World Wrap: The Foreign

Press On The Indian

Electionsfeatured
by Aparna Alluri on 14.04.2014 - 12:00 AM
Posted in List

he world is watching as India goes to the polls, even as the countrys political parties and

pundits continue to unleash a bewildering mix of news, rhetoric and rumor. The foreign press too is
not just keeping up, but probing deeper. The result is a variety of stories that range from commentary
and analysis, to reporting on the ground.
We bring you a weekly roundup of the best stories on India in the international press, chosen from
several foreign (including our neighbors) newspapers, magazines, websites and blogs. Let us know
what you think of our suggestions!
UPDATED ON April 13, 2014

1
Foreign Affairs provides a snapshot of Indias foreign policy with a reassuring message: no matter
who assumes the countrys highest office, the broad contours of Indian foreign policy are not likely to
change dramatically. Not even if Narendra Modi becomes the next PM. The writer, Manjari
Chatterjee Miller, a professor of International Relations at Boston University, believes that Indian
foreign policy has remained the same for a long time, characterized more by continuity than by
change. Even the few changes that have occurred, she argues, had little to do with the prime
ministers political ideology.

2
The South China Morning Posts editorial on Thursday had some advice for Indias next PM.
Dismissing much of whats said in the heat of electioneering as political rhetoric, the editorial
suggested that Indias next leader will have to compromise and be pragmatic. Describing Narendra
Modis attitude towards China as unclear, the newspaper said that trade and diplomacy were the
best way forward in a challenging relationship such as the one between New Delhi and Beijing.

3
Both the Guardian and Quartz analyze Gujarats growth trajectory and arrive at a similar conclusion.
The former says that the success of Modinomics is unconvincing, and the latter argues
that Gujarats overall numbers actually show a mixed picture. Quartz, for instance, found that
Gujarat hasnt fared too well on the Human Development index (HDI), its national HDI ranking having
dropped since Modi became CM. Although the state has made gains, it still lags far behind others
such as Kerala.
According to Quartzs data, Gujarat remains dwarfed by other states even in terms of foreign
investment. The Guardian also argues that its not Gujarat, but Tamil Nadu that has achieved the
greatest poverty reduction of the past decade. On that note, it concludes that Modis record, good
as it is, doesnt justify the hype.

4
Buzzfeed tuned into the Indian election twice this past week. First, it carried a listicle by a user
that explains why the election is the worlds greatest soap opera. Then its own staffer profiled
Facebooks role in Indias massive exercise in democracy candidates official pages and the launch
of an election tracker, among other things.

5
The New York Times turns its gaze southward to a major player - Tamil Nadus CM, Jayalalithaa
Jayaram. The Times South Asia bureau chief, Ellen Barry, quickly identifies Jayalalithaa as one of
the regional satraps, who can form or break a coalition government. She then attempts to

understand Amma and the power she will hold when the votes are counted through the lens
of supporters, commentators and confidants.

6
The Times is also the latest among the foreign press to take a look at Narendra Modis track record,
legacy and prospects at the ballot. In this video, its reporters sum up what they think are the crucial
factors in Modis campaign.

Why Do Indians Vote?featured

by Mukulika Banerjee, Sumantra Bose on 09.04.2014 - 12:50 AM
Posted in List
This post originally appeared on the India At LSE blog

s voting begins in national elections in the worlds largest democracy, LSE academics

Mukulika Banerjee and Sumantra Bose debate why Indians vote, how this election will differ from
previous ones, and what other democracies can learn from India.
Mukulika Banerjee: The voter turnouts during the most recent elections in India at the state level
were among the highest ever seen. At the national level too, the trend is that turnout is on the rise.
The main reason for this is that people see their role in politics as very significant and it often the
poorest who are the most enthusiastic voters. While we think elections are about politicians, political
parties, and results, voters attach great meaning to their own role in elections. Indians are very
aware that without their showing up at polls on election day, there would be no elections or
democracy. Theres a complex understanding among Indians of their right to votethey see it as
their duty and right as citizens.
Sumantra Bose: The national turnout in the last Lok Sabha election in 2009 was just under 60 per
cent, with wide variation across the states of the Indian Union. So its worth explaining incentives to
vote at the state level in different parts of the country.

