Italian wife, Sonia Maino Gandhi. Because of his reputation as a wheeler-dealer with direct access to the Prime Minister’s residence, many ministers in the government were known to entertain, and be entertained by, Quattrocchi. When his name cropped up in media reports in the context of the Bofors scandal, people naturally recalled Rajiv Gandhi’s historic speech about ‘power-brokers’ in the Congress party and started wondering as to how Mr Clean had allowed a power-broker to operate from his own residence? What had sullied the Prime Minister’s credibility, especially, was the fact that the payoffs-which were later revealed to be close to fifty million dollars-were in flagrant violation of assurances repeatedly given by Bofors to the Indian government that it had no agents or representatives in India for the gun deal. Rajiv, himself, had assured the nation that middlemen would not be allowed ‘for the purpose of winning the contract’. As Ram wrote: ‘The documented facts have bribery written all over them. A massive order of illegitimate and unacknowledged payments, termed “commissions” and calculated on a percentage basis, was made by the Swedish arms manufacturing company into secret Swiss bank accounts after the Indian howitzer contract was won on March 24, 1986.The documents in the CBI’s possession establish Quattrocchi’s deep-end involvement in the Bofors corruption scandal’. Had Rajiv Gandhi responded to the media exposures in a transparent and honest manner, I have no doubt that his political stock in the country, which was already very high, would have gone up enormously. Sadly, quite the opposite happened. Almost from day one of the Bofors revelations, even his admirers started to feel that a cover-up was afoot.
One of the most convincing accounts of this sordid saga is discussed in the book written by B.M. Oza, India’s Ambassador to Sweden. As soon as the Swedish media broadcast allegations about the Bofors payoffs to Indians, Oza, as is the duty of any conscientious diplomat, started to press the Swedish government for a serious probe into the matter. To his utter disbelief, he soon learnt that the Indian Prime Minister did not want the truth to be revealed. Indeed, Rajiv Gandhi spoke to his Swedish counterpart, Ingvar Carlsson, and told him that, since Bofors had already denied any payoffs, here was no need for any further investigation. Shockingly, Ambassador Oza was kept in the dark about this conversation. Rajiv’s credibility received a severe blow when V.P. Singh, a senior minister in his government, raised a banner of revolt. Singh’s portfolio had been shifted from Finance to Defence in January 1987 amid speculation that the Prime Minister was not too happy with his crusade against certain corporate wrong-doers. In his new ministry, Singh immediately ordered an investigation into an alleged scandal involving the acquisition of German submarines. This was criticised by the Prime Minister, who said he had not been consulted. Singh resigned from the government, alleging a cover-up. Shortly thereafter, he was expelled from the Congress party. Two more close lieutenants of Rajiv Gandhi, Arun Nehru and Arif Mohammed Khan, also abandoned him to join Singh. In October 1987, they formed the Jan Morcha, which metamorphosed into a full-fledged political party called the Janata Dal a year later. Singh made the Bofors cover-up the main plank of his political campaign, which gained phenomenal popularity in a short span of time and earned him the epithet ‘Mr Cleaner’, one who promised to reveal the truth about ‘Mr Clean’. The campaign against the cover-up in the Bofors deal caught the attention of the common people because it was about corruption in a defence deal. The shameful saga of the cover-up of the Bofors scam continued long after his government was voted out in the parliamentary 1989 elections, and, indeed, has persisted even in the present government of Dr Manmohan Singh. This is evident from the brazen manner in which the Congress-led UPA government misused the institutions to defreeze the overseas bank accounts of Quattrocchi and virtually allowed him to go scot-free in the Bofors case”.
DR SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE
Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee (1901-53), a great nationalist leader from Bengal. He was the son of Sir Ashutosh Mookerjee, an eminent educationist and fervent patriot, who was widely respected for his unique role as the Vice Chancellor of Calcutta University and a judge of the Calcutta High Court. Syama Prasad, too became the Vice Chancellor of Calcutta University when he was only thirty-three,making him the youngest VC in the history of Indian universities.
