'A Humongous Indictment'

Short-duration discussion in Rajya Sabha on issues arising out of statement made by Prime Minister on 18th March, 2011 on a newspaper report on payment of Cash-For-Votes

Excerpts from the CPI(M) leader's speech: 

I think the main issue and the main context in which we are discussing this issue has been missed out by both the Leader of the Opposition and the Home Minister who replied to it. Why are we discussing this issue today, Sir? We are discussing this issue today because it has come out through the exposures of the WikiLeaks that were published. Now, that context is completely gone. You have two very eminent lawyers arguing the case, who is right, who is wrong, but the context in which this entire issue was brought to the public attention has somehow gone to the background, which I want to bring back into focus. 

When this particular Vote of Confidence, which we are talking about, took place in the background of the withdrawal of the support of the Left Parties in 2008 on the issue of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal, our contention was, and we still maintain that the Nuclear Deal is not in the interest of India. It was not part of the CMP on the basis of which we extended support. And since it was not part of the CMP, and since they went ahead, we withdrew support. On that basis, the issue was, whether the Government still enjoyed the support of the House, which the hon. Home Minister eloquently said, it ‘did’. Our point at that stage was that if you went by the parties, with the numbers that were public knowledge, then, the Government was reduced to a minority. 

How was that minority converted into a majority? The hon. Home Minister has said that they had a majority that was sought to be converted into a minority. That is his contention. Our point is very clear that they were reduced to a minority, how they did turn into a majority. Now, whether the voting, if it had happened under normal circumstances, whether I am right or whether hon. Home Minister is right, would have been proved on the floor of the House. But it did not take place under normal circumstances. It took place under abnormal circumstances.

My point is, first the context. The abnormal circumstances that took place, it was unbecoming, as we had said earlier and we continue to say it now, to see suddenly wads of currency notes in the Lok Sabha. What I find very intriguing is -- both he and the Leader of the Opposition have quoted --you have a very interesting illustration on the Report of this Committee publication. Then, here, you have a hat which looks like a police hat, which is not an Indian police hat, but I hope, it is not a US police hat, which is giving indications where the votes should go, and you have wads of money, and then you have suitcases under the table. I do not know what that would be. The point here that I want to draw attention to this illustration is that the manner in which this vote finally gave a majority to the Government raised a lot of doubts and it was something, which all of us had maintained and still maintain today — a very, very grave affront to Indian parliamentary democracy and political morality. How did it happen is one matter. But, the issue, Sir, in this WikiLeaks expose background is that this WikiLeaks today -- I repeat what I said the other day in the House -- constitutes a humongous indictment of the depth to which the parliamentary democracy has to [descend to] ensure the majority that was so necessary at that point of time to carry forward the strategic alliance and understanding with the United States of America. That majority was important not only for the survival of the UPA-I Government; that majority was crucial for carrying forward this strategic understanding and that is the interest why you will have US diplomats visiting houses of Congress leaders to get the assurance whether, 'you will win the vote.'

P. Chidambaram: Allegedly.

Allegedly, okay. Why should they visit these houses to find out whether the Government will be in a position to win the vote? It was because the concern was that if this vote was not won, then this entire process of strategic relationship with the United States will be jeopardized. That context, Sir, is somehow is missing. Now, in that context when this entire issue had come up, three years later, we are debating this issue in the House because of the WikiLeaks expose. Let us face this fact. Otherwise, this was not on the agenda for us to discuss it at all. Now, if you are discussing in the context of the WikiLeaks, then it is not only a question of the actual issues that were raised in the report and that which have to be 'legally' examined and decided upon. Yes, in the WikiLeaks reports there have been references to the individuals who are not Members of this House. I do not want to authenticate it. But one of them is the Member of this House, yes, a very senior Member of the House and he has been linked up to various things mentioned there. It is in our interest to clear that. There are Members of the BJP who have been mentioned in it and including the dragging in the name of the former Prime Minister of India. This is the material contained in the cable. Right, wrong, verifiable, non-verifiable, whatever it is - my interest is that the Indian parliamentary democracy cannot continue to live with that stigma or such mention unless that is cleared. Now for that clearing you will require an investigation that needs to be done. This must be cleared in the interest of India's parliamentary democracy. 

So, it is no longer an issue of saying that you did that or you do that. What is our parliamentary democracy today? Are we subserving ourselves? As a parliamentary democracy, are we subserving ourselves to reduce India into a subordinate ally of the United States of America? If it has got the political sanction, yes, we will fight it out. That is a different matter. But you cannot allow parliamentary democracy to be manoeuvred in such a manner through such corruption which we believe the Prime Minister has said and now the Home Minister is saying that the Committee has not proven that there is any corruption. Yes, the Committee has not proven any corruption. The Committee has said 'further investigation'. All of them say 'further investigation'. There is a dissenting note. Why further investigation? The Committee said, 'because we do not possess the wherewithal." You have quoted that, I am not quoting it again. The Committee does not possess the wherewithal. But why is there the need for further investigation? It is because you have not conclusively proved that there is no corruption. If you have proved that there is no corruption, why further investigation. Further investigation is only to prove whether there was any corruption or not and the very fact that they said that further investigation needed to be done, that itself concedes that we have not conclusively proved that there is no corruption. And our point is that. The hon. Prime Minister has said that the Committee has proved that there is no corruption. ...(Interruptions).. He has said that they have not come to conclusive evidence. The point is that the Committee recommended further investigation to arrive at that conclusion or otherwise. Now, this is where, Sir, the question is that it is no longer an issue of what exactly is written in this note, which is very important. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has raised it, the Home Minister has replied, I do not want to go into those details. But the final point which we are saying is that a note of dissent was given by Members of the Committee.