In my home state, West Bengal in eastern India, which is the countrys fourth most populous state,
there has been 85-90 per cent voter turnout in state and national elections for over two decades now.
This is because West Bengal is one of the most politicised states of India. Most voters there are loyal
to one of the two parties that dominate the states politics, the Trinamool (Grassroots) Congress and
the Communist Party of India-Marxist. People often have staunch partisan affiliations, with families
associated with parties for decades. Hence the high turnouts.
Uttar Pradesh in north India, the countrys most populous state, is also a highly politicised state, but
in a different pattern. Party politics operates above all on the basis of mobilised caste blocks: the
upper castes (Brahmins, Rajputs, Kayasths), various intermediate caste communities such as
Yadavs, Jats and Kurmis, Dalits (the lowest castes), etc. All of these groups have interests at stake,
and if any fail to vote in sizable numbers it amounts to giving competing groups a walkover.
In Gujarat, the mid-sized state in western India, for the last decade there has been a dominant
politician, Narendra Modi, now the frontrunner to be Indias next prime minister. He arouses strong
feelings: adoration among many and revulsion among others. This creates a compelling incentive to
vote one way or the other. When Modi won his third consecutive mandate to form the state
government in Gujarat in December 2012, the popular vote was polarised: 48 per cent for Modis
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and 40 per cent for the Congress, the main opposition party in the
state.
Similarly, there are strong state-level dynamics at play in Andhra Pradesh, the largest state in south
India. Due to the recently successful campaign to create Telangana as a separate state out of
northern Andhra Pradesh, many people there are fired up to vote for the political party that led the
statehood movement, the Telangana Rashtra Samithi. In the other two regions of Andhra Pradesh,
theres been a huge backlash against the Telangana movement and the Congress partys central
leaderships decision to sanction the division of Andhra Pradesh, and one beneficiary of the anger is
likely to be the YSR Congress, a recently formed regional party that broke away from the states
Congress party. So people across India have diverse motivations to vote, and theyre all powerful.
Banerjee: Peoples motivations to vote can be divided between instrumental reasons and expressive
reasons. The instrumentality of patronage, the desire to vote for politicians in order to secure
development projects, these are all strong motivators. But there are more qualitative reasons to vote
as well. These become apparent when voters say things like, my vote is my weapon, or when they
use their votes to punish politicians. In our last study on why Indians vote conducted during the 2009
Lok Sabha elections, people told us that they voted against the party they are loyal to because they
were ashamed of the party.
Another important expressive reason why people vote is to experience one aspect of democracy that
is only apparent in India on voting dayequality. Only during elections are you only judged along
with everyone else as a voter. Class, caste and other factors cease to matter, and you can feel equal
to your fellow citizens and you are ek din ka sultan, i.e. king for a day. An extension of this is the
sense of belonging that comes from voting; people feel left out if their fingers are not marked with
indelible ink and there is tremendous peer pressure that makes them feel like they are reneging on
their duties if they dont vote.

Bose: I agree with Mukulika that election day is the great if transient leveller of inequality. Many
poor Indians, especially, value the fact that in the voting process all are equalone citizen, one vote.
But interests are also extremely important. In Uttar Pradesh, where the Hindu nationalist BJP is
resurgent, its just not an option for the nearly one-fifth of the electorate thats Muslim to sit at home
on polling day. They must vote and do what they can to influence the outcome. I expect the Muslim
turnout in Uttar Pradesh to be very high in this election.

How Narendra Modi Is

Targeting 23 Million FirstTime Votersfeatured
by Anand Katakam, Devjyot Ghoshal, Indrani Basu on 08.04.2014 - 02:11 AM
Posted in Data

arendra Modi is walking the talk. Or flying, in this particular case.

Unlike some of his rivals, Modi has paid more than mere lip service to 23 million young Indians who
will vote for the first time in these elections. Hes gone the extra mile, travelling across states that
hold the greatest number of new voters aged between 18-19 years. Together, the ten states with the
most number of new voters comprise of over 70 percent of the total number of Lok Sabha seats (385
out of 545)
So far, hes the only prime ministerial candidate who has visited Madhya Pradesh (seven times),
Bihar (six times), Jharkhand (four times), West Bengal and Tamil Nadu (once each).
For more, see our map below, where weve superimposed the rallies of the three leading
contenders on top of the number of first-time voters in each state.
Despite both Arvind Kejriwal and Rahul Gandhis focus on the youth vote, their campaign tells a
different story. And not one of the prime ministerial candidates has been to Andhra Pradesh since
the beginning of the year.

