Modi-Jaitley Have Just Missed Their Loha Garam Hai Maar Do Hathoda Moment

maxresdefault

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven –  Pete Seeger

Or if you are the kind who gets analogies from Hindi cinema more easily, the finance minister Arun Jaitley and prime minister Narendra Modi, have missed their loha garam hai maar do hathoda moment, to clean up the face of electoral funding in India.

The way things stand as of now electoral funding in the country continues to be extremely opaque. As the finance minister Jaitley put it in his budget speech: “Even 70 years after Independence, the country has not been able to evolve a transparent method of funding political parties which is vital to the system of free and fair elections.”

What prevents political parties from having evolved a transparent method of electoral financing? As Sandip Sukhtankar and Milan Vaishnav write in a research paper titled Corruption in India: Bridging Research Evidence and Policy Options: “For instance, corporations and parties are only legally required to publicly disclose political contributions in excess of Rs. 20,000. This rule allows contributors to package unlimited political contributions just below this threshold value completely free of disclosure.”

Hence, political parties are allowed to accept cash donations of up to Rs 20,000 and then not declare who made those donations. In fact, as the Association for Democratic Reforms points out in a recent report titled Analysis of Sources of Funding of National and Regional Parties of India FY 2004-05 to 2014-15 (11 years): “The unknown sources are income declared in the IT returns but without giving source of income for donations below Rs. 20,000. Such unknown sources include ‘sale of coupons’, ‘Aajiwan Sahayog Nidhi’, ‘relief fund’, ‘miscellaneous income’, ‘voluntary contributions’, ‘contribution from meetings/ morchas’ etc. The details of donors of such voluntary contributions are not available in the public domain.”

Not surprisingly, political parties make full use of this provision. The analysis carried out by the Association for Democratic Reforms points out that the total income of national political parties between 2004-2005 and 2014-2015 stood at Rs 9,278.3 crore. The Congress, BJP, BSP, CPI, CPI(M) and NCP, were the six national political parties, considered for this analysis. The All India Trinamool Congress was recognised as a national party only in September 2016.

Around 71 per cent or Rs 6,612.4 crore of the declared income of national parties came from unknown sources. In case of 51 regional political parties which were considered for analysis, the total income over the decade amounted to Rs 2,089 crore. Of this, around 58 per cent or Rs 1,220.6 crore, came from unknown sources.

Hence, overall, around 69 per cent of the income of political parties between 2004-2005 and 2014-2015, came from unknown sources. This during an era when you and I had to offer an identity proof for more and more financial transactions. In fact, recently I found out that even to apply for an ISBN (International Standard Book Number) for a book, requires an Aadhar card. Meanwhile, political parties can continue to accept cash donations of up to Rs 20,000, without revealing the identity of the donor.

In the budget presented yesterday, the finance minister Jaitley and prime minister Modi, have tried to correct this. As Jaitley said in the budget speech: “In accordance with the suggestion made by the Election Commission, the maximum amount of cash donation that a political party can receive will be Rs 2,000/- from one person.”

Hence, the Rs 20,000 limit has been lowered to Rs 2,000. This has been hailed by many as a brave move. As former election commissioner S Y Quraishi told The Indian Express, “It is a positive move and also an acknowledgment that political funding is an issue that needs to be addressed. As the Budget also says, this is the first step and not the final one. I hope this will be taken to the logical conclusion.”

Reducing the cash funding of political parties to one-tenth of what it used to be and the introduction of electoral bonds are two significant steps in curbing corruption,” A.K. Verma, a Kanpur-based political analyst, told Mint.

The Section 29C of the Representation of People Act, 1951, allowed political parties to accept donations of Rs 20,000 from anonymous individuals. This has now been reduced to Rs 2,000. This basically means that all the political party receiving cash donations needs to do is to split one cash donation of Rs 20,000, into ten cash donations of Rs 2,000, and continue with the system as it has evolved.

As Professor Jagdeep Chhokar, founding member of the Association for Democratic Reforms told The Hindustan Times: “Earlier, those who did not want to declare donations used to issue receipts for Rs 19,999. Now they will do the same for Rs 1,999. The business will run as usual.

How does this move in anyway make the entire electoral financing system more transparent, as suggested by Jaitley in the budget speech? This half-baked measure is not going to change things in any way.

