The rise and rise of Lalit Modi is part of sporting folklore, as was his equally swift downfall
File photo of Rajasthan CM Vasundhara Raje with former IPL chairman Lalit Modi.
It’s taken a little more than a year, but the mirror has cracked and the much touted image of a taint-free government stands be-smirched. Despite the BJP top brass’ every effort to project the NDA government as unaffected by the deeply damaging Sushma —Vasundhara-Lalit Modi scandal, the deafening silence from the Prime Minister’s Office and the BJP’s dogged refusal to remove either the Rajasthan chief minister, Ms Vasundhara Raje or External Affairs Minister Ms Sushma Swaraj, has put the BJP and the Narendra Modi government on the backfoot.
In one fell swoop, a certain Mr Lalit Modi has dislodged the BJP from its high pedestal. It no longer occupies the moral high ground. And while at any other time, the party’s old and marginalised warhorse L.K. Advani’s rumblings on the Emergency would have been seen as nothing more than sour grapes, his veiled attack on government against its dictatorial style of functioning was a body blow. In signs of the deepening internal feud within, that point to its potential to crack under pressure, the BJP MP, Mr Kirti Azad tweeted about an asteen ka saap in the party, who used his hold over the media to strike at Ms Swaraj.
The RSS, which directed the government to launch the Sushma defense by the BJP top brass including Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, Home Minister Rajnath Singh, is in wait and watch mode. It can see that while the Congress had its Ashwini Kumar and its Pawan Bansal — sacked over the coal and railway scams- the BJP now has its own cricket-sleaze money scam in Sushma Swaraj and Vasundhara Raje. And further, that if the Congress has a Robert Vadra, the BJP has its very own Dushyant Singh to live down. This is a far cry from the charged BJP that before the Lok Sabha polls took the Congress head on. In fact, it had even taken on Lalit Modi! In October 2013, at a press conference in Jaipur, then BJP spokesperson and present Minister of state for commerce and industry Nirmala Sitharaman called Lalit Modi a fugitive.
Angered by his tweets on the BJP, she asked, "Who’s he? A fugitive from law, he cannot question the BJP, we abide by the law of the land." Ms Sitharaman’s telling silence now points to the new reality — that two top women leaders of the BJP had a lot more to do with this "fugitive " than meets the eye. As allegations stand today, it was the external affairs minister, Ms Sushma Swaraj, who went out of her way and that too covertly, to get the former IPL czar, Lalit Modi travel documents as his passport was revoked by the Indian government for alleged violation of Foreign Exchange Management Act. Following this, the Enforcement Directorate had also issued a blue corner notice against him. Ms Swaraj claims she did "nothing wrong, other than taking a humanitarian view" of a fellow Indian, whose wife was undergoing cancer treatment in Portugal. Except, while taking a "humanitarian view," the external affairs minister did not inform the Portuguese envoy, just the British High Commissioner!
It is also now public knowledge that Ms Swaraj’s lawyer daughter, Bansuri, has appeared on behalf of the controversial former IPL Chief, in Delhi High Court. In the BJP’s “fugitive” own words: “I did ask for Swaraj’s help. I know Swaraj Kaushal (Sushma’s husband) for 20 years. He has been my advocate for 20 years. His daughter Bansuri had been my advocate for four years.” Reports that Ms Swaraj had also allegedly met Lalit Modi at a dinner party hosted by a London hotelier are also now in the public domain.
But for the BJP, that wasn’t the end of the embarrassment. In a double blow, that may set off a long term churning in the top echelons of the party, the Rajasthan chief minister, Ms Vasundhara Raje and BJP royalty – her mother Vijaye Raje Scindia is a founder member of the party — appeared to have been a witness to the 2011 UK immigration application of Lalit Modi. Documents released by Lalit’s Modi’s PR team contained a ‘secret witness’ statement by Ms Raje, in support of Lalit Modi when she was Leader of the Opposition in Rajasthan.
She states: “I make this statement in support of any immigration application that Lalit Modi makes, but do so on the strict condition that my assistance will not become known to Indian authorities.” The “nexus” between Ms Raje’s son, Dushyant, also a BJP MP and Lalit Modi that emerged thereafter should have seen an immediate exit by Raje and son. Instead she has brazened it out even as details of the ongoing ED probe on Lalit Modi revealed that a firm owned by Dushyant received Rs 11.63 crore from the former IPL chief. ED was reportedly on the trail of Rs 21 crore that Modi’s firm Anand Heritage Hotels Pvt Ltd had received from an unknown Mauritius based company called Wilton Investment Ltd.
Sounding uncannily like the Congress when it defended Robert Vadra, the BJP rejected the demand for Sushma-Raje’s resignation saying "there’s no technical or legal basis" to it. The BJP’s defense of Ms Swaraj and Ms Raje – Ms Raje reportedly told the BJP top brass, that if she, no RSS favourite goes, Ms Swaraj, a Hedgewar-Advani protégé must too - any summary sacking of the two women would be an admission of guilt.
