The smoke and the ₹3.28 crore question

There is something almost exquisitely sardonic about the indignation with which the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has greeted the latest instalment in the CMRL saga. One might have imagined the Enforcement Directorate descending upon Kerala yesterday morning, lock, stock and barrel, gunning for Pinarayi Vijayan as though it had suddenly discovered him in the bushes. In reality, this particular story has been lumbering through the institutions of the Indian state for several years, leaving behind Income Tax proceedings, corporate investigations, court hearings and financial records. The ED has now sent a 25-page report to the Kerala Director General of Police recommending a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena Vijayan, Mohammed Riyas and others. The allegation is as serious as it is specific. The ED says that the payments CMRL made to Veena and Exalogic were not genuine consultancy payments but bribes received on behalf of her father, amounting to ₹3.28 crore. It says it has relied on financial records, digital material, and statements, including those of CMRL's former chief financial officer. The ED has made an allegation, not proved a case. Pinarayi Vijayan has not been convicted of taking a bribe. But simply calling it a political conspiracy does not make the evidence disappear.

The CMRL affair did not begin with the latest ED report. Income Tax proceedings had already examined payments to Veena and Exalogic and raised questions about whether corresponding services had actually been rendered. The ED subsequently took up the matter under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, conducted searches and examined financial and digital material. The Kerala High Court has allowed that investigation to proceed. So when the CPM says that the ED has suddenly discovered a conspiracy against Pinarayi Vijayan, one is tempted to ask why this conspiracy has required so many institutions, so many documents and so many years to manufacture.

Political motives may indeed underlie the ED investigation. Anyone familiar with contemporary India would be foolish to regard investigative agencies as creatures entirely untouched by politics. But political motivation does not mean every piece of evidence an agency produces is false. Nor does an ED report become gospel merely because it is an ED report. The important question, therefore, is the evidence. The public record contains several numbers that should not be casually thrown together. The earlier Income Tax proceedings concerned roughly ₹1.72 crore paid to Veena and Exalogic. The ED subsequently examined payments of about ₹2.78 crore, but now alleges that ₹3.28 crore ultimately reached Pinarayi Vijayan as a bribe. The agency has also referred to handwritten records involving approximately ₹20 crore in transactions, and an alleged transfer of around ₹85 lakh to Dubai. The crucial question is how money paid by CMRL becomes money allegedly received by Pinarayi Vijayan? What documents establish that connection? What precisely did the former CMRL CFO say? What do the electronic records show? Are the Dubai transfers connected to the CMRL payments, or is the ED constructing that connection from circumstantial evidence? That is where the case will ultimately live or die.

The latest reports make the CFO's statement particularly important. The former financial executive reportedly implicated Pinarayi Vijayan, while CMRL managing director S N Sasidharan Kartha reportedly said he had no detailed knowledge of the alleged arrangement. A witness statement is not a conviction. It can be challenged, contradicted or disproved. But it is also not nothing, and this is where the CPM's defence becomes curious. If the payments were legitimate remuneration for professional services, demonstrate the services. Produce the contracts, deliverables and invoices. If the ₹3.28 crore allegation is false, explain precisely how the ED arrived at the figure. If the CFO's statement is false, expose the contradiction. Or, to put it plainly, answer the case. Calling the ED a political instrument may be politically satisfying, but it does not answer a bank statement.

Pinarayi's own defence illustrates the same point. He has challenged the chronology involving Veena and Riyas, pointing out that the CMRL payments predated their marriage and asking how money received years earlier could have been set aside for Riyas. That is a legitimate question and deserves an answer. But it also means that the argument has moved from "this is all fabricated" to "this particular interpretation of the money trail cannot be correct because the dates do not fit". That is some progress, and it means, at least, that we are discussing evidence. The Congress government now has its own awkward little morality play. If it registers a case, the CPM will accuse it of becoming an instrument of the BJP, and if it does not, it will be accused of protecting Pinarayi Vijayan. The government has therefore sought legal advice before deciding what to do. That is sensible. A corruption case involving a former Chief Minister, his daughter, a sitting MLA and a central investigative agency is precisely the sort of matter in which political haste can produce a legal fiasco. The government should neither prosecute Pinarayi because the BJP would enjoy it nor protect him because the CPM would accuse it of conspiracy. It should examine the material, follow the law and act.

The CPM, meanwhile, would do itself a favour by remembering one of politics' oldest rules. If you want people to believe that there is no smoke, do not spend the afternoon explaining why smoke is politically motivated. There is no shortage of smoke here. There are the CMRL payments, the questions over the services allegedly rendered, successive investigations, financial records, searches, witness statements, an alleged Dubai trail and now a formal request for a corruption case. None of this proves Pinarayi Vijayan guilty. But calling it a conspiracy doesn't make it magically disappear either. An investigation is neither a conviction nor an acquittal. The CPM may ultimately be entirely correct. The ED may have overreached, and the ₹3.28 crore allegation may collapse. The alleged money trail may turn out to be a collection of unrelated transactions dressed up as a grand theory of corruption, and Pinarayi Vijayan may emerge vindicated. But vindication cannot be obtained by shouting down the question. It can only be obtained by answering it.

And here the Kerala political theatre becomes almost irresistibly comic. The CPM insists there is no fire and the ED insists there is. Television channels have divided themselves into rival firefighting brigades, each apparently equipped with its own definition of water. The sensible citizen should do something much less entertaining, like look at the evidence. There may be smoke without fire. Someone may even deliberately manufacture smoke to make the public believe there is a fire. But when the smoke is accompanied by financial records, witness statements, corporate investigations, judicial proceedings and a formal request for a corruption case, the intellectually honest response is not to announce that there is nothing to see, but to ask where the smoke came from. If there was never any fire, Pinarayi Vijayan has been handed the easiest political victory imaginable. He need only open the windows and let the evidence blow through. If, instead, the room remains full of smoke while everyone inside insists the real problem is the person pointing at it, one is entitled to wonder whether somebody has forgotten to check behind the curtains. And that, rather inconveniently for the CPM, is where the ₹3.28 crore question remains.

The author is a National Award winner for Best Narration and an independent political analyst. Views expressed are personal