If Modi and Jaitley were serious about cleaning up electoral funding they would have simply banned cash donations to political parties and at the same time there would be no donations from unknown sources.

If individuals in this country are expected to go cashless and make use of digital payment mechanisms, the political parties should be expected to do the same as well. It is much easier for them to get the necessary infrastructure in place.

This is basically yet another move by Jaitley and Modi to deviate attention from the real problem of black money financing Indian elections and one set of rules for political parties and another for citizens. Now they have something to say about having done their bit. And that’s that. Instead, they really had an opportunity to clean up the electoral financing system in the country. But they chose not to.

Also, it is worth pointing out here what Chhokar says: “The law was that the political parties were bound to declare donations over Rs 20,000. It did not mean that they could not declare donations below that amount… So those who want to hide the source of their donations, still have a way out.” But that, as they say, this is easier said than done.

To conclude, as a friend put it to me yesterday, it’s time to run another petition.

The  column originally appeared on Equitymaster on February 2, 2017

Modi Should Close Loophole Allowing Political Parties to Launder Black Money

 

narendra_modi

On December 16, 2016, the revenue secretary Hasmukh Adhia said that the political parties are free to deposit old Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes in their bank accounts. Adhia also said that deposits in the accounts of political parties are not to be taxed. “If it is a deposit in the account of a political party, they are exempt. But if it is deposited in individual’s account then that information will come into our radar,” he said. This basically meant that deposits made by political parties would not be up for scrutiny.

This statement created a lot of controversy. The finance minister and master spinner Arun Jaitley then took pains to explain that the political parties were not being given any favourable treatment. As he said: Under Section 13A of IT Act 1961, Political parties have to submit audited accounts, income and expenditure details and balance sheets. Post demonetisation, no political party can accept donations in 500 and 1000 rupee notes since they were rendered illegal tenders. Any party doing so would be in violation of law.

Just like anyone else, political parties can also deposit their cash held in the old currency in banks till the 30th of December provided they can satisfactorily explain the source of income and their books of accounts reflect the entries prior to 8 November,” he added.

While it may sound different, both Adhia and Jaitley were essentially saying the same thing. This is how things prevail as of now. Political parties are currently not required to publicly disclose contributions of up to Rs 20,000.

As Sandip Sukhtankar and Milan Vaishnav write in a research paper titled Corruption in India: Bridging Research Evidence and Policy Options: “This rule allows contributors to package unlimited political contributions just below this threshold value completely free of disclosure.”

This basically means that any political party having received individual donations of up to Rs 20,000 in cash can deposit it in bank accounts. This money will not be investigated simply because these donations need not be publicly disclosed. That is the law of the land. And that is precisely what Adhia said: “If it is a deposit in the account of a political party, they are exempt. But if it is deposited in individual’s account then that information will come into our radar.”

Further, the political parties can go through the audits that Jaitley talks about but they still won’t have to publicly declare the names of the individuals and institutions, who have donated amounts below Rs 20,000.

In fact, let’s look at some data from 2014-2015, put together by the Association for Democratic Reforms. As the report titled Analysis of Income & Expenditure of National Political Parties for FY- 2014-2015 and dated June 3, 2016, points out: “Only 49% of the total donations of the parties came from voluntary contributions above Rs 20,000.” This means that 51 per cent or more than half of the total donations of National Political Parties came from donors whose details are not available in the public domain. The BJP, Congress, BSP, NCP, CPI and CPM, form the six national level political parties.

As the report points out: “A total of Rs 648.66 crores (51% of total donations) of the total donations to National Parties was collected during FY 2014-15 from donors whose details are not available in the public domain.”

The report makes several other interesting points:

a) BJP… collected Rs 434.67 crores (50% of total donations) from donors whose details are unavailable.

b) BSP claims not having received any donation above Rs 20,000, hence no donations details of the party are in public domain. The BSP has been declaring this for 10 years now.

c) NCP is only party which has not received donation below Rs 20,000 during FY 2014-15. Thus all voluntary contributions are available in the public domain.

d) As far as the Congress is concerned, 32 per cent of the donations of the party came from unknown sources.

e) The unknown sources of income are essentially raised through ‘sale of coupons’, ‘relief fund’, ‘miscellaneous income’, ‘voluntary contributions’, ‘contribution from meetings/ morchas’ etc.

