Two curious legal cases

The first involves the following statement by Narendra Modi:

"I want to tell the government in Delhi, lets sign a year-long pact, you don't take any money from us and don’t give us any aid. And then we will show the Centre how we run the state. You all tell me, am I not right," he was quoted as saying. [link]

It is not known if these were the exact words uttered by Modi, but calling these statements seditious is quite ambitious. As a matter of fact, Congress bigwigs have not made any public statements, leaving the hatchet job to foot soldiers like Manish Tewari.

Given that the UPA top brass have basically maintained a wall of silence about the Gujjar and Gorkha issues, one can only imagine the seriousness of this regime about the nation's security. Perhaps this is a moot point, since many of UPA's partners are unabashedly seditious, especially the communist factions.

As a side point, Congress claims that the Government does not have "any system to determine how much a state government contributed in taxes to the Centre". This is quite funny. Evidently the Government does not have any mechanism to determine which castes qualify for OBC privileges either. The Government does not even have a mechanism to determine how much of social spending actually go to intended recipients (15% if you believe the late Rajiv Gandhi, 5% if you believe Rahul).

The center-state resource allocation issue is nothing new. A plethora of studies have been done on this issue, as an example - here. The fact of the matter is, there is a well defined system that determines these issues. That system is called "electoral opportunism".

The second issue cropped up when an RTI petition revealed that the BJP had accepted an election contribution from Dow Chemicals. A partial list of the contributions to various parties is available here. The issue is embarrassing for the BJP given the popular (and grossly misplaced) sentiment against Dow. The Madhya Pradesh Congress has petitioned the EC to cancel the registration of BJP. There is no question that the contribution was illegal. The relevant laws (Foreign Contribution Regulation Act) can be found here. It is not clear if a contribution of Rs. 1 Lakh ($2,500), albeit illegal, is ground enough to cancel a party's registration.

The funny part is this bit from the Congress website:

The Committee has received suggestions that the Congress make efforts to raise funds from NRIs and overseas Indians.

The factual position is that under Section 4 (1), Chapter II of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (FCRA), no political party can accept foreign contributions. Section 4 (2) bars even NRIs having Indian citizenship from delivering any currency, Indian or foreign, to any political party.

However, Section 5, Chapter II of FCRA allows an organization of a political nature but not being a political party, to accept a foreign contribution with the prior permission of the Central Government. The organistion can be associated with the activities of a political party.

Thus, under the FCRA, theoretically the Congress Party could (i) establish a Congress Foundation registered, as say a trust under the Indian Trusts Act 1888; and (ii) seek permission from the Central Government to mobilize funds from NRIs for specified functions that the Foundation would undertake like training, education, publications and conventions. It is clear from the FCRA that activities of the Foundation alone can be financed in such a manner. [link]

Congress can swing back and forth between exactitude and rhetoric, technicalities and life stories with great ease, depending on whichever is convenient at a given moment. The media, ever eager to dance to its tunes, gives it much of this latitude. The aam aadmi is left holding it in their hands - the short end of the stick that is.