Illegal Campaign Contribution Scandal

By Krishnan S. Chittur

The Indian Embassy's conduct in the recent illegal campaign contributions scandal (I/A, May 17, 1996 and May 24, 1996) is unacceptable. Its disturbing role in U.S. elections could be counterproductive and significantly reduce our political muscle. Given the seriousness of the questions raised, its simplistic denials and resort to legalistic chicanery is appalling. The Embassy owes us a complete and truthful explanation of at least this Tughlakian attempt to influence U.S. elections.

Mr. Devendra Singh, the Embassy's then-Minister for Cultural Affairs, was the point man for this money laundering to circumvent U.S. election funding laws. He gave thousands of dollars in cash to Lalit Gadhia, a long-time political activist in Baltimore, Maryland. Gadhia distributed this money to individuals of Asian Indian origin. These individuals issued checks in corresponding amounts to a Political Action Committee ("PAC"), and the PAC in turn issued checks to over 30 candidates contesting elections to the U.S. Congress. Gadhia accounted to Singh for the money received by contemporaneously sending copies of all checks issued by the individuals and by the PAC; subsequently, he also sent a report to Singh detailing the disbursements and recipients.

After thus laundering thousands of dollars for illegal campaign contributions, Singh escaped in his diplomatic cocoon. Gadhia has pleaded guilty to violation of federal election laws and faces a possible jail term. So ends a criminal case -- and so survives the scandal exacerbating the Asian Indian Embassy's clumsy exertions to sway U.S. elections.

The Embassy does not seem to have appreciated the significance of the questions raised by its misconduct. Then-ambassador Siddharth Shanker Ray flatly called suggestions about the Embassy's involvement in the money laundering "utterly absurd." Singh, now back in India, made a long-distance denial of having given money to Gadhia (Singh also claimed diplomatic immunity from U.S. court processes, and stated that the Asian Indian Embassy was "answerable."). And the Embassy has refused comment because "it's a legal matter." Case closed -- as simple as that, Scrattscratteratscrattskrirrumscrat!

Not quite. The Embassy's function here is to protect the interests of Asian Indians, not to tell U.S. citizens whom to vote for. Its blatant interference in U.S. domestic politics causes a viscerally violent reaction, and rightfully so. If the U.S. Embassy in India had made any campaign contributions in the recent Asian Indian elections, Asian Indians of all hues would have competed strenuously to create headlines about "U.S. interference" and "foreign conspiracies." Indeed, several Asian Indian politicians have done so even without such campaign contributions to their opponents.

Thus, foreign emissaries never even comment on local elections. The reason is simple. Anyone who has been a guest in someone else's home knows the wisdom of staying away from domestic quarrels. Otherwise, you actively antagonize the person you oppose, and that antagonism spreads like plague to other members of the household. And you could even become the scapegoat for any pent up resentment against the person you supported. So whichever side you take, you lose!

The Asian Indian Embassy seems to have forgotten this simple tenet. Shortly before this money laundering scandal exploded, senior Congressmen had complained about the Embassy's calls to support or oppose specific candidates in U.S. elections. For example, ex-ambassador Ray had sought support for Senator Pressler's reelection, and Embassy official Cowsik reportedly called for Representative Torricelli's defeat.

It would have been bad enough if these efforts were directed at the average U.S. voter. But the Embassy's directing them to Asian Indian voters only compounds the problem. If such efforts are successful, U.S. politicians would perceive Asian Indian voters as stooges of the government of India, not simply as honest, hardworking U.S. citizens with political opinions sympathetic to India (By definition, Asian Indian voters are U.S. citizens who have solemnly sworn allegiance to the United States of America and renounced allegiance to India.). Thereby, our loyalty to the U.S., the country we have chosen to adopt as a home, is in issue. That puts us on the defensive, and seriously compromises our ability to influence U.S. policy as free citizens. Perhaps more important, it impugns our character -- the ramifications of which extend much beyond any individual election. The Embassy has an obligation to respect this concern -- and also not to hurt Asian Indian interests.

The scandalous money-laundering episode has heightened these concerns. The Embassy's response hitherto has been a textbook illustration of a bureaucratic response -- it has stoically stated that it "has and continues to operate strictly within the basis of diplomatic propriety." But legitimate questions exist about this unprecedented episode. These questions need to be answered, and stonewalling them only worsens the situation.

For example, the denials of Singh, a veteran of the murky world of Intelligence agencies, strain credibility. If, as Singh told reporters, he did not give the money to Gadhia, what reason did Gadhia have to lie under oath and falsely accuse Singh of doing so? If Singh did not receive the airfreight package addressed to Singh at the Embassy from Gadhia, then which Embassy official did receive the package? Why did Gadhia send details of the money distribution to the Embassy? And if the airfreight package did not contain documents detailing the money distribution, just what did it contain and why has the Embassy not come forward with that explanation?

Equally important, was ex-ambassador Ray, a seasoned lawyer mired in the sewer of politics, really unaware of this money-laundering? If he was so unaware, was Singh acting on behalf of interests other than the government of India? Was Singh acting by himself or with others? Who? And on whose behalf? Was there other money-laundering going on?

The Embassy must make a clean breast at least of this sordid episode even at this late date -- particularly given its other clumsy attempts to sway voters here. If the money-laundering was officially sanctioned, we need to know the bumbling wizard responsible for this Quixotic adventure. If on the other hand, it was not officially sanctioned, what exactly happened? Is the Asian Indian Embassy a haven for crooks interested in money-laundering? Assuming the Embassy has nothing to hide, it should waive the diplomatic immunity for Ray and Singh and require them to answer these questions, whether to reporters or to U.S. law enforcement personnel under oath.

The Clinton administration has greeted new Asian Indian ambassador Naresh Chandra with a strong protest against this unbecoming conduct. Unless the Asian Indian Embassy comes clean, it should brace itself for many more such protests. That would only further damage the interests of India and Asian Indian, and negate much of what many of us here have been striving for. What a tragedy!