Caesar meets Sherlock in the dramatic case of electoral bonds: Relationship trails may twist the plot

The BJP, of course, has to do much of the answering. Questions, allegations, insinuations, accusations, or simply raised eyebrows are haunting the corridors of New Delhi and elsewhere because of the sheer amount of funds donated to political parties through electoral bonds.

At least by normal Indian middle-class standards, political contributions do not look like acts of charity but ones in which the donor receives some comfort. Idealists may link that to the good governance those in power provide, while cynics may dig deeper only to disagree.

Should we allude to William Shakespeare’s famous line that threatened Julius Caesar? In arguably the world’s most popular political play, Caesar tells the Soothsayer, who predicted mid-March trouble for the Roman Emperor, “The Ides of March are (have) come.” The Soothsayer answers, “Aye, Caesar, but not gone.”

The day is apt for India as the 15th day of March dawned after a night of electoral bond disclosures.

Sample some newspaper or Web headlines in the morning after the Election Commission of India posted donor and donation data on its website that appears at first look to resemble a Picasso painting designed to confuse while concealing hidden meanings.

‘3 of top 5 donors bought bonds with ED and I-T (income tax) knocking on their door.’

‘Out of top 30 donors, 14 were raided by probe agencies’.

‘Several biz groups bought bonds via multiple entities.”

‘Bond Buyer No: 1: Santiago Martin, labourer turned ‘Lottery King.”

‘Most firms (donors) in areas that need Centre, State licenses, approvals’.

‘TMC at No. 2 with Rs 1,609 crore, its bond redemption surged after Assembly win’.

Digging deeper, some have established that large chunks of donations happened just before or after national or state elections, linking the process not to government policies or programmes but to campaign funding — which, in Indian colloquialism, can make for “relationship building” between a donor and a recipient.

As this is being written, the Supreme Court of India has ordered the State Bank of India, the monopoly issuer of the bonds under a government mandate, to provide crucial missing data on the bonds by 5 pm on Saturday, 16 March. This data is especially crucial for the bond numbers, which, when properly matched, may potentially reveal more beyond dates, donor names, and recipient political parties.

Also read: SBI gets Supreme Court rap

Absence of expected facts offers clue

Here’s where a crucial line from Sherlock Holmes may come in handy for those trying to link the bonds to motives: “The dog that did not bark.” In the story Silver Blaze, the detective tells a Scotland Yard officer that a dog that did not do anything at night was a “curious incident” that invited attention. In other words, the absence of expected facts in themselves offers a clue.

Let us apply this to the Electoral Bonds Case.

While the BJP (with ₹6,060 crore in bond donations) is joined by TMC (₹1,609 crore), Congress (₹1,421 cr), BRS (₹1,214 cr), and the Biju Janata Dal (₹775 cr) in the list of top recipients, we find the absence of hotly discussed Hindi belt parties like the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and the Samajwadi Party (SP).

These “dogs that did not bark” are not exactly as pure as driven snow, as we know. However, the fact that these parties have been out of power for a long time, especially during the key bond purchase years, is a Holmes-style clue. That makes us wonder. In simple terms, the ruling party may not necessarily be only the BJP but also those that “rule” states and are in a position where the rulers either receive favours or are thanked for the ones they extend by omission, commission, approval or pace of action.

Power is a fungible commodity. What it does in slow motion can sometimes be as beneficial as what it does at high speed! What a friendly party offers by inaction in prosecution may be as interesting to watch as an award of contract. There is enough stuff out there for investigators and insinuators alike to make tongues wag in an election year.

But then, allegations of corruption need quid-pro-quo evidence in a favour-for-money linkage to substantiate them legally. Given that electoral bonds are perfectly legal, two factors may help us progress in the electoral bonds saga: examine accusations of undue favours or illegal corruption.

One is matching donations with the timing or quanta of allegedly undue favours. A precedent in this was established in the 1980s when Arun Shourie, as executive editor of The Indian Express, revealed details suggesting linkages between perfectly legal donations to Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan, one of the trusts established by then Maharashtra chief minister Abdul Rahman Antulay, and cement quotas allocated by the state government to Mumbai builders.

Both sugar and cement policies administered by his government came to haunt Antulay, who resigned as chief minister in 1982 after the Bombay High Court convicted him of extortion. He bounced back to some extent to become a Union minister and was eventually acquitted in the donation case.

Also read: Pattern of raids and electoral bonds

Network of relationships

Another way to look into electoral bonds is to see a network of relationships involving smaller donor companies linked to larger ones. An audit trail reveals where the money came from and where it went, but does not necessarily reveal the real donors or beneficiaries. Here is where a “relationship trail” can help.

Initial digging reveals that some smaller companies that donated to the BJP had business relations with larger, well-known business entities like the Ambani or Adani groups through acquisitions or big contracts. Shared directorships and previous employment of some connected with these companies and big business houses also provide clues.
However, these can only suggest associations, not clinch the case.

Unlike in the stories involving Sherlock Holmes, in which the police play a major role, in the curious case of electoral bonds, published information in an election year may only lead to memes, speeches and claims that may result in political fallouts.

The electoral bonds saga is closer to a Shakespearean play like Julius Caesar than a Sherlock Holmes sleuth story. Political outcomes may well overshadow courtroom trials.

The audience, also known as the people of India, awaits with bated breath what the Ides of March may bring for powerful leaders. Or not.

(The writer is a senior journalist and commentator who has worked for Reuters, The Economic Times, Business Standard and Hindustan Times. He tweets as @madversity)