Gandhiji insisted on Dr Mookerjee’s inclusion in Pandit Nehru’s first post-Independence Cabinet. As India’s first Minister of Industries, he laid the foundation of many large public sector undertakings such as the Hindustan Aeronautics in Bangalore, the Chittaranjan Locomotive Factory and the Sindhri fertilizer plant. His vision and administrative acumen were evident in his outstanding achievements during his short stint. Working together with Nehru in the government did not, however, minimise Dr Mookerjee’s political differences with the Prime Minister. He was unhappy with Nehru’s handling of the Kashmir issue and especially critical of the pact that Nehru signed with his Pakistani counterpart Liaqat Ali Khan in 1950. . Having failed to prevent the signing of the pact, Dr Mookerjee chose to resign from the Cabinet.
After his voluntary exit from Nehru’s Cabinet, Dr Mookerjee keenly felt the dire need for a suitable nationalist political platform to challenge the wrong policies of the Congress government. He, therefore, decided to organise a new political party that would unite all Indians, irrespective of their caste, creed and linguistic affiliations, on a common nationalist and democratic platform. He named it the Bharatiya Jana Sangh. The founding session of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh took place in New Delhi on 21 October 1951. Concluding his Presidential address, Dr Mookerjee said: “Let all our karyakartas always remember: people’s trust and support can be won only through sacrifice and ceaseless service. We are wedded to the mission of India’s renaissance and reconstruction. Mother India is calling upon her children. Let us set aside the differences of class, caste and religion, and get down to the task of serving her. Howsoever dark may be the present, our future is bright. And India has many big things to do in the world. Our party’s symbol is Deep (lamp); it emits the light of hope and unity, commitment and courage. May we carry this light in our hands and dispel the darkness and gloom that has pervaded our nation after its partition. This is only the beginning of our long yatra. May God Almighty give us the strength and courage so that we always walk along the path of righteousness; so that fear may not deter us and attractions may not lure us; so that we can make our fullest contribution to re-building India as a great and mighty power, spiritually as well as materially; and so that India reborn can become a reliable and sacred instrument for the protection of world peace and promotion of global progress”
ON THE BANKS OF RIVER GANGA
An impromptu speech by Advaniji.
“I do not consider myself worthy of addressing a congregation of devotees because I am also, like many of you here, a devotee and a seeker. I have come here to receive some enlightenment and inspiration, and not to give it. However, if the idea is to let me share a few thoughts on the importance of spiritual guidance for politics and nation-building activities, I do have something to say on the matter. When I look back at the six decades that I have spent in public service - and this period has neatly coincided with the sixty years of India’s Independence - I can identify three main achievements that have imparted strength to our nation and raised its stature internationally. Firstly, India not only adopted the democratic system of governance, but has zealously preserved it, belying the gloomy predictions of many foreigners that a country with a largely illiterate population and saddled with numerous ‘divisive’ diversities could remain neither democratic nor united. Our second greatest achievement is that India is now a nuclear weapons power, thanks to a courageous decision that our former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee took in May 1998. Although some countries, ironically states with nuclear arsenals more lethal than ours, did criticize our government for this decision, it nevertheless made every Indian proud, reassuring him that no evil power can dare attack or enslave a militarily strong India in the future, as had happened in the past for nearly a thousand years. Our third major achievement - and it is a recent phenomenon - is in the field of economic development. The entire world has now begun to view India as tomorrow’s economic superpower. As a result, India and Indians are commanding the kind of attention and respect in the eyes of the international community, which was absent two or three decades ago. As an Indian and as a political activist, these three achievements make me immensely happy and proud, especially because my party is privileged to have contributed to each of them. It is true that we still have many unfinished tasks and unfulfilled aspirations in the area of socio-economic development. Poverty and backwardness need to be fully eliminated. Every citizen needs to have security and an assured provision of education, healthcare, employment, housing, leisure and recreation so that he can live a happy life and realise his full potential as a human being.”
Secret Wealth Aboard - A Deafening Silence
by S. Gurumurthy
Switzerland has been accused of giving shelter to black money and there has been a lot of inflow of such wealth from India and other countries of the world.” This is not L K Advani, on election mode, speaking last Sunday, but the Swiss ambassador to India briefing the media in Delhi last year.
