[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E796-E797]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INDIAN ELECTION-RIGGING
______
HON. DAN BURTON
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 14, 1996
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to
meet with several prominent Kashmiri leaders to discuss the Indian
Government's intentions to force elections upon the people of Indian-
occupied Kashmir on May 23 and May 30, 1996. While I was not surprised
to hear that Indian security forces are continuing to commit numerous
human rights abuses against innocent Kashmiris, I was astonished to
learn of how far the Indian Government is going to deceive the outside
world into believing that Kashmiris actually support the upcoming
elections.
I have been informed that the Indian Army is going door to door
telling Kashmiris that they were legally bound to participate in the
election and threatening physical retaliation against Kashmiris who
fail to vote. Buses are being diverted from their normal routes to
transport people to rallies supposedly in favor of elections. I have
also been told that the Indian Government has organized 50,000 people
to pose as Kashmiris and to travel throughout Kashmir on election day
casting votes at every stop all under the watchful eyes and cameras of
a select few reporters chosen by India to paint the elections as a
great success.
Mr. Speaker, it is quite well known by everyone who follows the
Kashmir issue that the only vote people of Indian-occupied Kashmir
desire is a vote which includes the option of independence from India.
This option, while promised on numerous occasions by the United
Nations, has been continually denied by the brutal Government of India.
Why is self-determination deemed an inalienable right for so many
peoples of the world, yet so taboo when talk turns to Kashmir? Are the
peoples of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Turkmenistan,
Tajikistan, Armenia, and Azerbaijan more capable or worthy of self-
government than the people of Kashmir? Historically, Kashmir has been
ruled as a princely state far longer than it has been part of India--a
country which has existed less than 50 years. Its claims to
independence are just as strong as those of the former Republics of the
Soviet Union.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard some political theorists argue that
granting the Kashmiris their independence would prove destabilizing to
South Asia and could facilitate the breakup of India. Hogwash! What
could be more stabilizing for India than to give the Kashmiris, who
clearly do not want Indian rule, their freedom. No longer would India
have to devote hundreds of thousands of troops and huge amounts of
money to suppressing the Kashmiris. Even if the transition to
independence proved turbulent, would it be any more turbulent than the
transition of the former Soviet Republics to New Independent States? Is
avoiding potential instability a higher goal than freeing people from
an oppressive ruler?
Mr. Speaker, I hope everyone in the United States will be watching
the upcoming elections in Kashmir very carefully. It is obvious that
the Indian Government wants the world to stop asking these tough
questions and wants the world's eyes to turn away from this troubled
part of the world. That is why the Indian Government is going to such
extremes to stage these elections. However, this should not come as a
surprise to anyone who has had an opportunity to see what India is
willing to do here in the United States to shield itself from United
States congressional scrutiny. I encourage all my colleagues in the
Congress to read the Thursday, May 9, 1996, Baltimore Sun article which
documents how the Indian Embassy recently funneled $46,000 in illegal
campaign contributions to United States congressional candidates whom
it perceived to be sympathetic to India. Such tampering in United
States electoral politics by the Indian Embassy cannot be tolerated.
[From the Baltimore Sun, May 9, 1996]
Campaign Fund-Raiser Admits Guilt
(By Jim Hanker and Mark Matthews)
A prominent fund-raiser for Maryland Democrats pleaded
guilty yesterday to election fraud in a scheme to launder at
least $46,000 in illegal campaign contributions he received
from an official at the embassy of India in 1994.
Lalit H. Gadhia--a 57-year-old immigration lawyer and
former campaign treasurer to Gov. Parris N. Glendening--
confessed in U.S. District Court in Baltimore to his role in
the scheme to influence congressional lawmakers involved in
foreign-policy decisions affecting India.
An immigrant from Bombay, India, who was active in
Baltimore's early civil rights movement, Gadhia now faces up
to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Sentencing is
scheduled for this summer.
Prosecutors say the case against Gadhia is one of only a
handful of cases in which foreign citizens or governments
have been linked to illegal campaign contributions in a U.S.
political race, and may be the first time an official of a
foreign embassy has been implicated.
``The fact that the money came from the Indian Embassy and
that so many people were manipulated into participating in
the scheme takes this case to a higher level than we normally
see in these kind of investigations,'' said U.S. Attorney
Lynn A. Battaglia. ``Obviously, we have not seen a case like
this in Baltimore before.''
Among those who received the illegal funds were four
members of the Maryland delegation and congressmen in
Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio. According to documents filed
in the case, federal authorities could find no evidence that
any of the recipients was aware of the true source of the
contributions.
