plan to make political funding more transparent has been heavily criticized by electoral reform activists and constitutional experts. On Jan. 2, Arun Jaitley, the Union Finance Minister in the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Indian government, rolled out so-called  “electoral bonds.”

In a widely-anticipated speech in parliament, Jaitley claimed that these “interest-free bonds”, which had been announced in last year’s budget, would help solve the problem surrounding political funding.

But the decision has come under mounting pressure. Critics claim that a government, which came into power with the promise to clean up political funding, has now twisted the law to make it more opaque.

This opacity in political funding is contrary to the Modi government’s public position on corruption and black money. The demonetization of 87% of India’s cash and the mandatory introduction of a digital identity was touted as a step against large corruption. However, political funding, which is the most significant source of corruption, is now beyond public scrutiny.

The “bonds”, worth between 1,000 to 1 billion rupees (US$15.8 million), can be bought through the State Bank of India. But since the identities of the bondholders will remain secret outside of government circles, the program has come under fire.

For tax purposes, the government will know the identities of bondholders, while opposition parties will be left in the dark. This has triggered a wave of criticism.

Venkatesh Nayak, a program coordinator of the Access to Information Program for the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative in  New Delhi, did not pull his verbal punches when called the step a “leap backward to the era of secrecy.”

These so-called “electoral bonds” are unique to India. In the United States, and the United Kingdom as well as other mature democracies, individuals or corporations must disclose their identities in a transparent system.

But India’s “electoral bonds” allow donors a relative degree of anonymity in order to protect them from “adverse consequences.”  According to Section 29C of the Representation of the People Act, political parties have to declare donations above 20,00 rupees to the Election Commission.

Scathing attack

Under Clauses 135 and 136 of Jaitley’s 2017 Finance Bill, parties will not have to submit records of “electoral bonds.” Bishwajit Bhattacharya, a former Additional Solicitor General of India, was scathing about the program when the idea was first mooted last year.

“It is true that businesses and their associations and federations do not want the donors named,” Bhattacharya wrote at the time. “But then the transparency of the system cannot be achieved when donations have no upper limits and names of groups making payments are blacked out.

“Why are the donors shying away from maintaining transparency? Why should the State kneel down before them? And, what are the ‘adverse consequences’ that the finance minister alludes to?” he went on to say.

“Electoral bonds” are also exempt from Section 13T of the Income Tax Act. Before, donors who contributed more than 20,000 rupees could be found in the public records.

The Finance Bill also removed the cap on political funding by corporations. Companies could only donate 7.5% of their average net profits of the last three years to political parties under Section 182 of India’s Companies Act. But now, that limit has been removed.

Milan Vaishnav, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and author of When Crime Pays: Money and Muscle in Indian Politics, has heavily criticized the Finance Bill for its cynicism toward transparency.

“Today, India’s political finance regime is plagued by three major infirmities,” Vaishnav wrote. “First, there is a steady torrent of undocumented cash that lubricates the activities of both parties and candidates. Second, there is virtually no transparency regarding political contributions.”

Civil rights

Similar views were put forward by Jagdeep Chhokar, a founding member of the civil rights organization, Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), in New Delhi and a long-time crusader for electoral reform. He pointed out that the Finance Bill unduly favors corporations when it comes to political funding and insisted the government was “hoodwinking the public and electorate”.

Although political parties would have to show the amount of funding on their balance sheet, they would not have to disclose the names of corporations, Chhokar stressed. This could lead to crony capitalism with corporate donors “rewarded” with major government contracts.

S. Y. Quraishi, a former Chief Election Commissioner, was just as scornful when he said that “electoral bonds” were the exact antithesis of transparency. They will not only assure anonymity to donors but “will also kill whatever little transparency exists now.”

“Very soon we will see companies spending all their profits on politics alone so they can control governments,” he told Asia Times. “In future, no one will know which corporations are donating how much and to which party. And the inevitable quid pro quo will never be apparent.”

Nasim Zaidi, another former Chief Election Commissioner who retired last year, also voiced his misgivings about the government’s decision and accused it of trampling on the people’s fundamental right to know.