The occasion was the 60th anniversary of Indo-Swiss Friendship Treaty. Admitting that Indian black money gets hoarded in his country, he added that the new law in Switzerland would, not stop it, but control it “up to a certain limit”.
The Swiss diplomat authentically answers the first of the FAQs, that is, whether a lot of Indian money is really stashed away in Swiss banks. Swiss banks are not the only secret destination. There are 37 such shelters in the world, says US Inland Revenue. The secret owners of the secreted monies operate in secrecy — venal businessmen, corrupt politicians, public servants, drug lords, and criminal gangs like the D-company. The slush monies are the financial RDX for terror, besides weapons of mass destruction of national and global finance. That there is secret money is no more a secret. Only the amounts and persons are secret. But how much of India’s stolen wealth could be stashed in Switzerland? Specific estimates of this later. Before that, here is a sideshow, but a relevant one.
In the late 1980s, at the behest of The Indian Express, while investigating the Reliance scam, I had attempted to trail the Indian monies secreted abroad. In the course of the probe, I had contacted Fairfax, a US investigative firm, to uncover the Indian wealth stashed abroad. Impressed by their skills, I persuaded the Government of India to engage the firm for the task. Fairfax agreed to work for a slice of the black wealth uncovered by them as fee.
According to Swiss sources then, the Indian money secreted in Swiss banks was some $300 billion. That was enough to excite Fairfax to go for the kill. But, soon my efforts landed me in jail on March 13, 1987, when the CBI arrested me on charges that later turned out to be bogus, but were enough to stop the probe. The whole nation knew then that the real reason why rulers struck was their fear that the probe had targeted the Bofors payoff and secret money of the ruling family abroad. Rajiv Gandhi, who was the prime minister then, moved honest and bold civil servants like Vinod Pandey and Bhure Lal out of the probe and eventually sacked V P Singh who, as finance minister then, had authorised the efforts.
The chain of events that followed led to corruption emerging as the major issue in the 1989 polls in which Rajiv Gandhi, who had wiped out the opposition in 1984 elections, was defeated, and V P Singh became the prime minister. But there is a great lesson in these developments that often goes unnoticed. And that is, the way the bold national interest initiative to unearth the Indian black wealth abroad was aborted clearly confirmed that the ruling family was mortally afraid of any probe into secret money abroad. This fear haunts the family-led Congress party even today. That is why the 1987 episode is relevant now.
Now back to the main story.
Illicit money is the dirty outcome of modern capitalism. But, after 9/11, the US realised that not just the buccaneers in business, but Osama bin Laden could also hide his funds in secret havens and use them to bomb the world. Campaigns against dirty money as high security risk commenced with the pathbreaking research done by Raymond W Baker, a Harvard MBA and a Brookings scholar. He published his research as a book Capitalism’s Achilles Heel: Dirty Money and How to Renew the Free- Market System.
The book was published in 2005. This set off intense debate in the US as the exposure linked dirty business and dirty money with terror and national security.
Raymond Baker had estimated, using authentic data, tools and reasons, the dirty wealth secreted in banks at $11.5 trillion to which, he found, one more trillion was being added annually. He added that in the process the West was getting an annual bounty of $500 billion from the developing countries, India included. Global Financial Integrity (GFI), a global watchdog headed by Baker to curtail illicit money flows, has recently brought out detailed estimates of the black wealth hoarded in secret havens from different countries. GFI research shows that during the period 2002 to 2006, annually $27.3 billion was stashed away from India, making a total of $137.5 billion for the five-year period. That is, in just five years, Indian wealth amounting to Rs 6.88 lakh crore has been smuggled out of India. This gives a clue as to how much Indian money would have slipped out of India in the last 62 years, particularly during the Nehruvian
socialist regime when the income tax (97.5 per cent) and wealth tax (almost equal to the income earned on investments) together constituted double the income earned.