``The campaign assumed that these were appropriate
contributions,'' said Jesse Jacobs, press secretary for Sen.
Paul S. Sarbanes, the Marylander who is the third-ranking
Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. Sarbanes
received $4,500 of the questionable contributions.
Other Maryland Democrats who received $3,000 contributions
each were Reps. Benjamin L. Cardin and Steny H. Hoyer and
former Rep. Kweisi Mfume.
In all, 19 Democratic candidates nationwide got the money
shortly before the 1994 elections through a network of
prominent Indian-American businessmen in Maryland, their
families and employees of their companies. The donors then
were reimbursed by Gadhia, who admitted yesterday that he
used money from a minister at the Embassy of India in
Washington.
Under Foreign Election Commission rules, it is illegal for
noncitizens to make political contributions or for anyone to
make donations in another person's name. But Gadhia never
informed donors that the money was coming from India--or told
them that it was a crime to accept reimbursement for a
donation.
``The vast majority of people in the Indian-American
community nationally are going to be appalled by this,'' said
Subodh Chandra, 28, a Los Angeles lawyer who heads a
political action committee that unwittingly received at least
$31,400 of the illegal contributions from Gadhia.
``We can only hope at this point that these were the acts
of a lone bumbler or group of bumblers and not some sort of
international intrigue involving the Indian government.
Whatever the case may be, it has harmed an immigrant
community in this country that has worked hard for
political recognition,'' Chandra said.
The scheme first came to light last year after a two-month
investigation by The Sun into Chandra's PAC, the Indian-
American Leadership Investment Fund. Federal campaign finance
records showed that almost all of the group's money came from
Baltimore donors with ties to Gadhia, who then was
Glendening's campaign treasurer.
Donating mostly in $1,000 and $500 increments, contributors
ranged from prominent Indian-American engineers and doctors
to cooks, busboys, students and secretaries who never before
had made a political donation.
A half-dozen contributors interviewed said they were paid
by Gadhia or his nephew to write the checks, but had no idea
the practice was illegal.
[[Page E797]]
Satish Bahl, a part owner of the Akbar Restaurant on
Charles Street--where kitchen employees made $13,500 in bogus
contributions--echoed other Baltimore donors in saying he now
feels badly used by his former friend.
``I had no idea--absolutely no idea,'' he said yesterday.
``We were not aware of the consequences. We were only
involved thirdhand. We never thought about how far this could
go.''
Gadhia denied the allegations at the time of The Sun's
investigation. But the case against him continued to build
last summer as FBI agents issued subpoenas to those who gave
to the PAC or who attended fund-raisers held by Gadhia for
Maryland congressional candidates, Baltimore Mayor Kurt L.
Schmoke and presidential aspirants Bill Clinton and Michael
S. Dukakis.
former md official
Gadhia was at the height of his political influence, having
been rewarded by Glendening with an $80,000-a-year post as
his deputy secretary of international economic development.
Within days, the governor demanded his resignation.
The allegations of wrongdoing stunned Baltimore's close-
knit Indian-American community because Gadhia was its de
facto political leader--the man with the golden Rolodex who
could produce thousands of dollars in contributions with a
round of telephone calls.
Then, on May 8, 1995, FBI agents seized documents from
Gadhia's Charles Street office that quickly expanded the
investigation beyond the PAC contributions.
According to records released yesterday by the U.S.
attorney's office in Baltimore, the courier bill was
addressed to a minister named Devendra Singh at the ``Embassy
of India'' and it contained checks not only to the PAC but to
12 Democratic lawmakers.
The records enabled the FBI to trace some $46,000 in
illegal contributions back to Singh at the embassy, Battaglia
said.
Singh, who now is a high-ranking police official in
Rajasthan state in India, was minister for personnel and
community affairs at the embassy at the time. Among his
duties was to reach out to prominent Americans who had
immigrated from India and seek their support for the
government.
no such contribution
The current minister for community affairs, Wajahat
Habibullah, denied that the embassy is involved in trying to
influence U.S. foreign policy through campaign contributions.
``I have not made any such contribution,'' he said, adding
that diplomats at the embassy have a budget for entertaining
dignitaries but not for political donations. ``Certainly it
is not part of our work.''
But it is not the first time the issue has come up.
India's current ambassador has been in Washington only
since April. But his predecessor, Siddhartha Ray, who is now
running for Parliament in India, drew harsh criticism from
Indiana Republican Rep. Dan Burton for his statements backing
certain members of Congress who were known to be strong
supporters of India.