So as far as dealing in cash is concerned, it continues to be the order of the day for political parties. It is worth mentioning here that we are talking about only six national level political parties here.

The number of political parties operating in India is significantly more. A PTI report dated August 2015 points out: “According to the [Election] Commission, as on July 24, there are 1866 political parties which are registered with it.”

Most of these parties do not fight elections. Then why are they set up in the first place? As former Chief Election Commissioner TS Krishna Murthy recently told The Indian Express: “Many political parties are set up with the sole intention of laundering black money.”

In fact, it is safe to speculate that many of these political parties would have been laundering money in the aftermath of demonetisation as well. The law of the land does not stop them from doing that. All they need to claim while depositing demonetised Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes into a bank is that it was donated on or before November 8, 2016.

Having said that, it would be make tremendous sense for the government to release data on the total amount of demonetised Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes deposited by the political parties in banks since November 8, 2016. Is the Modi government up for that?

Further, yesterday the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) came up with another rule. An individual while depositing more than Rs 5,000 must offer an explanation to at least two bank employees as to why this could not be deposited earlier. The amount will be credited only after receiving a satisfactory explanation. The RBI wants the explanation to be kept on record to facilitate an audit trail at a later stage. Also, the citizens need to show an identity proof while depositing their old Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes into a bank account. On the other hand, political parties can continue to receive donations of up to Rs 20,000 in cash and need not declare who gave those donations. The political parties can deposit the old Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes into their bank accounts, and no questions will be asked.

In fact, as I have been saying repeatedly, the issue of black money cannot be tackled seriously, without making political funding transparent. This needs simple majority in the Parliament. The BJP has a majority in the Lok Sabha and can take the first step towards this. It is likely to be supported by some parties in the Rajya Sabha as well. Even without a majority, the party did manage to get the Goods and Services Tax passed through the Rajya Sabha. So, what is holding it back on this front?

In fact, the Election Commission has suggested thatanonymous contributions above or equal to the amount of Rs two thousand should be prohibited.” But why even allow a window of Rs 2,000? Political parties should move towards a totally cashless way of taking donations.

To conclude what are Jaitley, Narendra Modi and the BJP, doing about taking care of this anomaly? An anomaly which as of now clearly allows political parties to launder black money. Will something be done on this front or are only the citizens of this country accepted to show all the honesty?

Postscript: This is my last piece for the year. Here is wishing the readers a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. See you in January 2017.

The column originally appeared on Equitymaster.com on December 20,2016

If Nation is Expected to Go Cashless, Stop Political Parties from Taking Cash Donations

rupee-foradian.png.scaled1000

In the November 27, 2016, mann ki baat address to the nation, prime minister Narendra Modi talked about India moving towards a cashless society. As he said: “The great task that the country wants to accomplish today is the realisation of our dream of a ‘Cashless Society’. It is true that a hundred percent cashless society is not possible. But why should India not make a beginning in creating a ‘less-cash society’? Once we embark on our journey to create a ‘less-cash society’, the goal of ‘cashless society’ will not remain very far.”

A very noble thought indeed, the practical part of implementing it, notwithstanding. The interesting thing is that the mention of this dream of India moving towards a cashless society wasn’t made in Modi’s November 8, 2016, address to the nation. In this address Modi announced the decision to demonetise the high denomination notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000.

Neither was it a part of the ministry of finance press release that accompanied the decision. The primary goal of demonetisation was to tackle fake currency notes and black money. As the press release pointed out: “With a view to curb financing of terrorism through the proceeds of Fake Indian Currency Notes
(FICN) and use of such funds for subversive activities such as espionage, smuggling of arms, drugs and other contrabands into India, and for eliminating Black Money which casts a long shadow of parallel economy on our real economy, it has been decided to cancel the legal tender character of the High Denomination bank notes of Rs.500 and Rs.1000 denominations issued by RBI till now
.”

Of course, it can be said that the dream towards a cashless society goes hand in hand with the dream of eliminating black money. So, to that extent they are connected. Nevertheless, with the way the entire issue of demonetisation has been handled up until now, it is safe to say that this was not something that the government had thought about originally. They are making it up as they go along.

