``No contribution shall be accepted by any political party or an officer of a political party.'' (Section 4(i), Foreign Contributions (Regulation) Act (FCRA), 1976.)

That is clear enough, isn't it? I shouldn't be asking this, but unambiguous statements have a habit of being strangely misunderstood in the Gujral Raj. See how our Prime Minister's pristine-Urdu red carpet to Kashmiri militants was misinterpreted (even in a state where Urdu is the state language).

Right now, however, it isn't red carpets that interest me, but red herrings. Such as all the attention being paid to that suburb of Hades which we call Bihar. I admit the fascination of watching the antics of the Yadav clan, but they shouldn't divert us from more important matters.

On July 29, for instance, the focus was on Rabri Devi creating history by arranging for a 75-strong ministry. (`Jumbo' is an understatement; is there such a thing as a `blue-whale ministry'?)

But what happened in Delhi on that same day has gone almost unnoticed. It shouldn't: how often do you find the Government of India filing an affidavit which says that donations received by the Congress from abroad are legal?!You may not think that too surprising.

The Gujral Doctrine's unique definition of ``norms'' and ``public morality'' are well-known. Any pronouncement by this Prime Minister or his mouthpieces can be awaited with anticipatory contempt.

What is surprising is the ``opinion'' of three former Chief Justices of India. All three say these donations don't fall under the FCRA.

Before arguing the law, let us get our facts clear. It is a fact that the Congress got money from tax-havens abroad. It is a fact that the donors are shell companies. It is a fact that nobody within or outside India -- is willing to stand up and say that they gave the money, leave alone explain why they did so.

Every democracy worth the name prohibits this kind of sleaziness, even the richest of them all -- the United States. President Clinton and his fellow Democrats are currently the subject of a Congressional investigation precisely because they handled tainted funds (Indonesian, Thai, and possibly Chinese). The Democrats have, in fact, been forced to return some of it.

There is a simple, commonsense explanation for this ban. He who pays the piper, the adage runs, calls the tune. By giving money to run an election campaign, the donors create a sense of obligation. At the very least they gain the potential for blackmail.

If a few hundred thousand dollars can make such an impact in the United States, they can do much more in India. Yet those amounts are a mere fraction of, say, the CIA budget or that of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence.

I believe the lawmakers of 1976 understood the dangers as well as anybody else. As far as I can tell from a quick reading of the Act, they seem to have put a blanket ban. Money from abroad is not allowed to contaminate India's internal politics, period.

Yet I tremble to cross swords with a trinity of Chief Justices on legal grounds. If there is, in fact, some loophole in the Act as it exists, it is just as well that it has been pointed out. But there are some troubling points about the episode.

To begin with, the very act of seeking opinions on the legality of such donations seems to have provoked an attack of collective amnesia. The three former Chief Justices cannot recall who approached them in the first instance.

Going through the ``opinions'', it seems the curious ones were the companies who made the donations. I believe that it wasn't the Congress, the ultimate beneficiary. There is, of course, nothing wrong in approaching a former Chief Justice for a clarification.

But how did these ``opinions'' fall into the hands of the Congress? And they have certainly done so the party has filed them in its defence. Evidently, the mysterious donors and the Congress are still in contact.

So much for the specific case. But the episode does throw up a larger question, striking directly at the prestige of the judiciary. It is fair to say that the judiciary is the only wing of the establishment that retains citizens' trust. (Given the farce seen in Bihar, it would be foolhardy to state that the executive and the legislature are doing a good job.) And even if lower courts step over the line, we can count on the Supreme Court to restore a measure of sanity to public life.

Of course, it isn't as if the Supreme Court has never stumbled. During the Emergency, for instance, it failed to uphold the Fundamental Rights in `ADM (Jabalpur) vs. Union of India.' I remember that future Chief Justices Chandrachud and Bhagwati were on the Bench that gave the ruling.

By and large, however, the conduct of the Justices has been exemplary. They are held in high esteem after they retire. Though they may not practice in any court, they are permitted chamber practice. And an ``opinion'' from a retired Chief Justice is always valued.

But there is a world of difference between such ``opinions'' and actual judgment. To cite but one instance, ex-Chief Justice Bhagwati reportedly told the ITC Board that the company hadn't committed a FERA violation. The Enforcement Directorate obviously thinks otherwise.

I submit that ex-Justices of the Supreme Court should be spared such embarrassment. We needn't go to the extent of following the American example, where Justices have tenure for life. But we can definitely use the British guidelines, where the Law Lords receive generous post-retirement packages.

It demeans us all if an esteemed Justice is forced to expose himself to the pressure or temptations of chamber practice. It lends itself to unnecessary complications. In this instance, I am sure the three former Chief Justices never meant to justify political parties receiving slush-funds. They were merely pointing out lacunae in the letter of the law.

But the public perception may be otherwise. (Some might sniggeringly demand to know who paid for the ``opinions'', asking if those payments too came from a tax-haven.)

Parliament, I hope, will concentrate on more important matters plugging loopholes in the law, and improving service conditions. And, perhaps, calling the Government of India to account for its interesting opinion that foreign donations are legal!

Copyright © 1997 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.