S Gurumurthy By

Mr P Chidambaram’s statement (Sept 20, 2015) issued to defend himself and his family on the expose, ‘PC, Vasan Eye Care and Rs 223 Cr Black Money’ [TNIE Sept 17, 2015], is a reply that does not counter or answer the facts, circumstances and documents on which the story rests. Obviously, while replying, Chidambaram does not seem to have read the two further articles, ‘ED’s 11 Posers to Vasan Health Care, Karti Conduit in Multi-crore Deal’ and ‘Vasan Eye Care’s One-line Denial Shamelessly Evasive’, that appeared two days after the expose (TNIE Sept 19, 2015) but a day earlier to his statement. Given Chidambaram’s intellectual stature one would normally tend not to scrutinise what he says. But in the Vasan case his statement definitely needs scrutiny.

First, Chidambaram’s anxiety to distance himself from the very name Vasan is self-evident. He does not mention the name of Vasan at all in his statement and refers to it as “the company concerned”. This is a bit too much, and even surprising, as he opened Vasan’s 25th clinic at Madurai in April 2008 and was again a guest of honour in the inauguration of its 100th clinic in his constituency in December 2011 in the august company of the prime minister and governor of Tamil Nadu. Having shown such extraordinary identity with the private eye care firm, he is now feeling shy even to mention Vasan’s name. Why?

Yet, Chidambaram surprisingly takes advantage of the “immediate” denial issued by “company concerned” — read Vasan — and its assertion that the allegations against it were “false and malicious”. How Vasan’s one-line response was no answer to the expose was explained at length in the article, ‘Vasan Eye Care’s One-line Denial Shamelessly Evasive’ (TNIE Sept 19, 2015). It listed 28 questions that arose out of the expose, which Vasan had not answered. At least one of the questions related to Chidambaram’s son Karti — namely, “Has ED not issued notice to Vasan and Dr Arun on the transfer of 1.5 lakh shares from Dwarakanathan to Karti Chidambaram’s company?” The expose on Sept 17 had mentioned the acquisition of 1.5 lakh Vasan shares by a Karti-owned company. This fact has to be either denied or accepted. How could an undenied fact be false and malicious?

A report appeared alongside the article on Sept 19 based on the summons dated Aug 28, 2015, issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). It mentioned that in its summons the ED had sought details of “transactions done with companies of Karti Chidambaram and his family” in respect of Vasan shares and further details on the transactions in shares and debentures of Vasan with entities outside India. The ED had specifically stated it was investigating the case under the money laundering law. The ED’s probe is under the supervision of the Supreme Court and not under the eye of the NDA government. Can a charge probed by the ED under the highest court’s directions be dismissed as “false and malicious”, Mr Chidambaram?

Though Chidambaram feels shy to mention Vasan’s name, he nevertheless defends “the company concerned” by adding two more adjectives and says allegations against Vasan are so “ridiculous” and “laughable” that he did not think of issuing a rebuttal.

Are the charges of the ED acting under the Supreme Court’s supervision “ridiculous”, “laughable”, Mr Chidambaram? Why then did Chidambaram issue the rebuttal of the “ridiculous” and “laughable” allegations? He says that because some other media have also carried the same report “recklessly and without verification” he could not remain silent. Saying so he has characterised the entire report as false. Is that so? Let us examine.

First, the expose and subsequent articles make out a case against Chidambaram and Karti based on factual and circumstantial evidence cited in them. The exposes rely on the affidavit of an Income Tax Commissioner in judicial proceedings against his transfer where he says on oath that Vasan belongs to Chidambaram’s family. He swears in his affidavit that details of cash payments of Rs 40 cr and Rs 100 cr to Vasan passed on to Chidambaram have been recovered in the search on JD Group. The expose is specific that the amount is not Rs 140 cr but Rs 223 cr and that the papers are available with the Income Tax Department. How could an expose based on a sworn statement of a disinterested official and records of the Income Tax Department be ridiculous or laughable?

Chidambaram’s contention that the “malicious” article is part of a political campaign against members of the UPA government or individuals belonging to the Congress party is the normal rhetoric of a political leader and deserves to be ignored. But his assertion that neither he nor his son or any member of the family have any equity investment or economic interest in the “company concerned” needs scrutiny and cannot be dismissed as “ridiculous” or “laughable” as Chidambaram says. The exposes specifically mention that a Karti company acquired 1.5 lakh equity shares of Vasan from Dwarakanathan on October 30, 2008.

This is the subject of inquiry by the ED now under Supreme Court supervision. What Chidambaram has to say is whether Karti’s company did acquire 1.5 lakh shares in October 2008 or not. It is an issue of yes or no. Saying that he, Karti or members of the family do not “have” any share or economic interest in Vasan — implying, at present — evades and does not rebut the fact.

On the most critical part of the expose, namely the seizure of papers regarding black money payments of hundreds of crores by JD Group to Vasan — which, the tax official specifically says in his affidavit, was passed on to Chidambaram — he is significantly silent. If the cash payments are true and Vasan has passed on the cash payment to Chidambaram, that proves both — namely the black money payment to Chidambaram and also that the Chidambarams are linked to Vasan.

On the entire issue of tax seizure and how the tax officials were colluding with them, Chidambaram simply says that he has no knowledge of the events concerning the Income Tax Department or its officers said to have taken place in June 2015 and subsequently, as the UPA government demitted office in May 2014. This is no answer at all.

In sum, Chidambaram’s reply answers none of the serious issues raised in the articles in this paper on September 17 and 19.

Tail Piece: Even as Chidambaram admiringly endorses Vasan’s statement that it has an eminent board of directors, the most eminent member of Vasan’s board belonging to the reputed Murugappa group has resigned on reading the expose on Vasan.

(The author is a leading political and business commentator)