Until very recently, Gandhi was the sole visitor to Rajasthan, which is the third highest state with new
voters this election. Modi finally visited the state on Monday, on the first day of the elections.
The only states with large numbers of young voters, which have got all three candidates attention,
are Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat. That, though, traditionally has been the case, even
without new voters.
Modi also seems to have given importance to Jharkhand, which will be one of the youngest states to
vote this year. It has 1.8 million voters, aged between 18-19 years, about 9.5 percent of its total
electoral base.
The highest number of these young voters, predictably, comes from Uttar Pradesh (over 3.8 million).
The state, which has the largest electorate base in the country, will be closely fought and crucial to
the BJPs national ambitions.
But elsewhere, too, Modis success in attracting first-time voters will be of consequence.

EXCLUSIVE: Why The

Economist Refused to Back
Narendra Modifeatured
by Aparna Alluri on 07.04.2014 - 02:18 AM
Posted in List

ate last year, The Economist warned that it would not endorse Narendra Modi unless he could

show that his idea of a pure India is no longer a wholly Hindu one.
On April 5th, days before India began voting, the paper declared that it cannot bring itself to
endorse Modi. The editorial, which made it to the cover, drew strong reactions over 18,000 likes
on Facebook, 2,160 comments and 1,603 tweets, including this one by BJP leader Arun Jaitley.

Thankfully, The Economist does not vote. Indians do.

Arun Jaitley (@arunjaitley) April 4, 2014
The Economist is known to endorse candidates in both the US and UK, but according to its South
Asia correspondent, Adam Roberts, this is a relatively new thing for India.
To my knowledge we have only taken a position on one other parliamentary election in India: in
2009, when we decided to endorse Congress and Manmohan Singh, he told The 545 in an email. I
believe that 2009 was a much easier decision, given the state of the economy and the state of the
BJP.
This time around, the paper faced a difficult choice. It had repeatedly censured the Congress for its
graft-ridden rule. It was also deeply critical of both Manmohan Singh and Rahul Gandhi. Modi,
however, was described as a man of action and an outspoken outsider in a political system stuffed
with cronies, under whom business in Gujarat flourished and the state boomed as he cut red tape
and built roads and power lines.
Yet, as explained in the current cover story, the prospect of Modi the autocratic loner and poor
delegator as PM is worrying. Although Indias is a parliamentary vote, the paper singled out Modi,
Roberts said, because thats how the BJP has run its campaign.
Two days before voting is due to begin, the BJP has still not released a manifesto, he said. It does
feel remarkably presidential, and certainly the BJP is making its campaign almost entirely about the
man. We took the view that Modi as a candidate therefore needs special scrutiny.
Starting with the Hindu rampage in 2002 in which more than 1000 Muslims were killed and many
women raped, the editorial lists several instances of Modis fiercely divisive politics: A march he had
organized at Ayodhya in 1990, his lifelong membership of the right-wing Rashtriya Swayamsevak
Sangh (RSS) and hate speeches from early on in his career.
More recently, his refusal to wear a skull cap and his troubling silence following the riots in UP where
most of the victims were Muslim.
We have been very critical of Mr. Modi over the years because of what happened in 2002, said
Roberts. Beginning a couple of years ago, when it became likely that Mr. Modi would lead the BJP
campaign, I set out to get to know him better. In July 2012, Iinterviewed him at length in Ahmedabad.
I have met him twice (much more briefly) since.
Much of the Indian media, in contrast, has had scarce access to the Gujarat chief minister.
It was Modi, the individual, who was largely responsible for the editorials position, Roberts
explained. I suspect that if a different leader were to emerge as the head of the BJP, we would be
much more comfortable with seeing the party come in to office, he added. In particular we worry
that the Indian press is not asking the hard questions any more about Modis role in 2002 with the
riots, and his failure to address what happened.

