The Electoral Bond Scheme, introduced by the Modi government in 2017, is a massive scam that has robbed citizens of their money. The scheme allows anonymous donations to political parties, which can be used to influence government decisions and award contracts to companies that make donations. The Supreme Court has declared the scheme unconstitutional, but not before billions of rupees were donated to political parties, primarily the BJP.
The scheme works by allowing companies to buy electoral bonds from banks, which can then be donated to political parties. The parties can redeem the bonds for cash, and the donor's identity is kept secret. However, an investigation by a journalist revealed that each bond has a unique alphanumeric number that can be used to track the donor.
The BJP government has been accused of using the scheme to extort money from companies in exchange for business opportunities and protection from law enforcement agencies. The government has also been accused of awarding contracts to companies that have made donations, without following proper tendering procedures.
Several examples of companies that have made large donations to the BJP through electoral bonds have been cited, including Megha Engineering, which has been accused of corruption and has received billions of rupees in contracts from the government. Other companies that have made large donations include Vedanta, EMIL, GHCL, and MSPL, which have been accused of bending environmental rules.
The video concludes by stating that the Electoral Bond Scheme is a massive scam that has robbed citizens of their money and has been used by the BJP government to extort money from companies. The video also mentions that the Supreme Court has declared the scheme unconstitutional, but the damage has already been done.
Here are the key facts extracted from the text:
1. The Electoral Bond Scheme was introduced by the Modi government in 2017.
2. The scheme allowed companies to purchase electoral bonds, which could be redeemed by political parties.
3. The bonds were sold by the State Bank of India (SBI).
4. The identities of the bond buyers were not disclosed publicly.
5. The Supreme Court declared the scheme unconstitutional in February 2024.
6. The scheme was criticized for allowing anonymous donations to political parties.
7. The government claimed that the scheme was necessary to reduce the influence of black money in politics.
8. However, critics argued that the scheme actually increased the influence of black money in politics.
9. The scheme was also criticized for allowing companies to donate large sums of money to political parties without disclosing their identities.
10. The SBI was required to keep records of the bond purchases, including the serial numbers of the bonds.
11. The serial numbers were not disclosed publicly, but were visible under ultraviolet light.
12. The government had access to the records of the bond purchases, but the public did not.
13. The scheme was used by companies to donate large sums of money to political parties, often in exchange for business favors.
14. The scheme was also used by the government to extort money from companies.
15. The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) reported that the government had awarded contracts worth billions of rupees to companies that had donated to the ruling party.
16. The CAG also reported that the government had not followed proper procedures in awarding these contracts.
17. The scheme was criticized for allowing the government to use public money to benefit private companies.
18. The scheme was also criticized for allowing the government to use its power to extort money from companies.
19. The Supreme Court directed the SBI to publish the full data on the electoral bonds, including the serial numbers.
20. The data revealed that many companies had donated large sums of money to the ruling party, often in exchange for business favors.
21. The data also revealed that the government had awarded contracts worth billions of rupees to companies that had donated to the ruling party.
22. The scheme was widely criticized for its lack of transparency and accountability.
23. The scheme was seen as a way for the government to use public money to benefit private companies and to extort money from companies.
24. The scheme was also seen as a way for companies to influence the government's policies and decisions.
25. The Supreme Court's decision to strike down the scheme was seen as a victory for transparency and accountability in politics.