It is undisputed that the Nehruvian socialist model forced huge sums out of India. So the amount of Indian black wealth secreted away in the last 60 years — estimated at from $500 billion (Rs 25 lakh crore) to $1400 billion (Rs 70 lakh crore) — does not seem to be wide off the mark. Economists call it flight of capital. This is the people’s money stolen from them.
See the consequence even if part of it is brought back. A portion of it would make India free from all external debts which is now over $220 billion; India will transform into an economic superpower; some 10 or 15 Indian rupees could buy a US dollar which today 50 Indian rupees cannot; a litre of petrol on our roadside would cost Rs 15 or even less, against today’s 50 plus; the cost of imports in rupee terms would be down to a third or half; India’s entire infrastructure needs can be funded; India will become so energy efficient and costcompetitive that exporters may need no sops at all; India will lend to — not, as it does now, borrow from — the world; Indian housing can be funded at affordable cost; rural poverty can be wiped out… The list is endless. But, then, is it possible to bring back the secreted monies? What are the roadblocks to such efforts?
It was unthinkable six months ago. Switzerland, once a pet of Western capitalism, is now its hate object. During World War II, the tiny nation was the common love of both the Allied and Axis powers, at war with each other. But neutral Switzerland, a friend of all since Napoleonic days, is friendless today. Its prime attraction, financial secrecy secured by law, has become its nemesis.
Germany first, France next, the US later, with the UK joining last, have, individually and together, declared a war against secret banking and tax havens like Switzerland. It is a crusade by the West against the Swiss, says the media. Tax havens ask for no income tax from non-citizens and their banks ask no questions about their money. Modern capitalism had all along winked at secret banks and tax shelters; even nicknamed secret money ‘funny money’. But now the West chases secret money like it targets al-Qaeda.
Why this miraculous shift? The short answer: ‘financial crisis’. The Guardian of UK wrote (March 4), “European leaders grew increasingly agitated at how tax havens have fostered secrecy that has contributed to the collapse of banks the world over”. The newspaper’s Tax Gap Series estimated the
unaccounted global wealth held in secret havens, including Switzerland, at $13 trillion. The annual tax evasion on the dirty fund, estimated at $255 billion was, the newspaper said, twice the global budget for poor nations. Der Spiegel, a German magazine, reported (March 3) that “Cash strapped governments around the world see the opportunity to finally put an end t o bank secrecy” to access the money concealed by their nationals. It added “British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicholas
Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are now joining forces” and “they have set their sights on Switzerland”.
The crusade against Swiss banks was started by Germany in early 2008 when its intelligence bribed — bribed? Yes — an informant in LGT Bank in Liechtenstein and got a CD containing the names of some 1,500 tax dodgers, and raided half of them, who were its citizens. It also offered, free of cost, the names of citizens of other countries. Many accepted the offer gratefully.
Thereafter, in the third quarter of 2008, Germany pressed the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to blacklist Switzerland for protecting tax dodgers.
Switzerland is an OECD member and two-thirds of the Swiss speak German. Yet Germany couldn’t care less. Soon, France joined Germany. “We want to put a stop to tax havens”, thundered Sarkozy. At the preparatory G20 summit in Berlin early February, European leaders vowed to launch a global crusade against tax havens at the G20 meet in London, said the Irish Financial News. Europe’s anger was explicit in its refusal to allow the Swiss plea to be presented before the G20 in London.
The US moved even more menacingly. On February 18, the US Inland Revenue threatened the largest Swiss bank, UBS, with a lawsuit — that would have bankrupted it — unless the bank disclosed the names
and accounts of some 300 American tax dodgers. A frightened UBS forthwith surrendered the secret data to the US before the account holders could stall it by a Swiss court order. Later, the Obama administration told the US Senate that it would bring laws to prise open the world’s most secretive tax havens.
At this point the UK joined the crusade. Switzerland wilted under the pressure. Spiegel wrote that, for generations, the Swiss had held bank
secrecy as “not negotiable”, and added that it was “no longer” so. The magazine quoted Swiss finance minister Merz as saying that they would have “to compromise”. The Swiss justice and foreign ministers,
the magazine reported, had hinted that the country might have to stop protecting tax dodgers.
