(
Sambit Patra is national spokesperson for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and a renowned surgeon)
Many a TV panelist has developed a hoarse throat shouting and countering others on the issue of black money over the last few days.
Both the Congress and the AAP, with their dwindling political fortunes, grappled for the black money issue, thinking that it could help revive them in otherwise difficult times. The Congress and AAP tried their best to spread all kind of canards about the issue but failed in their attempts.
The myth that was peddled was that the NDA took the same stand which the UPA had taken on black money.
This is absolutely false; let's see why.
The intention comes first. One of the first decisions that the Modi government took after its inception was the constitution of an SIT (Special Investigation Team) to unearth black money. Now critics say that it was the Supreme Court who "forced a decision". Those who remember the 2011 Supreme Court suggestion to constitute a SIT would know how the UPA's Solicitor General had vociferously opposed the idea. In November 2013, the UPA had also filed an application in the court asking the Supreme Court to modify its earlier order that appointed the SIT.
Once even this petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court, the UPA went ahead and on 8th May 2014 filed a review petition to cancel the important Supreme Court orders which constituted the SIT. So those who did everything possible to stall the SIT formation today question the intentions of a government that initiated the process.
Within just four months of its formation, the Modi government was able to engage with Swiss authorities who were otherwise reluctant; an agreement was reached on exchange of information in a time-bound manner. The talks on automatic sharing of information are also in progress and would be a historical step if achieved. This the UPA government could have initiated but either it missed the opportunity or it knowingly stalled the process.
The comparison has been made on the ground that just like the UPA, the NDA did not want to declare the names of the defaulters on the list. Baseless allegations! As the facts have it, the list of black money holders had been submitted along with an Action Taken Report to the SIT on 27 June 2014, well before the Supreme Court asked for its submission. Since the SIT is monitored by the Supreme Court, technically speaking, the government had kept the SIT abreast of all developments.
As Justice MB Shah, Chairman of the SIT himself said in an interview, the list that he was given by the government was the same as the one that has been handed over to him this week by the Supreme Court, meaning that the government has hidden nothing. Justice Shah also maintained that he did not feel that the government was trying to protect anyone.
Contrary to the transparent and quick stand of the BJP government, the Congress government sat over the list from 2009 to 2014. In an interview to a reputed TV network, the then Finance Minister P Chidambaram said that he did not even go through the list of black money holders. The Finance Minister does not see the list? Why? It means either non-seriousness on part of the Congress government or an attempt to hide something.
Allegations were that the Modi government wanted the Supreme Court to reverse its earlier judgment on which names can be disclosed. It's absolutely wrong. The government sought certain clarifications and any modification subsequent to the clarifications. In a 2011 judgment, the Supreme Court clearly stated that the disclosure of names against whom no evidence of wrong-doing was found would lead to dangerous circumstances. However, in an order dated 1st May 2014, Supreme Court said that the names of eight people against whom investigations were concluded must be given to the petitioner, despite the fact that no evidence of wrong-doing had till then been established. There was a contradiction between the two orders; so the government sought a clarification. What's wrong with that?
Two words that found multiple mentions were DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) and the Clause of Confidentiality. We are aware of the fact that some names, on the orders of the Supreme Court, were handed over to the petitioner (Ram Jethmalani). These names subsequently became public. Germany wrote to India in 2014 expressing surprise at this revelation and warned that if this be the case, then it would not supply India with any further information. Fearing that its source of information would become dry and further names of culprits could not be obtained, the Modi government expressed its concerns to the court. To those who were against confidentiality, the natural question would be why they want the information transaction to stop?
There were some differences with the Supreme Court's interpretation of Confidentiality Clause in the tax treaties between India and other countries and how the same treaties are interpreted internationally. The combined effect of all these was that the foreign countries with which India still doesn't have any treaty to exchange information, or countries which shared information, developed cold feet for further cooperation.
Under such a scenario, the Modi government had two options. One, raise its hand in the air and say there is a deadlock between what the Supreme Court interprets and what foreign nations demand, so we can do nothing. Or it could take a huge perception risk and ask the Supreme Court to clarify on the matter. The Modi government chose the latter, riskier and harder option because it didn't want to give up on its effort to secure black money.
Those doubting the Modi government should ask themselves which option the UPA would have exercised. The answer to this question would leave no doubt, as to whose intentions are black and whose intentions are white.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. NDTV is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this article. All information is provided on an as-is basis. The information, facts or opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.