``We are very concerned about political activities at the
Indian Embassy,'' Burton's chief of staff, Kevin Binger, said
of the Gadhia guilty plea. ``We feel very strongly that it
should stay out of political races. Any allegation that this
is going on should be investigated and made an issue with the
Indian government.''
Said embassy spokesman Shiv Mukherjee: ``The Indian Embassy
operates fully within the bounds of diplomatic propriety.''
Officially, the State Department had no comment. Privately,
however, officials chalked up the illegal contributions that
were funneled through Gadhia's Maryland political network to
a lack of sophistication in how to influence the American
political system.
One official said the Indians had made a fumbling start in
their attempt to copy the formidable clout wielded on Capitol
Hill by such countries as Greece and Israel, which are
aligned with powerful and well-financed Washington lobbies.
India and its supporters in Washington have been extremely
vocal in trying to limit U.S. military assistance to India's
longtime adversary, Pakistan--most recently, the sale of 38
F-16 fighters.
As the Clinton administration has tried to improve trade
and political ties with India while not damaging relations
with Pakistan, much of this debate has played itself out
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House
International Relations Committee.
Federal Election Commission records show that the committee
members have become magnets for campaign contributions from
Pakistani and Indian immigrants living in the United States--
and for Gadhia's laundered contributions.
In addition to Sarbanes, other Democratic committee members
targeted were Sen. Charles S. Robb of Virginia, $2,000; Rep.
Gary L. Ackerman of New York, $3,000; Rep. Sherrod Brown of
Ohio, $3,000; Rep. Lee H. Hamilton of Indiana, $3,000; Rep
Eliot L. Engel of New York, $3,000; Robert E. Andrews of New
Jersey, $3,000; and Rep. Howard L. Berman of California,
$2,800.
State Department officials said yesterday's revelations
were unlikely to do serious damage to U.S.-Indian relations.
Nor does the Gadhia case appear to rise to the level of other
campaign financing scandals involving foreign nationals.
The Justice Department is investigating the campaign
finances of Rep. Kim, a California Republican and the first
Korean-American member of Congress.
Since December, four Korean companies--Hyundai Motor
America, Korean Air Lines, Daewoo International (America)
Corp. and Samsung America--have paid a total of $1.2 million
in fines in connection with illegal campaign contributions to
Kim that were laundered through company employees.
In 1994, a number of Japanese citizens and corporations
paid a $162,225 civil penalty to the FEC for making more than
$300,000 in illegal contributions in Hawaii during the 1980s.
Perhaps the most famous episode of foreign intervention in
recent history was the Korean scandal of the 1970s, in which
a wealthy South Korean businessman funneled hundreds of
thousands of dollars in bribes and contributions to U.S.
politicians.
Among those caught in the scandal, which implicated more
than 30 members of Congress, was Hancho C. Kim, a Maryland
businessman. He was sentenced to six years in prison in 1978
for accepting $600,000 in funds from the Korean government to
influence members of Congress.
____
How the Money Moved
Aug. 16, 1993. Indian American Leadership Investment Fund
registers as a political action committee (PAC) with the
Federal Election Commission. In first 13 months, it raises
$700.
October 1994. Lalit H. Gadhia sends 41 checks totaling
$34,900 written by various individuals to the PAC. Between
Oct. 30 and Nov. 3 the PAC sends $34,800 to 14 congressional
candidates and to the Massachusetts. Democratic Party's
Victory '94 fund. Federal prosecutors say that Gadhia
selected the candidates to receive contributions and that he
reimbursed the authors of most of the checks, using money
obtained from an official at the Indian Embassy in
Washington.
October-November 1994. Another $16,000 in contributions
from individuals is made directly to 12 candidates, including
eight who also received money from the PAC. The contributors
are reimbursed by Gadhia, using money from the Indian Embassy
official.
Dec. 1, 1994: Gadhia sends a report on the use of the
campaign funds to the embassy official, Devendra Singh.
May 3, 1995. Gadhia resigns as Gov. Parris N. Glendening's
campaign treasurer following a report in The Sun describing
his fundraising activities. He also takes leave of absence
from his $80,000 post as assistant secretary of international
economical development in the Maryland Department of Economic
and Employment Development.
May 8, 1995: FBI searches Gadhia's law office and finds
evidence of the scheme to launder illegal campaign
contributions.
June 30, 1995: Gadhia resigns his state job.
Yesterday: Gadhia appears in federal court and admits his
role in the scheme.
____________________