That is the crux of The Economists argument Modis failure to explain, or even acknowledge what
happened in Ahmedabad in 2002. His indifference to sectarian conflict, its consequences and,
worse, his apparent disdain for its toll. In a rare comment last year he said he regretted Muslims
suffering as he would that of a puppy run over by a car, the editorial noted.
All of this, the editorial contends, contributes to an anxious uncertainty: What might Modi do in the
event of riots or a crisis with Pakistan?
The Economist held two editorial meetings in London, Roberts said, to discuss its position. The
correspondent phoned in from India. We debated the pros and cons of endorsing Modi despite his
failure to offer any atonement for 2002, he said. Strong arguments were made that Modi would be
better, despite his past.
In the end, however, it is the editors call, Roberts explained. John Micklethwait was persuaded
that Modi has not done enough to show he is a unifying leader, rather than a divisive one.

How many clean chits for

Modi?featured
by Gautam Appa on 27.03.2014 - 11:15 PM
Posted in List
This post originally appeared on the India At LSE blog

n three occasions one each in 2011, 2012 and 2013 the Supreme Court of India has

supposedly absolved Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat and the BJPs prime ministerial
candidate in the upcoming elections, of culpability in Gujarats communal riots of 2002. But a case
against Modi has never been registered in the Supreme Court. So how has the court given him a
clean chit without being asked to adjudicate the matter? And on what basis does Modi claim a clear
conscience with regard to the 2002 violence in Gujarat?
A clean chit for what?
The question the Indian courts are considering is whether there is prosecutable evidence against
Modi to establish criminal liability for his role in the 2002 riots in Gujarat, which claimed the lives of

more than 2,000 people and made 200,000 people, mainly Muslims, homeless. There are
allegations that Modi masterminded the riots; more specifically, he is accused of the following:

Allowing the charred bodies of 54 Hindu victims of the Godhra train fire to be paraded in the
streets of Ahmedabad

Supporting a Gujarat bandh (closure) announced by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), a
Hindu fundamentalist organisation, thereby facilitating riots

Directing senior police officers not to interfere if Hindus sought revenge

Placing two cabinet colleagues in the police control rooms to ensure compliance with his
directives

Penalising upright police officers and rewarding compliant ones

Appointing partisan public prosecutors berated by the Supreme Court for acting like defence
counsel

The Supreme Court in 2008 appointed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into nine riot
cases, removing them from courts in Gujarat. A year later, the Supreme Court asked the SIT to
investigate a criminal complaint against Modi, filed by Zakia Jafri in 2006. The Gujarat police had
done nothing about the complaint, so Zakia had filed a case in the Gujarat High Court to get the
police to act on the complaint. When the High Court rejected this, Zakia referred the matter on to the
Supreme Court. Modis three so-called clean chits from the Supreme Court relate to this case.
Zakia is the widow of Ehsan Jafri, a former MP and state Congress Party member, living in Gulberg
Housing Society in Ahmedabad. When news of the slaughter of Muslims following the Godhra train
fire in 2002 started trickling through, scores of frightened Muslim neighbours gathered in the Jafris
home believing that Ehsans connections would help ensure their safety. As a violent mob advanced
on Gulberg, Ehsan made repeated phone calls to the police and political authorities in
Ahmedabad, Delhi, and even to Modi himself pleading for help. But none came, even though police
were present in the area. Eventually Ehsan and 68 others were massacred, many of them burnt
alive. According to eye witnesses, Ehsans severed head was hoisted on a trident.
The SIT investigating Zakias complaint ran into difficulties. First, the Supreme Court had to drop two
of its officers as they were found to be untrustworthy. Then, in 2010, the special public prosecutor
working with the SIT resigned, saying by way of explanation that I am collecting witnesses who
know something about a gruesome case in which so many people, mostly women and children
huddled in Jafris house, were killed and I get no cooperation. The SIT officers are unsympathetic
towards witnesses, they try to browbeat them and dont share evidence with the prosecution as they
are supposed to do.

After all this, when the SIT filed its interim report, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of asking
an eminent advocate, Raju Ramchandran, who was already appointed as an Amicus Curiae (friend
of the court), to assist in this critical case and visit Gujarat, independently assess the evidence
generated and meet with witnesses directly.

