In L’Affaire Lalit Modi, Sushma Swaraj was Less than Ethical

Sushma Swaraj’s actions may not have been illegal but they definitely weren’t ethical.

The Lalit Modi affair has hit Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government in the solar plexus. Ever since the London-based Sunday Times leaked emails between Lalit and Indian-origin British Labour MP Keith Vaz, describing the roles of External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje Scindia, both senior BJP leaders, in helping Lalit, a fugitive from the Indian legal system, the political mudslinging has not abated, with the opposition demanding the resignation of the two.

What’s the Big Deal?

The flamboyant Lalit, a scion of a successful business family, is the son of K K Modi and grandson of Gujar Mal Modi, the latter the founder of Modinagar, an industrial township near Meerut. Their business empire is worth over $5 billion.

Lalit fled to London after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) started investigations into allegations of bribery, money laundering and violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), in connection with Indian Premier League (IPL) cricket tournament. A “Blue Corner” notice was issued by the ED in 2010. The Indian government cancelled Lalit’s passport after due process. He challenged the decision and a single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court upheld the government’s action. Later, a larger bench of the same high court overturned the government’s decision and ordered the passport to be returned. A lawyer helping Lalit in his case was Swaraj’s daughter.

Meanwhile, Lalit sought Vaz’s assistance to get a British travel document while the High Court case was going on, to be with his wife, then undergoing treatment for cancer in Portugal. At this stage Swaraj, on Lalit’s request to satisfy a British demand, took the unusual step of conveying directly to the British high commissioner in Delhi her “no objection” to the issue of a British travel document. She did not consult the Consular or the Legal and Treaties divisions in MEA and acted unilaterally. She has since explained that she took this step on humanitarian grounds.

Does Her Defence Hold Water?

While her humanitarian argument can have some traction, it is odd that she chose not to consult the divisions concerned in MEA. One reason could be that she knew that MEA bureaucrats would have advised her not to act as she did. This should not have deterred Swaraj who could have consulted the PM and the foreign minister on the humanitarian imperative. There is a provision under the rules to give a person an “Emergency Certificate” in a situation where an Indian national is stranded abroad without a travel document.

This document is issued by Indian missions abroad in cases where an Indian national loses his/her passport. It is a one way travel document enabling the holder to return to India only. This document is retained by Indian immigration authorities after verification. This was not an option for Lalit. Swaraj probably felt obliged to help Lalit given her family’s close relations with Lalit’s family. Swaraj’s action was perhaps, not illegal, but was certainly not ethical.

Lalit Modi’s Troubles and the Raje Connect

Lalit’s problems began with his foray into the IPL. Cricket in India involves megabucks and has been the honeypot attracting politicians, businesspersons and retired bureaucrats. Lalit fell prey to the lure of money, power and publicity that comes with cricket. He has claimed that he was a victim of extortion from the Dawood Ibrahim gang, a fact corroborated by the Mumbai police. Lalit has repeatedly cited “security” as the reason for not returning to India. The IPL had earlier scalped the ministerial career of Shashi Tharoor. Lalit has alleged that this led to his being hounded by the UPA government.

Prima facie, the facts around Vasundhara Raje’s involvement with Lalit appear more egregious. The Raje family too enjoyed very close relations with Lalit. The financial connection with Vasundhara’s son Dushyant Raje and his wife points to quid pro quo. The document supporting an immigration application released by Lalit and allegedly signed by Vasundhara, is quite extraordinary. The financial dealings connecting Lalit to Dushyant’s companies may be within the bounds of legality but the amounts invested by Lalit reveal too cozy a relationship.

This major crisis has the potential to sully the Modi government’s image, built assiduously on an anti-corruption and anti-nepotism platform. The government has so far defended Swaraj but has distanced itself from Raje. It will now have to act decisively against Lalit. The British role in this affair is also not above board. Indian politicians must realise that in the domain of foreign affairs, countries constantly seek leverage. Both Swaraj and Raje ignored this fundamental rule and handed Britain the leverage to exploit their flawed judgements.

(The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, Delhi, and a former Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs.)