ECONOMIC HIGHLIGHTS

New Delhi, 17 July 2008

Corporate India And Politics

POLITICS ANOTHER BUSINESS ‘COMPANY’?

By Shivaji Sarkar

The Indian corporate is mired in politics. The recent meeting of Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) Chairman Mukesh Ambani, with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and other top Government functionaries seemingly has sent that message. It has caused discomfort in the political circles amid speculations that corporate India is playing games that only political parties should have played.

The Samajwadi Party (SP) leader Amar Singh has blown the whistle that “a particular corporate house with its home in Narendra Modi’s Gujarat is engaged in destabilizing the Manmohan Singh Government by poaching on a number of Samajwadi MPs for the benefit of the BJP-Left-BSP combine”. The CPI leader AB Bardhan has gone beyond saying that MP’s are being offered Rs 25 crore each to vote in favour of the trust vote.

Seemingly there is nothing wrong if a citizen calls on the Prime Minister. But every ordinary citizen is not granted audition. If the richest citizen is given such an opportunity at a time when the Government is facing a crisis, there must be something special about it. More so, if he also meets the Finance Minister P Chidambaram, Petroleum Minister Murli Deora, Political Secretary to the Congress President Ahmed Patel and top bureaucrats --- Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister TKA Nair and Cabinet Secretary CM Chandrashekhar.

The back-to-back engagements followed growing perception that the Samajwadi Party’s dramatic entry into the UPA might change the power equations for the other Amabani brother, Anil, who heads the rival Anil Dhirubhai Ambani group. The family feud has led Amar Singh to demand imposition of “windfall tax” on the private petroleum refineries like Mukesh’s RIL. Mukesh has reportedly argued against such a tax.

A little earlier Amar Singh made a strong pitch for the Prime Minister to work for a truce between the feuding Ambani brothers, arguing it was necessary for the sake of the country’s economy. In political circles, this was seen as a move to nudge Mukesh to the negotiating table over the several disputes between the brothers, including the one over the Anil Ambani controlled Reliance Communication’s (RCom) bid to acquire the South African giant MTN.

Mukesh had put a wrench in RCom’s work’s by insisting that he had the right of first refusal on any move to disinvest RCom. He also refused Anil’s offer to talk things over.

Has the Prime Minister agreed to become the peacemaker? The Prime Minister’s Office has denied this and said that the Government meets leaders of industries from time to time and there is nothing unusual about it. The BJP spokesman has reacted requesting the Prime Minister not to play the “middle man”.

Some top political leaders from both the ruling and opposition combine do not see it as a simple meeting. Specially, at a time when the Government should bother more about political dialogues to save itself in the trust vote. This is more so as the UPA’s chances of clearing the trial of strength scheduled for 22 June largely hinge on the Samajwadi’s ability to prevent desertions from its ranks. The estimate is that the BSP will spare no effort to wean away SP MPs, who may be looking for political accommodation outside the Samajwadi fold.

The course of events suggests a pattern that certainly cannot comfort the democratic functioning. It hints at money power playing an important role in destabilizing it. It also creates an eerie feeling that the democratic mandate can be changed through machinations and manipulations. Looking differently, it creates a perception that MPs and political parties are up for sale. The Congress spokesperson Jayanthi Natarajan has called upon Bardhan either to prove his allegation or tender an apology.

Natarajan’s statement may be a concern or simple political rhetoric, but it laid bare a perception that democracy is just not run by the mandate given by the people. There are other people who play truant with it. This is certainly not a healthy trend. More so, if political parties either owe allegiance or are owned by corporate masters. It is almost like another “company” in the corporate functioning.

A top leader says that if you integrate globally, this is something you cannot avoid. “The US”, he says, “is run by a few corporate giants, who always talk of corporate sovereignty. Now India is also aping the pattern”. He may be right but the US since 1960s has also been debating the evil influence of the corporate sovereignty, which has dragged the US to many recent wars including in Iraq to protect their profits. In other words, US citizens are fighting not for a national cause but for the profit of some oil giants. Is India heading for such a scenario?

It is, however, too naive to believe that corporate meddling is a recent Indian phenomenon. Jawaharlal Nehru knew of it so he had decided to have the Capital in Delhi away from the financial influences of the then Bombay (Mumbai now). The way Jayanti Shipping’s Mundhra was allowed to slip out of the country, only speaks of the nexus even in 1950s. The links of his Minister TT Krishnamachari with his company and the benefit that it could have was no secret. It was also no secret that a number of MPs even in those days were close to some industrial houses.

But neither the political persons nor the corporates were so blatant as they are now. This is also a historical fact that the Government has bailed out a number of corporate houses at times of their internal feud. The Government’s financial institutions had bailed out the Escorts Nanda’s when they faced an onslaught by another corporate (Swaraj Paul) group. The Government also successfully played its role in the Russi Modi-Ratan Tata controversy to help the Tata group.

The influence of the Dhirubhai Ambani group on the Government functioning has been too well known since the early 1980s. It was even alleged that some of the present top functionaries in the Government were too close to Dhirubhai. One of them was reportedly denied a top Constitutional position for such a past.

In different States, different corporates are known to be playing their roles. Be it Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal or Uttar Pradesh. The issue is whether the corporates benefit or the political leaders. Possibly both use each other.

A number of debates have taken place in the past to keep off such influence.   More than the debates have been the tie up leading to the present scenario. The reality is politics has become too expensive. The funding pattern is murky. Till there is a clear funding pattern such nexus would continue and so would the storm over a tea-cup.

While the nation would discuss ethics, politics and the corporates would behave the way they want. Most global wars are now corporate wars and not fights for ethical or national causes. In the ultimate, Mukesh, Anil and Amar would continue to rule the roost because there is lack of political will to contain it. ---- INFA

(Copyright India News & Features Alliance)