In the case of Ms Swaraj, a popular mass leader in the organisation, who can win elections and get votes for the party, a sacking at this juncture may set off a furore. Within saffron ranks, barring the asteen ka saanp and a handful of young Turks who have come in as new ministers, the rank and file with links to the old guard have demonstrated their support for the External Affairs Minister.
“Any move to take action against Sushmaji could prove harmful for the party’s top leadership,” a senior party functionary warned. With Raje, the “most powerful mass leader in Rajasthan,” any move to sideline her is expected to cost the BJP a key state. “The problem,” as a senior BJP functionary candidly admitted is that “we cannot sack them even if we want to.” The Congress, clearly salivating at being gifted the opportunity to aim for the saffron jugular has already warned that monsoon session of Parliament will not be smooth unless the BJP asks the two leaders to step down. The immediate challenge before the party is to ensure that the issue does not impact the forthcoming Bihar polls. The Delhi debacle, not far from their minds, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s weakening hold over the public imagination a factor, the poll in Bihar is crucial for BJP to gain the upper hand in the Rajya Sabha and be able to push through its ambitious economic reforms.
But with the opposition expected to milk the Sushma-Raje scandal to offset the BJP’s strategy to use Lalu’s corruption-ridden years in power against the Nitish-Lalu-Congress combine, making the splitting of the opposition’s Yadav vote bank that much harder, Bihar will no longer be the cakewalk it was expected to be.
The far bigger challenge for the government is to ensure that the blowback, as the Congress-led opposition whips up public sentiment against the Modi-led government, does not singe any other prominent leaders who have had previous dealings — hostile or otherwise - with Lalit Modi.
Either way, while the move within the BJP’s parliament managers is to ensure there is no stalling of the house that could slow the Prime Minister’s reforms agenda, others feel that the longer the Prime Minister puts off the sacking or even a reshuffle of the cabinet, with Ms Swaraj replaced perhaps by the high-profile Mr. Arun Jaitley himself, the longer the Prime Minister’s poll slogan "na khaunga na khane dunga" will be seen as nothing more than empty pre-election rhetoric.
What was the ‘impropriety’ by external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj, in interceding on behalf of former IPL commissioner and fugitive Lalit Modi in July last year? Was it in asking Britain — through its high commissioner, Sir James Bevan — to ‘examine’ the request of Lalit Modi for travel documents, while assuring Britain such a move would not harm ties between the two countries? Or was it in not even consulting the foreign secretary, Sujata Singh, the senior most MEA official in charge of relations with the UK, which meant Ms Swaraj had kept her own foreign secretary in the dark?
Even if help to Lalit Modi was to be given from a humanitarian view-point, it is clear, norms were not followed. The Minister should have consulted her own top officials in the ministry. Lalit Modi was a fugitive from justice in India. Ms. Swaraj should have asked her officials to consult the Enforcement Directorate first, as the ED is probing cases against Lalit Modi. She could have spoken to the Finance Minister, since the ED functions under the Finance Ministry. On such a serious matter, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) should have also been consulted. But none of this seems to have been done. Instead, the EAM chose to speak directly to the British High Commissioner in New Delhi. It is not customary for the Minister to have a direct communication with the Ambassador or High Commissioner of a foreign country unless top ministry officials are kept in the loop.”
— A former foreign secretary
The Sushma Swaraj-Lalit Modi imbroglio has legal and moral dimensions which her defenders are trying to paper over, pleading it was merely ministerial kindness overtaking caution. Aiding a subject of enquiry by Enforcement Directorate, whose passport stood revoked to compel appearance before it in India, without reference to that agency is morally reprehensible and legally suspect. Using the British clandestinely to facilitate that, compounded the error as Ms Swaraj as minister-in-charge of the Indian passport organisation, could have herself authorised conditional issue of short duration passport, while keeping ED informed. While only the summon-issuing magistrate can judge whether she has breached Indian law, clearly she provided Lalit Modi an opportunity for possible tampering with evidence, without seeking ED’s advice or giving it a heads-up.”
— K.C. Singh, former ambassador to UAE and Iran
Asking the British government to give him travel documents was tantamount to accepting the British Government's jurisdiction over fugitive Lalit Modi despite him being an Indian citizen. The Indian high commissioner in the UK seems to have been kept in the dark and if any assistance was to be provided in any manner, it should have been done through the Indian high commission in London. Contrast this with strained ties with Denmark over Danish Kim Davy whom India wants extradited back to India to face justice in the Purulia arms-drop case.”
— A former top diplomat
( Source : deccan chronicle )
Next Story