On Credibility, Bias and

Politicians: An Open Letter
to Rajdeep Sardesaifeatured
by Devjyot Ghoshal on 26.03.2014 - 01:13 AM
Posted in List

ear Mr Sardesai,

Let me begin with a disclaimer. Im a 27-year-old journalist. I lack your experience, your wisdom and,
therefore, your insight.
Thats exactly why I find your recent blog on the Indian medias credibility crisis surprising. And
absurd. Fortunately, it illuminates what I believe is wrong with the way youre thinking about the state
of journalism in India today.
That mindset, I suspect, isnt limited to you. So, when I say you or your, Im not necessarily
pointing a finger at you. I am pointing a finger at the Indian media in its entirety. Including myself.

Get Over Politicians: You begin your blog by declaring that (T)his is open season against the

Indian media. Says who, I wonder? Indias politicians and political parties, you explain, complete
with examples cutting across party lines.

But, Mr Sardesai, heres the problem: Politicians and political parties arent your primary audience.
You arent supposed to be concerned about what they say about the press, the ingenious threats
they issue, or the less ingenious accusations they level.
The question shouldnt be how do Rajdeep Sardesai and CNN-IBN fare in the eyes of Modi bhakts,
Congress chamchas and AAP cheerleaders? It should be: What do your viewers think of you? What
do they expect from your channel (and website, but more about that later) and your journalists?
How often do you ask these questions, if at all?
The fact is the Indian media acts like its beholden to Indias politicians. Nowhere is it more evident
than on your TV news shows which are, as you admit, the result of eight people brought together to
scream at each other in a studio. Rarely are politicians and ministers pressed hard. Except by that
one man who questions on behalf of the entire nation.
More often than not, you handle politicians with kid gloves. More often than not, there are no
substantial follow-up questions. More often than not, you dont contradict their verbose nonsense
with basic facts that any half-decent beat reporter should know.
Its gotten to a point where you rarely expect them to give you straight answers (not including
Kejriwal). It works this way because you need the star spokesperson, the eloquent minister or
powerful politician on your channel at short notice.
Never mind the viewer who wants news. Not views.

Credibility? What credibility?: Mr Sardesai, lets be honest about this: The Indian media

didnt lose its credibility in the run up to the 2014 elections. It lost it well before that.
Remember the Radia tapes? Need I remind you how many of the journalists whose names appeared
in those tapes continue to work in and, in some cases, lead newsrooms in India?
Remember the unexplained phenomenon called Paid News? And how the Press Council of India
buried Paranjoy Guha Thakurtas report that it had itself commissioned?
The loss of your moral compass, as you put it, and your credibility didnt happen overnight.
Perhaps you feel the prick only now as political parties lash out at you, with the help of their own little
social media armies.
You are speaking up today because of their alleged abuse and intimidation. But when did you last
check if your viewers were weary of the pointless talking heads in your studios, the incessantly
competitive breaking news, or the mediocrity of your journalism?
Instead, you fret about polarization in the press when such divisions within the media are common in
developed democracies. Does anyone really expect unbiased reporting from Fox News in the United
States? Hasnt the UKs The Daily Telegraph been described as the Torygraph for a reason?

The real problem, as you accurately identify, is sensationalism and half-truths. But you yourself fail
to mention Reliance Industries interest in TV-18.
Credibility, did you say?

This Little Thing Called Innovation: Mr Sardesai, with all due respect, let me introduce you to

something that much of the Indian press has forgotten in recent years: Innovation.
True, times have been tough, balance sheets have been buffeted by the slowdown and heads have
rolled. But thats no excuse. Innovation doesnt need a few hundred crores. All it needs the appetite.
And some young blood.
Unfortunately, the Indian media has scant room for either. For you, it implies cramming more talking
heads onto a television screen and occasionally pulling some content off social media.
Where are the engagement tools? Where is the data mining and analysis? Where are the responsive
websites? Why isnt the Internet being integrated into Indias newsrooms, both TV and print? Why are
we lagging behind when media markets are rapidly transforming elsewhere?
Because no one has invested in building a talent pool. And because no one seems to be worried
about the actual crisis that Indian journalism faces: the inevitable disruption that the Internet will
produce in newsrooms.
Meanwhile, lets talk about politicians. And little else.

