Lalit Sushma Row
A year later, while her party is in power, her foreign affairs minister Sushma Swaraj went out of her way to get him travel documents from the British government because his passport had been revoked by the Indian government for his alleged violation of Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). In connection with the case, the Enforcement Directorate also had issued a blue corner notice against him.
When Sushma Swaraj assisted Lalit Modi with his travel documents, what in fact she did was to help a 'fugitive', as Sitharaman had dubbed him two years ago. He had run away from the process of Indian law and as a result was stripped off his Indian passport. Strangely, within a few months of the BJP government coming to power, the Delhi High Court restored his passport and the Government of India, which had earlier revoked the passport, chose not to appeal against the decision.
Union External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj. AFPUnion External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj. AFP
Swaraj claims that she has done nothing wrong other than taking a “humanitarian view” of an Indian. That he was a fugitive from Indian law, that he has been hiding from the ED’s investigations on a multi-million dollar scam and that the previous government had on record advised the British government against giving him any travel documents. Had she consulted with the finance ministry, her own officers, and done the due diligence before revoking an existing order against him by the Union government? Is India a banana republic were law is whimsical?
Looks like, along with Swaraj, the Home Minister Rajnath Singh, BJP president Amit Shah, and the RSS think it is. They feel that there was nothing wrong with what Swaraj did. Some BJP leaders even averred that Lalit Modi was a “fugitive” (only) for the UPA government!
Even a simple reading of the basic facts of the case shows that what Swaraj has done is great impropriety. In the study of public administration and public service ethics, the “appearance of impropriety” itself is big deal. In democracies such as the US, the standards are pretty high and appropriate codes have even “appearance of impropriety” as an element. The simple “Prudent Person Rule”, derived from the English Common Law has a basic test: would a reasonable person armed with all the facts conclude that an action or inaction was inappropriate? Swaraj and her party would say that the Lalit Modi act was appropriate, but the facts of the case show that it was highly inappropriate and did amount to “impropriety”. And this impropriety needs to be investigated because it folds in itself a conflict of interest. According to media reports that emerged so far, Swaraj’s daughter was a lawyer for Lalit Modi and the British MP Keith Vaz who was mediating for him reportedly helped secure an admission for a Swaraj relative at Sussex. More over, by Lalit Modi’s own admission, he is close to some BJP leaders. Swaraj’s action has punched a big hole in the BJP government’s claims of corruption or scam free governance. UPA’s mega scams have reduced the idea of corruption to swindling money and BJP was happy to use it as a cover for its impropriety. Corruption is not just about money and defies simple definition. In fact, because of this complexity, the UN convention against corruption in 2002 even chose not to define it and listed examples that make corrupt practices. Favouritism, nepotism and clientelism; abuse of discretionary powers; exploiting conflict of interests; and political contributions are among the practices that the UN has listed as corruption. campaign, did Narendra Modi say that Congress was its benchmark for corruption?
Comments