Electoral bonds: Failed experiment in transparency?

Before answering that question, let us look at the complete chain of events in the electoral bonds matter. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government led by Narendra Modi, in its first term, implemented the electoral bond scheme to “legalize" donations made to political parties. Even before the scheme was notified, the Opposition alleged that the scheme was aimed at supporting the Bharatiya Janata Party. The Association for Democratic Reforms, which has worked for electoral reforms for years, approached the Supreme Court against the move. The court took seven years—including the six years since the bond scheme was implemented—to deliver a verdict. In its 15 February verdict, the court rejected the scheme as unconstitutional.

Now, the data released on 14 March, too, does not reveal the complete story because SBI has separated it into two sets: The first gives the name of the bond buyer, while the second gives details of the party that benefited. The linkages between the two figures are lacking. So it is no surprise that the Supreme Court has sent a notice to SBI, asking why it didn’t provide unique numbers linking donors to their political contributions.

Are some secrets waiting to be revealed in the coming days? Perhaps, but the story that has emerged so far itself is exciting. Those expecting to see the names of industrial bigwigs benefiting from the government were disappointed by their absence from the list. It is natural in such a situation to wonder what the more than 1,250 corporations that purchased electoral bonds totalling ₹12,155 crore between 12 April 2019 and 15 February 2024, really do. What are their business interests?

The first company on this list is Future Gaming and Hotels Services Pvt. Ltd. It purchased bonds worth ₹1,368 crore. Similarly, Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd invested ₹966 crore, while Quick Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd bought bonds for ₹410 crore. The published data lists them as the top three companies. Until today, the names of these companies have been rarely discussed by the public. Future Gaming and Hotels Services Pvt. Ltd, the largest contributor, runs a lottery business headquartered in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. This company was founded by Santiago Martin, also known as Lottery King and Martin Lottery.

Martin’s story is astonishing. In his early days, he used to do petty jobs in Myanmar. In 1988, he returned home and opened a lottery firm, the success of which was beyond all expectations. Martin has been the subject of controversy often. Is he so pro-democracy that he purchased bonds worth over ₹1,300 crore from the common man’s lottery money and donated it to political parties?

According to initial information, three of the top five bond buyers purchased the bonds following action taken by ED or the income tax department. Also, the first 20 donors bought bonds worth ₹5,830 crore, representing 48% of the overall transaction. Which parties were given these bonds?

Data available shows, the BJP has received 47.5% of total donations, the Trinamool Congress 12.6%, and the Congress 11.1%. Telangana’s Bharat Rashtra Samithi, led by K. Chandrashekar Rao, finished fourth with ₹1,215 crore, while Biju Janata Dal came in fifth with ₹776 crore.

If you ask anyone which is the second largest political party after the Bharatiya Janata Party, the majority would say Congress. It’s odd that Congress is third, while Mamata Banerjee’s TMC, which only rules in West Bengal, is second. The question also arises as to how the parties running relatively tiny states such as Telangana and Odisha rose to fourth and fifth place, respectively. Information available so far shows the majority of bond purchases have been made by businesses that were most in need of government assistance. Is this money spent to further personal gain? We’ll have to wait a few more days for an answer to this.

Finally, let us return to the question raised in the beginning. It will be intriguing how the Opposition leverages this matter at the upcoming election. Given that all parties were involved in the game, simply proclaiming one’s innocence can potentially lead to complications. This scenario presents a collective predicament, in which both donors and recipients find themselves in an equally awkward position.

Shashi Shekhar is editor-in-chief, Hindustan. Views are personal.