It is worth asking how feasible this dream is. A PwC report titled Disrupting cash: Accelerating electronic payments in India points out that 98 per cent of volume of consumer transactions in India are still in cash. The number is 96 per cent in case of Mexico, 94 per cent in case of South Africa, 90 per cent in case of China and 86 per cent in case of Japan. While this figure can be brought down, there is no way India is moving towards becoming a cashless society any time soon.

Then there are other issues. Smart phones are not a universal phenomenon. The moment one goes beyond the big cities, internet speeds both on mobile and broadband, tend to crash. There is a large portion of the population which is barely literate. So, yes there are many issues. Some structural and some cultural.

But given that the prime minister wants India to move towards a cashless society, there is one thing that he should do to tell the nation how serious he is about the cashless dream. If the nation is expected to go cashless, why are political parties still allowed to take cash donations? This is something that the prime minister and the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) can work towards eliminating .

Let’s look at this issue in a little more detail. As Sandip Sukhtankar and Milan Vaishnav write in a research paper titled Corruption in India: Bridging Research Evidence and Policy Options: “On the expenditure side, candidates face strict limits on spending once elections have been announced, but election authorities struggle to properly verify their reported expenditure since a substantial portion typically occurs “in the black.”” Hence, black money which mostly finances political parties and in the process elections in India.

The laws are also structured to help this. As Sukhtankar and Vaishnav point out: “For instance, corporations and parties are only legally required to publicly disclose political contributions in excess of Rs. 20,000. This rule allows contributors to package unlimited political contributions just below this threshold value completely free of disclosure.

And this is where things get really interesting. As the National Election Watch-Association for Democratic Reforms point out in a report titled Analysis of Income & Expenditure of National Political Parties for FY- 2014-2015: “A comparison of total donations declared by the parties in their IT returns (both above and below Rs 20,000) and that declared in the donations report shows that only 45% of the total donations of the parties came from voluntary contributions above Rs 20,000.”

It needs to be pointed out upfront that this analysis does not take the Congress Party into account because the Party had not submitted its accounts for 2014-2015 to the Election Commission at the time of writing the report.

The report makes multiple points.

1) Only 45 per cent of the total donations of the parties came from voluntary contributions above Rs 20,000. This means that 55 per cent of the donations came from those making donations of Rs 20,000 or lower. Hence, the donors are unknown. A total of Rs 582.72 crores (55% of total donations) of the total donations to National Parties was collected during FY 2014-15 from donors whose details are not available in the public domain. There are six national political parties: BJP, Congress, BSP, NCP, CPI(M) and CPI.

2) NCP is only party which has not received donation below Rs 20,000 during FY 2014-15. Thus all voluntary contributions are available in the public domain. It is to be noted that BSP claims not having received any donation above Rs 20,000 hence no donations details of the party are in public domain.

3) How do things look for the BJP? BJP, which declared the highest total income and highest income from donations above Rs 20,000 amongst the National Parties, had collected Rs 434.67 crores (50% of total donations) from donors whose details are unavailable.

4) The “unknown sources include ‘sale of coupons’, ‘relief fund’, ‘miscellaneous income’, ‘voluntary contributions’, ‘contribution from meetings/ morchas’ etc. The details of donors of such voluntary contributions are not available in the public domain.”

If Narendra Modi is serious about his fight against black money and moving India towards a cashless society, this needs to stop. If you, I and everybody else, are being encouraged to go cashless, why are political parties still allowed to take donations in cash and not declare the source of funds.

Since the entire demonetisation issue is more about making a political point, the BJP can take a step forward on this front and promote the usage of Unified Payment Interface for cash donations that are made to a political party. In fact, the BJP should make all donations of less than Rs 20,000 compulsorily to be made through the Unified Payment Interface.

This will work at multiple levels. The BJP will score political points over its rivals and allow Modi to take a moral high ground again. The economy will become more cashless. Further, there will be less infiltration of black money in political parties, given that those making a donation of Rs 20,000 or lesser can be identified as well.

The column originally appeared on November 30, 2016, in Vivek Kaul’s Diary.

 

If Modi Wants to Eliminate Black Money, He Needs to Clean Up Political Funding

narendra_modi

In November 8, 2016, prime minister Narendra Modi made the announcement to demonetise Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes. Up until December 30, 2016, the old notes can be deposited in banks and post offices. They can also be exchanged for new ones.

While presenting these notes at the bank or the post office a proof of identity needs to be shown. Right now, I have around Rs 3,500 in old Rs 500 notes. As and when I go the bank I must show my PAN card, passport etc.