The Incomplete List of

Scams You Need To Know
Aboutfeatured
by Indrani Basu on 01.03.2014 - 10:33 PM
Posted in List

t was the Jeep Purchase Scandal that started it all back in 1948, and ever since our politicians

have not disappointed. Scams have become an inseparable part of Indian politics.
But 10 years of the UPA government has set the bar rather high. The 2G Spectrum Scam, Coalgate
and the Commonwealth Scam were hugely ambitious, even by Indian standards.
Therefore, as the 2014 elections draw near, The 545 presents a list of scams that you might have
forgotten about, but should remember as you go out to vote.
Let us know if there are other lesser-known rackets that you think should be part of this unending
catalogue of corruption. Email us at thefivefortyfive@gmail.com or leave us a comment below.

The Chopper Scam, 2013 : Better known as Choppergate, the scam involved several

politicians and defence officials who were accused of accepting bribes from AgustaWestland to sign
off on a deal that would supply 12 helicopters to India.
Alleged bribe: Rs 360 crore
Accused: In March 2013, the CBI filed charges against retired Air Chief Marshal SP Tyagi and 14
others. The FIR also named Satish Bagrodia, brother of former Union minister Santosh Bagrodia,
and Pratap Aggarwal, Chairman and Managing Director of IDS Infotech. The CBI is still
investigating the case.

Railgate, 2013: On May 3, 2013, the CBI arrested former Railway Minister Pawan Kumar

Bansals nephew, Vijay Singla, for allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs 90 lakh from middlemen
representing Mahesh Kumar, a member of the Indian Railway Board. The money was supposedly in
exchange for a higher ranking position on the Railway Board for Kumar. Bansal was forced to step
down on May 10, 2013.
Alleged bribe: Rs 10 crore
Accused: Vijay Singla, Mahesh Kumar, Narayan Rao Manjunath, MD of G G Tronics India Pvt Ltd,
and the alleged middlemen: Sandeep Goyal, M V Murali Krishan and C V Venugopal. Bansal is a key
witness in the case.

The Tatra Truck Scam, 2011: Top officials in the defence ministry and heads of Bharat Earth

Movers Ltd (BEML), a public sector undertaking, allegedly siphoned off Rs 750 crore in bribes and
commissions over the past 14 years while purchasing parts for Tatra trucks. For more than a decade,
BEML flouted the defence ministrys guidelines and sold Tatra trucks to the Army at an inflated price.
Alleged bribe: Rs 750 crore
Accused: The CBI registered a case against Ravi Rishi, whose company Vectra owned Tatra, and
other unnamed officials in the defence ministry, the Army and BEML for criminal conspiracy, cheating
and other sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The BEML chief, VRS Natarajan
was booked in April 2013.

The Adarsh Housing Society Scam, 2010: The Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society in

Mumbai was originally meant to be a six-storied building for Kargil war veterans and war widows. But
it morphed into a 31-storey highrise, occupied by top politicians, bureaucrats and military officials
who were allegedly allotted apartments at artificially lowered prices.
Alleged bribe: Unknown
Accused: An inquiry by the CBI, the Income Tax Department and the Enforcement Directorate
unearthed the involvement of former Maharashtra chief ministers Sushilkumar Shinde, the late
Vilasrao Deshmukh and Ashok Chavan (who resigned following the allegations). A judicial report in
April 2013 indicted all three chief ministers, in addition to two former urban development ministers
Rajesh Tope and Sunil Tatkare and 12 top bureaucrats.

The Hawala Scam, 1991: It began with the arrest of a member of an alleged terrorist outfit, but

the investigation that followed led to a raid on the house and businesses of the Jain brothers, a
Delhi-based family of hawala brokers. Evidence emerged that the hawala transactions an
unofficial transfer of money involving middlemen had included large payments made to the
countrys top politicians. The Jain brothers supposed links to terror groups only made the allegations
worse.
Alleged bribe: Rs 1,000 crore
Accused: Major political leaders including LK Advani, VC Shukla, P Shiv Shankar, Sharad Yadav,
Balram Jakhar, and Madan Lal Khurana faced serious allegations. However, no one was
convicted as the hawala records were judged as insufficient evidence in court.

