Podcast - Electoral Bonds - Shaken and Stirred - video Dailymotion

OutlookIndia

Explore the latest insights from Outlook's issue on Adivasi identity and electoral bonds in this podcast episode. Delve into the politics of appropriation and resistance in regions like Jharkhand and Ladakh. With general elections looming, discover how Adivasis navigate identity politics. Plus, Sikdem Dhoobhatacharya analyses the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling on electoral bonds.   #AdivasiPolitics #IdentityDynamics #ElectoralBonds #OutlookMagazine #PoliticalInsights

Transcript

00:00 Outlook brings to you excerpts from its latest issue titled 'Adivasi' or 'The Earliest Inhabitants'.

00:07 This issue of Outlook looks at the politics of appropriation and resistance in the wake of recent

00:13 developments in the states like Jharkhand and the Union Territory of Ladakh. With the general

00:19 elections due this year, it remains to be seen how the Adivasis, who form more than 8% of the total

00:27 population, participate and how the identity politics shape up in the future. From the

00:34 overlap, a section that looks at news and emerging events from Outlook's special lens.

00:40 'Electoral Bonds Shaken and Stirred' by Snigdha Indubhatacharya from Outlook.

00:46 Publication of donor details following the Supreme Court order striking down electoral bonds may

00:52 embarrass both the BJP as well as some regional parties. The Supreme Court of India struck down

00:58 the electoral bond scheme as unconstitutional right when political funding through the scheme

01:04 had reached its peak. Electoral bonds sold in the last 10 months are worth more than a third

01:10 of what had been sold over the previous 63 months. Understandably so, as the elections

01:16 are approaching. The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court not only prohibited further

01:21 issuance of such bonds, which allow donors to remain anonymous, but also ordered disclosure

01:28 of donor and recipient details of all political funding through it. The Election Commission of

01:33 India has to make the data public by March 13, according to the court's orders. The government

01:40 did not want donor details to be revealed, arguing that it may adversely impact donors. However,

01:46 the court prioritised transparency and upheld the people's right to information regarding the

01:52 sources of funds parties are receiving. The scheme was controversial right from the beginning. At

01:58 that time, the BJP was yet to gain a majority in the upper house. It was introduced in the

02:04 parliament in 2017 as a money bill, which does not require the Rajya Sabha's endorsement to become a

02:11 law. While many opposition parties criticised the move, only the CPIM challenged it in court.

02:18 The Association for Democratic Forums, ADR, was among the other petitioners. Civil society groups

02:25 alleged that anonymous funding would expand the scope for corporate influence on government policy

02:31 matters and that there would be no way for people to find out if there has been a quid pro quo

02:37 relating to such funding. After all, funding has evidently come in the figures of crores.

02:43 For this and more, read the latest issue of Outlook.

Podcast - Electoral Bonds - Shaken and Stirred

Category

Transcript

Recommended