This is the correct way of going about things because one of the aims of demonetisation is to eliminate black money, “which casts a long shadow of parallel economy on our real economy”. i And in order eliminate black money an accounting trail needs to be established.

While individuals are supposed to show their PAN cards while depositing money into banks, the same does not apply to political parties. And this is the basic issue I will discuss in this column.

The decision to demonetise Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes essentially hits at the stock of black money. People who have hoarded on to black money in the form of cash and are unable to get it exchanged for new notes or gold or any other physical asset, will end up with useless pieces of paper.

At this point of time, it is difficult to estimate what portion of the stock of black money is likely to be destroyed. The only thing that can be said with some certainty is that some of the black money which has been accumulated in the form of notes or cash, over the years, will not make it back to the financial system.

Also, after this demonetisation move, people who are wont to holding black money in the form of cash are unlikely to do the same, at least, not to the same extent.

The demonetisation though does not stop people from starting to accumulate black money all over again. Along with new notes of Rs 500 and Rs 2,000 which have been introduced, a new note of Rs 1,000 is also on its way. Once these new notes are there in the market, they can be used to start accumulating black money all over again.

Given this, the demonetisation move is unlikely to hurt the flow of black money i.e., it’s further accumulation. If the government wants to do that, one of the things that it needs to do is to reform the financing of political parties.

If as a citizen I need to show my identity card while depositing my old notes to the bank, people making donations to political parties should also be made to do the same. This will make the accounts of political parties completely auditable.

Now that is something that does not happen as of now. I had discussed this point in the September 30, 2016, edition of the Vivek Kaul Letter (subscription required). Given the situation as it has evolved, the points are worth repeating here.

An analysis carried out by the National Election Watch and Association of Democratic Reforms reveals that during the period 2004-05 and 2011-12, the total income of the national political parties was Rs 4,899.46 crores. ii

There are six national political parties. These are Indian National Congress, Bhartiya Janata Party, Nationalist Congress Party, Bahujan Samaj Party, Communist Party of India and Communist Party of India(Marxist).

The Congress party declared the highest income of Rs 2,365.02 crores. This is hardly surprising given that it was the Congress led United Progressive Alliance was in power in Delhi throughout this period. It was followed by the Bhartiya Janata Party which declared an income of Rs 1,304.22 crores, and was the principal opposition party during the period. (See Figure 1)

Figure 1:

National 

Between 2004-05 and 2011-12, there were two Lok Sabha elections (in 2004 and 2009) and multiple state assembly elections. It doesn’t take rocket science to conclude that the incomes declared by the political parties were clearly not enough to fight so many elections.

And how did things look in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections? Look at Figure 2.

Figure 2:

Sabha 

As per Figure 2, the six national political parties spent Rs 2,453.98 crore in the last three Lok Sabha elections. Of this around Rs 1,308.73 crore was spent in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections.

Now compare this to an estimate made by the Centre for Media Studies in March 2014. It estimated that around Rs 30,000 crore would be spent during the 16th Lok Sabha elections which happened in April and May 2014. Of this amount, the central government would spend around Rs 7,000-8,000 crore to conduct the elections. The remaining amount of around Rs 22,000-23,000 crore would be spent by the candidates for wooing the voters and fighting the elections.

Of course, national political parties are not the only parties fighting elections. Nevertheless, the difference between the officially declared expenditure and the ‘real’ expenditure to fight elections, is huge. Where does this money come from?

As Sandip Sukhtankar and Milan Vaishnav write in a research paper titled Corruption in India: Bridging Research Evidence and Policy Options: “On the expenditure side, candidates face strict limits on spending once elections have been announced, but election authorities struggle to properly verify their reported expenditure since a substantial portion typically occurs “in the black.”” Hence, it can be deduced that it is black money which mostly finances political parties and in the process elections in India.

The laws are also structured to help this. As Sukhtankar and Vaishnav point out: “For instance, corporations and parties are only legally required to publicly disclose political contributions in excess of Rs 20,000. This rule allows contributors to package unlimited political contributions just below this threshold value completely free of disclosure. Indeed, in 2014 the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) reported that 75 percent of the income of India’s six major parties comes from undocumented sources.”