The Cash-for-Votes Scandal, 2008: The United Progressive Alliance, allegedly bribed MPs

from the Bharatiya Janata Party to survive a no-confidence vote on 22 July, 2008. The UPA won the
vote but its success was marred by three BJP MPs, including Ashok Argal, waving bundles of cash
during a parliamentary debate, accusing the government of attempting to buy either their vote or
abstention.
Alleged bribe: Rs 50 crore
Accused: Rajya Sabha MP Amar Singh, his aide Sanjeev Saxena, LK Advanis aide Sohail
Hindustani and Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha activist Sudheendra Kulkarni, among others. Except
Saxena who is awaiting trial, the rest were released under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Bellary Mining Scam, 2008: This scam in Karnataka involving the brothers G Karunakara

Reddy and G Janardhana Reddy, both mining barons in Bellary, subsequently led to the resignation
of former Chief Minister BS Yeddyurappa.The two brothers had allegedly paid big money to bag
contracts for Obulapuram Mining Company, the mining venture owned by them.While the exact
amount paid by the two in kickbacks remains unknown, the Karnataka government reportedly lost
Rs.16,085 crore.
Alleged bribe: Unknown
Accused: A report published by Justice Santosh Hegde, the former Lokayukta of Karnataka, said
Yeddyurappa and his family accepted bribes in the form of donations to their trusts in exchange for
issuing illegal third-party mining leases.

The Saradha Group Chit Fund Scam, 2013: The financial scam was exposed after the

collapse of a Ponzi scheme being run by the Saradha Group. A consortium of companies in West
Bengal, it was allegedly running various fraudulent investment schemes (popularly known as chit
funds).
Money: Loss of Rs 300 crore to over 1.7 million depositors
Accused: In a letter to the CBI, the groups chairman, Sudipto Sen,admitted that he had paid large
sums of money to several politicians. He also said that he had been forced by Trinamool Congress
leader Kunal Ghosh into investing in media ventures that were making losses, and then blackmailed
into selling one of those at a price below the market standard. Sen and his aide Debjani
Mukhopadhyay were both arrested.

The Taj Corridor Case, 2002-2003: The Bahujan Samaj Party allegedly embezzled money in

the Taj Corridor project, a plan to upgrade tourist facilities near the Taj Mahal during Mayawatis
tenure as Chief Minister.
Money Involved: Unknown
Accused: Former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati and a minister in her government,
Nasimuddin Siddiqui, were charged with corruption. The investigation is still underway.

10

The NRHM Scam in Uttar Pradesh, 2013: Top politicians and

bureaucrats allegedly siphoned off Rs10,000 crore from the National Rural Health Mission, a central
government scheme for improving healthcare delivery in rural areas.
Loss to the exchequer: Rs. 10,000 crore
Accused: The CBI is investigating several former ministers from the Bahujan Samaj Party, the ruling
party at the time.

11

The Scorpene Deal Scam, 2006: After the Indian government sealed a Rs 18,798 crore

deal with Thales to buy six Scorpene submarines in 2005, it was alleged that the French
multinational paid Rs. 500 crore to government officials as kickbacks. And after some journalistic
muck-racking, there were also indications that the deal had links with the infamous Navy War Room
leaks case.
Alleged bribe: Rs. 500 crore
Accused: The amount was channeled via Abhishek Verma, a middleman. Also accused was Ravi
Shankaran, related to the then Chief of Navy Staff Arun Prakash (also the key accused in the Navy
War Room leaks case). The CBI eventually found no evidence.

12

The Barak Missiles Scam, 2008: A defence scam, where allegedly that several

politicians had received kickbacks during the purchase of the Barak 1 Missile Systems from Israel.
Alleged bribe: Unknown

Accused: Among the accused were Samata Party ex-treasurer R.K. Jain, politicians George
Fernandes and Jaya Jaitley, and arms dealer and ex-naval officer Suresh Nanda, the son of S.M.
Nanda, former Chief of Naval Staff. After investigating for over 7 years, the CBI closed the case in
December 2013 and filed a closure report citing lack of evidence.
A former crime reporter from New Delhi, nowadays Indrani Basu can be found stopping people on
New York streets and asking them their life histories. Tell her yours @IndraniBasu88