We have received a number of inquiries about the
CPI's position on bringing parties under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC) that political parties
should come under the RTI, as they receive a substantial amount of financial
help from the government, has been rejected by all parties. Many eyebrows were
raised as to why the Left parties are also opposed to it. I have received 180
emails in this regard.
What do you want to hide? Why are you opposing
the CIC's decision? Why can't the Left parties agree to be transparent and
accountable? These are some of the questions asked by well-wishers and the
general public. And we have a responsibility to reply.
First, we would like to make it clear that the
CPI is for transparency on income, expenditure, sources of such income and the
names of donors. We have no hesitation in being accountable to the people. A
political party is a voluntary association of people who believe in the
political ideology of the party. We collect funds from people and work for
them. Hence, people have a right to know our financial dealings.
Where, then, is the problem with being brought
under the RTI? The RTI Act gives the people the opportunity to learn about the
party's decisions, the contents of its files and other details. Political
parties, though working for the public, enjoy confidentiality regarding their
internal decisions, meetings and discussions. We are not prepared to share the
minutes and other details of internal discussions, except with those who are
members of our party committees. It is an internal matter of the party. We do,
however, announce the party's decisions to the public. We announce the names of
candidates who will contest on our party ticket, whom we will support, etc. But
we cannot share information about the decision-making itself — who supported
which candidate and the arguments within. RTI access of this kind will create
problems for the internal, democratic functioning of the party. Our privacy
will be compromised before our rivals, political or otherwise. We cannot agree
to such an embarrassing predicament.
We cannot agree with the argument that political
parties run with substantial help from the government. It is an insult to India's
political parties. Some help and facilities are provided by the government to
parties for the better functioning of democracy. In no way is it
"substantial help".
The CIC agreed with the arguments of some RTI activists
that political parties get substantial help from the government as they receive
voters' lists from the Election Commission, are allotted timeslots on
Doordarshan and Akashvani to explain their election manifestos, are allotted
houses or bungalows in Delhi and other places for party offices, and quarters
for party leaders in the capital.
It is true that the above facilities are
provided. But it is not substantial financing. It is necessary to provide
voters' lists to recognised parties as they have to check and distribute voting
slips. The same is supplied to independent candidates and unrecognised parties
at a nominal cost of a few thousand rupees. Allotting parties timeslots on
government-run electronic media is a necessary exercise in making the public
aware of the manifestos and other promises of the parties. It is not a favour
done to the parties, and cannot be valued as commercial campaigning. Some
committees on electoral reforms recommended that even vehicles be allotted to
parties in order to curb corrupt electoral practices.
On the question of allotment of sites or
buildings for party offices, I would like to cite the example of the CPI. In
the 1970s, we wanted to purchase a site for the construction of our party
office in Delhi.
The government refused to sell, but allotted a site on lease. At that time,
even the market price of the land was only a few lakh rupees. We constructed
our party headquarters, "Ajoy Bhavan", and paid rent every six
months. Costs of housing sites have since appreciated many times. The CIC
calculated the value of our site at a market value of Rs 88 crore. The market
value should be calculated as at the time of allotment, not at present rates.
As it is leased land, we can neither own nor sell it, wholly or partly. This
calculation, the basis of which is unscientific and unrealistic, misleads the
public into thinking that a piece of land, costing a lot, has been allotted to
the CPI. If an office site's value is calculated on the basis of the market
price at the time of allotment, the total assistance to political parties will
be less than 1 or 0.5 per cent of their incomes. This cannot be
"substantial help".
Living quarters are allotted to leaders of some
parties, along with their MLAs and MPs, for which rent is collected — between
the concession rate and the market rate. So it is not based on nominal prices.
This facility, or all of the above, cannot be treated as substantial financial
aid.
So how do we make the financial resources of
political parties transparent? Since we do not receive funds from corporate
houses, we do not have anything to hide. The CPI is preparing to put all of its
financial dealings on its website and make them available to the public. This
can be made compulsory for all parties. As the most important part of a party's
activity, people should know this as a right. We request people to understand
and appreciate our apprehensions and reservations on the question of bringing
political parties under the RTI Act. We want the CIC to withdraw its decision.
- S. Sudhakar Reddy, Ex. M.P. & General Secretary, CPI
संदेश