I am quoting from the Note of Dissent given by Mr. Mohd. Salim, a Member of the Committee. It says and I quote, 

"It will be improper for the Committee to limit the scope of further investigation and exclude some important names from the ambit of investigation by an appropriate agency. The Committee should not pass any judgment on this matter and must recommend that the entire matter be probed." 

Now, this is something with which nobody has actually disagreed. So, what I am asking now is: The Terms of Reference of the probe that you are talking about is not just in respect of the three individuals concern. Hon. Home Minister himself has now brought out further allegations from available sources. And the hon. Leader of the Opposition is saying that this is not authenticated and this information is coming out. Sir, the point that I am trying to make is that the scope is much beyond ‘further investigation’ of three individuals. The entire circumstances under which all this was happened needs to be properly investigated. And, Sir, the fact of the matter is, many parties had to take action against their own Members of Parliament for violating the Whip or for not voting. Now, if that had happened at that time, yes, there are many other issues which had worked behind the scene to allow that to happen. So, that investigation happened. Therefore, we think that, in this present stage, mere investigation by the Delhi Crime Branch or Police is not sufficient. If you want to investigate into this entire issue of 'background interference' of the US into our internal affairs, it is a political point. We can fight it out. 

But, the point is, here comes the WikiLeaks information about how they were keeping in touch and their eagerness to ensure that the Government wins the Vote of Confidence so that the Nuclear Deal and, therefore, the strategic relationship goes forward. It is what their stated objective. If that is the case, then, Sir, it is something that impinges upon my country's sovereignty. And, this is something which is not acceptable to me without proving conclusively that we are not opening ourselves to such exposures. Therefore, the issue is not the question of whether what the WikiLeaks cables are saying or authentic or verifiable. They are not authentic, they are not verifiable is what the hon. Prime Minister has said. 

Then, we have -- I don't want to name her -- the Secretary of State of the USA, allegedly, had a conversation with our Foreign Minister asking him to make sure that this is not exposed. Otherwise, it will have problem. It has come out in the papers. In fact, it was not just a conversation, but it is a warning sort of a thing that had come saying that this will cause a lot of embarrassment to India and we would want you to take that into account. I don't know in which form it has come. But, one media report says that it was a warning that she -- the Secretary of State -- had given and the other says that it was a conversation. In either case, the very fact that the US Secretary of State taken it seriously to tell or convey to Indian Foreign Minister that this will be a cause of embarrassment is in itself, as far as I am concerned, proves that the contents of these cables are verified. 

The contents of these cables are authentic. Sir, my main point is that we have heard the entire discussion. Therefore, the three points that the hon. Prime Minister has made are not authentic or unverifiable. That is not really something of serious concern to me. What concerns to me is that such an incident had happened, vote was won, money was seen on the Table of the House, allegations were made, a Committee was formed, the Committee said further investigation, that further investigation, in my opinion, has not only been delayed, but it cannot be limited only to the individuals mentioned, but the entire circumstances must be gone into in the light of the WikiLeaks exposures. This is number one.

The second one is on the question of entire argument of crime and elections. We have all gone through it. Sir, whether you had the confidence of the Lok Sabha, at that point of time, after the Vote of Confidence was won. Yes, in terms of the figures that were given that you had majority -- slender or whatever it is. You had the majority. But, the point is, how that majority was acquired. That is the issue.

Now, that is something that needs to be done. Therefore, I think, we should also settle it for once and for all. Let us not link the criminality aspect with that of the victory in elections. This is something that is not and cannot be acceptable. Therefore, we cannot say what Hitler did was right -- I am not talking of Indian personalities -- because people, at that point of time, expressed confidence in him. Let us not go into that issue because that is not the final issue.

Therefore, Sir, what I would like to say finally is, let us not forget the context in which this debate has come up. That context is the exposure that has come through the cables, sent by the US diplomats, to the Wikileaks. That only confirms my position and our party’s position that this vote was crucial not only for the Indo-US Nuclear Deal, but also to carry forward the Indo-US strategic relationship. Therefore, what needs to be probed is all the aspects that have emerged. And, we will ask the Government that this probe should not only be confined to the Delhi Crime Branch, but it should go beyond to a proper investigative agency that will examine all these aspects. And, only then can we be satisfied.