Subsequently, a nervous Merz met Gordon Brown on March 14 with a deal to prevent any move in G20 to blacklist his country. The deal was that Swiss banks would adopt the bank transparency rules of OECD
countries. Brown claimed that it was “the beginning of the end of banking secrecy”. Yet, the US is pressing ahead with a law to punish banking secrecy.
When the crusade of the West against Swiss banks is succeeding, here Dr Manmohan Singh and his government, instead of celebrating, seem to be worried at their success. Three bits of evidence expose the Congress-led government’s not-so-well-hidden worry. First, when Germany’s finance ministry offered the LTG bank secret data to any country that needed it, the government would not ask for it despite reports that it contained some 100 Indian names. When in April last year, L K Advani wrote to Manmohan,
requesting to him to ask Germany for the data, the then finance minister responded evasively.
Transparency International noted India’s “stoic silence over the issue” and that it “has not approached the German government for the data’’ (Economic Times, May 25 2008]. More, the revenue secretary in Delhi
has reportedly advised the Indian ambassador in Berlin not to push Germany for the details as Germany might not like it – clear proof that the government is scuttling, not getting, the details.
Second, when, in the G20 preparatory meeting at Berlin, Germany and France were threatening to blacklist Swiss and other secret tax shelters, India’s silence at Berlin was deafening. Montek Singh Ahluwalia, the PM’s righthand who, along with Dr Rakesh Mohan, represented India at
Berlin, did not utter a word in support of Germany and France. India, a principal victim of banking secrecy, should have been leading the war cry against it. But it did not even morally support those waging the war.
Third, when on Sunday last L K Advani told Manmohan Singh that India should join in the G20 effort to break banking secrecy, the PM did not respond. The spokesperson of the Congress Abhishek Singhvi responded that G20 was not the forum for that, being blissfully ignorant of the fact that it was a main agenda of G20 meet.
In fact just ahead of the meeting, Sarkozy had threatened to walk out unless the G20 decisively acted against secret banks and tax havens.
No need to strain further to understand Manmohan’s compulsions. The fear that drove the ruling family to abort the 1987 probe into Indian monies secreted abroad is still evident. But Advani’s threat to turn the recovery of Indian wealth secreted abroad an election issue has got the PM and his party off guard. The party has blundered, saying G20 is not the forum, when it is precisely that. Now the prime minister cannot remain silent. He has to do something. At least make a show of doing. But can he? QED: Dr Manmohan Singh stands between the devil and the deep sea — between his party and L K Advani.
THE DARKEST PERIOD - EMERGENCY
Advaniji on the Emergency
“Every age in history is characterised by one ‘Big Idea’ that shapes the destiny of nations by influencing what many scientists and political thinkers have termed as the ‘Collective Mind’ of the people. When that idea grips the minds and hearts of a large number of people, it becomes a motive force of history. Viewed from this perspective, it can be clearly seen that much of the movement of world history in the twentieth century was influenced by two inter-related big ideas: Freedom and Democracy. Nation after subjugated nation struggled against colonial rule in search of freedom. Along with national Independence came another powerful aspiration: People’s Rule, as against the rule of a monarchy, a military dictator, a totalitarian communist party, or another kind of authoritarian regime.
We, in India were fortunate that, unlike many of our neighbouring countries and elsewhere, we did not have to wage a separate battle for democracy after India gained Independence from British rule in 1947. Democracy came to independent India as naturally as secularism did, and the natural adoption of both these ideals, as shall be discussed later, was principally on account of India’s Hindu philosophy. Nevertheless, human history is replete with examples that no ideal, however exalted and deep-rooted in a country’s cultural-spiritual being, is permanently immune to attack from individuals driven by egotism and blinded by lust for power. When such attacks are mounted, the targeted ideal does suffer a momentary eclipse. But in its very suffering, it inspires large masses of people to struggle for the eradication of resultant darkness. It is almost as if history deliberately creates the ordeal as an opportunity for the nation to learn the right lessons and thereby reinforce its commitment to that ideal. This is precisely what happened in India, in June 1975, when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi brought democracy under an eclipse by bringing India under Emergency Rule. Nineteen months later, the eclipse disappeared as the result of a glorious struggle launched by the people of India against the Congress party’s authoritarianism. If the Emergency was the darkest period in India’s post-Independence history, the righteous struggle for the restoration of democracy was undoubtedly the brightest. It so happened that I, along with tens of thousands of my countrymen, was both a victim of Emergency and a soldier in the Army of Democracy that won the battle against it.”