Take the case of the Bahujan Samaj Party. For 2014-2015, the party “claims not having received any donation above Rs 20,000 hence no donations details of the party are in public domain.” iii

As mentioned earlier there are limits to the total amount of money that a candidate can spend during Lok Sabha elections. For bigger states like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, etc., this limit is set at Rs 70 lakh. But for smaller states, like Goa, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh, this limit is set at Rs 54 lakh. Nevertheless, there is a loophole here which helps parties spend much more money than the prescribed limits. As Sukhtankar and Vaishnav write: “Under existing statute, the Election Commission of India(ECI) lacks clear powers to take follow-up action in the event a candidate files false or misleading declarations. An even bigger problem lies with a loophole in the law that allows candidates to keep secret party and supporter expenditures on behalf of their campaigns that are spent propagating the party programme rather than endorsing the specific candidate in question.”

All these loopholes allow political parties to spend black money in their campaigning. Any government which is serious about cracking down on black money should be addressing these loopholes with utmost seriousness.

Another important observation that needs to be made here is regarding bringing political parties under the Right to Information Act. In an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court in August 2015, the Modi government said: “If political parties are held to be public authorities under RTI Act, it would hamper their smooth internal working, which is not the objective of the RTI Act and was not envisaged by Parliament. Further, it is apprehended that political rivals might file RTI applications with malicious intentions, adversely affecting their political functioning.” iv

In fact, the Congress Party has argued along similar lines against the 2013 order of the Central Information Commission to bring the six national parties under the ambit of the Right to Information Act. In June 2016, it argued before the commission: “Declaring a political party as public authority under the RTI Act would hamper its smooth internal working, which is not the objective of the RTI Act.” v

The Congress Party had further said that if political parties were brought under RTI, rivals would maliciously file many RTIs and adversely impact the functioning of the political parties. This is a pretty ridiculous argument given that if some party decides to do this with the Congress, the Congress can do the same with that political party. Hence, there is already a sense of balance in the system.

If the political parties are brought under the ambit of RTI, they will have to function in a much more transparent way in comparison to what they do now. This would mean keeping proper records of where the funds to finance them are coming from. Also, cash donations to political parties need to stop. Payments need to made through cheques or the various digital alternatives that are available.

In fact, Modi and the Bhartiya Janata Party can take a step forward on this front and promote the usage the recently launched of United Payment Interface for the small donations that are made to a political party.

To conclude, real estate companies or builders are major financiers of political parties, at least at the state level. There is some very good research evidence to suggest that builders do finance politicians before elections. In a paper titled Quid Pro Quo: Builders, Politicians, and Election Finance in India, authors Devesh Kapur and Milan Vaishnav, look at the cement consumption of builders to show how extensively builders have to feed the politicians.

All construction requires cement. When it comes to cement demand, the real estate sector accounts for a major part of the demand in India. When the construction activity carried out by the real estate sector goes up, the demand for cement increases. If the real estate companies are key financiers of politicians, as they are assumed to be, then just before the elections, they will need money to finance the electoral campaign of politicians.

If the real estate companies pay the politicians, it would mean that they will have lesser money to carry out their own activities. This would mean a slowdown in construction activity. And a slowdown in construction activity should lead to a fall in cement consumption.

Hence, cement consumption can be tracked to figure out whether real estate companies are financing politicians. Kapur and Vaishnav looked at elections in seventeen Indian states between 1995 and 2010. They found a “contraction in cement consumption (representing a 12 to 15 percent decline) during the month of state assembly elections”. What this clearly tells us is that real estate companies do finance state level politicians, as is commonly inferred.

In fact, the authors even offer some anecdotal evidence. A builder constructing a hotel in Mumbai was told by the government it would issue permits required, if there was a quid pro quo. And what was the quid pro quo? It wasn’t cash but a stake of five per cent in the hotel in the name of a firm connected to a local politician. vi

Hence, if the political parties are brought under the ambit of RTI and are forced to declare where their donations are coming from in a timely manner, the nexus between politicians and builders will come under proper scrutiny. This will mean a big attack on the black economy and will slow down the generation of black money in the economy.

The decision to demonetise high-denomination bank notes only attacks the current stock of black money. It doesn’t do anything about its flow or future generation. Let’s see if Modi gets around to doing this. That will be a real victory over black money.

The column originally appeared in Vivek Kaul’s Diary on Equitymaster on November 15, 2016