Subhash C Kashyap, a former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) and an expert in constitutional law, went even further.

He felt the that the government’s latest move would not stand up in court because “electoral bonds” run contrary to the right of information and the principle of “free and fair elections” in the constitution.

Kashyap told Asia Times he is of the opinion that the government should take concrete steps toward curbing the massive expenditure that candidates and parties incur in elections. “Electoral bonds”, he said, are only “eyewash” in the guise of transparency.

The illegal use of hookahs in a plush Mumbai restaurant is the prime cause of a fire last week that killed 14 people, a report on the tragedy says. The report to city authorities, accessed by Asia Times, clearly blames Mojo’s Bistro restaurant for providing hookahs to its customers without a license.

Mumbai, which serves as India’s financial capital, also has an active nightlife. A lot of old mills have been demolished and turned into plush restaurants in the last eight years.The dailyReport

Mojo’s Bistro and the adjacent restaurant 1Above, owned by the same group, were in the upmarket Kamala Mills Compound, which  also houses several prominent TV news channels. However, fire safety was never a priority in these new buildings, which led to the massive fire on December 29.

The 15-page probe report was submitted to Mumbai Municipal Commissioner Ajoy Mehta on Friday. Asia Times has a copy of the report, which contains the accounts of 14 witnesses and claims to have video evidence of the sequence of events.

“The fire spread from Mojo’s Bistro to the adjacent restaurant 1Above quickly due to [the] presence of combustible materials all around, and their guests died due to asphyxiation in the washroom after they failed to escape due to [a] blocked emergency exit,” the report says.

The probe found that both these places were offering services such as liquor and hookah smoking without a license. As a result, they also failed to put in place mandatory safety precautions. Mojo’s Bistro did not have any of the three required licenses, while 1Above had only a food license from the city’s municipal corporation.

It has also emerged that 1Above didn’t have approval from the fire department to run a restaurant on the rooftop. The previous approval given to both establishments was revoked recently because of their lack of compliance with regulations.

“Both the restaurants were running illegal hookah bars. Besides, fire tricks or flame cocktails were being performed by the bartenders at Mojo’s Bistro and [the] firefighting system of the building was dysfunctional,” the Mumbai fire department’s report said.

The findings also expose serious administrative lapses at various levels. However, the police have only arrested people from the management of the two restaurants and have not taken any action against erring civic officials so far. This, said sources, indicates the possibility of corruption and political influence in running illegal businesses in the heart of the city.

The Kamala Mills Compound at Parel, an erstwhile textile mill, now contains the headquarters of many leading media houses. The compound has more than three dozen restaurants and pubs, mostly running without permission from the authorities.

The probe notes that “the fire started during preparation of [a] hookah at Mojo’s Bistro possibly due to a pedestal fan and coal sigri [holder] being used to fan and burn charcoal. Since the bar wasn’t covered from above and had fewer guests, they escaped easily.” It also points out that “1Above had illegally erected a shed made from combustible materials such as tarpaulin and bamboo. It was packed at that time, hence the loss of many lives.”

In its earlier report Asia Times pointed out that the illegal sale of hookah smokes was the prime suspect. The report has now confirmed this to be true.

The probe also found that the emergency exit was blocked, preventing people from escaping the spreading fire. “The security personnel should have guided the trapped people, which could have saved people. [It] seems that even the security personnel were not aware of [the] emergency escape as one of the victim[s] is [a] bouncer who died along with the [others] who [sought] refuge in a nearby toilet,” the report says. It is unclear which of the two restaurants blocked the passageway.

The report also castigates the restaurant management for failing to call emergency services on time. “When the fire occurred not a single management or staff personnel from Mojo Bistro or 1Above intimated the fire brigade or public in the building,” it says, adding that notification of the fire department was delayed “and was received through the security guard.”

The management of the two restaurants have not issued any official reaction to the findings of the report. But the strong suspicion is that collusion of corrupt officials and a callous restaurant management led to the loss of lives that could have been easily prevented.