DEENDAYALJI- A STRONG INFLUENCE
Advaniji speaks about Deendayalji’s “Integral Humanism”.
“Deendayalji will be remembered not only as the principal architect of the Jana Sangh, but also as the author of a profoundly original political treatise, which has come to be known as ‘Integral Humanism’. According to Deendayalji, the Indian perspective of viewing human aspirations in a four-fold manner-dharma, artha, kama and moksha, and its well-conceived four-stage progression of individual’s life through brahmacharya, grihastha, vanaprastha and sanyasa-promised the balanced development of both the individual and society. The great merit of ‘Integral Humanism’ lies in its successful attempt to deal with a problem that has defied so many political philosophers of our age: how to conceptualise a practical approach to achieve peace and harmony within man and society. Hence, rejecting the theory of class conflict (as in communism), it posits inter-dependence between various sections of society and working together for common welfare. Similarly, rejecting notions of any inherent contradiction between the individual and society (as in capitalism), it emphasises the essential concord between the two. ‘A flower is what it is because of its petals, and the worth of the petals lies in remaining with the flower and adding to its beauty.’ Deendayalji was anything but doctrinaire in his approach. Though a strong critic of imitating the western way of life, he accepts that ‘western principles are a product of a revolution in human thought and it is not proper to ignore them’. His critique of the western political and economic thought does not call for its total rejection; it only highlights its inadequacy.
Referring to ‘nationalism, democracy, socialism, world peace and world unity’, which were the hotly debated ‘Big Ideas’ in India and elsewhere in the sixties, he says, ‘All these are good ideals. They reflect the higher aspirations of mankind.’ But the manner in which the West has voiced them shows that ‘each stands opposed to the rest in practice.’ To those who criticised Hinduism as an oppressive, change-resisting belief-system, Deendayalji gave a reply befitting a social revolutionary. For ‘Integral Humanism’ calls for rejection of all those customs (’untouchability, caste discrimination, dowry, neglect of women’) that are symptoms of ‘ill-heath and degeneration’ of our society. It affirms the self-regenerative impulse of Indian society by saying: ‘we have taken due note of our ancient culture. But we are no archaeologists. We have no intention to become the custodians of a vast archaeological museum.’ Deendayalji’s espousal of Dharma Rajya (which does not connote theocracy but only a law-governed state and a duty-oriented citizenry) echoes Gandhiji’s concept of Ram Rajya. ‘Dharma sustains the nation. If dharma is destroyed, the nation perishes.’
’With the support of Universal knowledge and our heritage, we shall create a Bharat which will excel all its past glories, and will enable every citizen in its fold to steadily progress in the development of his manifold latent possibilities and to achieve through a sense of unity with the entire creation, a state even higher than that of a complete human being; to become Narayan from nar (man). This is the external divine form of our culture. This is our message to humanity at a cross roads. May God give us strength to succeed in this mission. The Jana Sangh adopted ‘Integral Humanism’ as its guiding ideology at the party’s Vijayawada session in 1965. Similarly, the BJP, in its constitution, has enshrined it as the ‘basic philosophy of the Party’. Deendayalji’s basic impulse in developing his discourse was humanistic, and not political in the narrow sense of aiding a particular party”.
LK Advani - The New Avatar: India Today Cover Story
The latest issue of India Today (April 20 issue) has a cover story on LK Advani:
The ‘now’ is steeped in the quiet confidence of an 81-year-old man who defies the limits of both biology and ideology as he turns the struggle of a lifetime into a battle for retrieving India from the twin evils of a “weak prime minister” and an “extra-constitutionally powerful dynasty”…Now that Atal Bihari Vajpayee is in retirement, Advani is the Leader with a capital L, and the campaign he leads is truly presidential in style, partly inspired by—who else?—Barack Obama. Campaign literature with “Advani for PM” or the cardboard cult of “Determined Leader, Decisive Government” is not the only manifestation of it. The entire campaign has become a kind of referendum on Advani. It is virtually Advani versus the rest. He is the message as well as the messenger.
…
In places like Simdega, Lohardagga and Dhanbad in Jharkhand, he is not a performing demagogue but an earnest preacher who can’t afford to fly away from the shirtless without making them wiser. As the wretched of this arid land snack on wild berries, the man who wants to be their next prime minister tells them how he’s going to make the 21st Century the Indian century.
He promises them the marvel of computer education; he tells them the horrors of an India ruled by a Congress-led government, horrors stretching from farmers’ suicide to terrorist attacks to inflation to votebank politics whose first casualty is national security.
…
The big question is: has Advani seized the moment? He has the context: an India under attack and the gloom in the marketplace. Has he got a text? An inspirational campaign theme that can turn the groundswell of disillusion into a movement for change?
He and his managers continue to believe that he is all set to bring an end to politics-as-usual. He has already asked his brain trust to “work out what should be done in the first 100 days”. His broad objective is to “replace the prevailing sense of cynicism and hopelessness with popular confidence in a government that cares”.
Narendra Modi Interview
Rediff has an interview with Narendra Modi. Some excerpts:
….the nation needs a leader. Dr Manmohan Singh has not even visited all the states in the five years of his prime ministership, while Advaniji is a leader who has, at some point in time, spent a night in our 400 districts. He knows the entire land, there is not a stain on him, he is blemishless, has vast administrative experience having served in various Cabinets, and fulfilled his responsibilities to everyone’s satisfaction, whether it was as the chief executive of the Delhi metropolitan council or as information and broadcasting minister or deputy prime minister. Advaniji rose from the ranks to become a mass leader, there’s a world of difference between the two.
Given the present situation in the world, India has a great chance to become a powerful nation. The 21st century can become India’s if only all of us strove together with all our energies. Another thing I believe is that development must be a mass movement. The 100 crore citizens should feel motivated to take the nation forward — we must create such an atmosphere. Media must be a part of development.
There are three camps in this election. One is the BJP-led NDA, the second is the Congress-led UPA, and the third is those who left the UPA, those who have not accepted anyone, those who want their own, they have their own problems. They are working as a Third Front. On one side we have the family-oriented ideology of the Congress, another side we have money power, and then we have the nationalist ideology of the BJP. This is inevitable. As the election nears, polarisation will happen, towards the BJP-led camp or the Congress-led camp. The rest are inconsequential, nothing much will happen.
They first said we will provide employment to 1.5 crore people, but are now saying that five lakh people will lose jobs. This is a major contradiction! They say — we are the government of the aam-aadmi (common man), but they have been unable to halt price rise. In Atalji’s time, when his government demitted office, onions were sold at Rs 8 a kg, today it costs Rs 16 a kg. Cooking gas cylinder was available for Rs 270, today it costs Rs 370. Their failures are linked to the aam-aadmi. Security is an important issue, how do you propose to deal with security when the Taliban is poised to take over over all of Pakistan, they have reached Karachi. Naturally, the common man is perturbed. Bhai, who do we trust to safeguard us? Like this there are many reasons why they are rejecting the UPA or Manmohan Singh.
The era of coalitions will continue, but it will be good if the national party is strong and the regional parties add to that strength. That will be the best model. Atal Bihari Vajpayee had given us such a model for governance — first you arrive at a consensus in the Cabinet and then you take decisions. That was the best model.
For us democracy has become a vote-giving exercise, and we give out five-year contracts to run the government. We ask for accountability after five years. But I think this way we have extracted only the least from democracy. I believe that in everything we do, the people’s involvement should be there. After voting the people and government go their different ways — this is not acceptable. Gujarat has developed the model where the public has a stake in everything, the people are carried along in everything.