Burying Bofors

This one by Rajinder Puri
Hope you can access it.

http://outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20090428&fname=puri&sid=1

Funny that people praise a gandhi-nehru even when he/she has a very remote link with success (like UP), while they are reluctant to suspect them when they have good links with bad things /people…

Another equally funny thing is when the congi is corrupt, all politicians are corrupt!

Shame on the slavery 🙁

@Bhavananda,
The point is not about the inability of Indian leaders to maintain a media presence. It is about the inability of the Indian media to do their job which is providing investigative journalism and fact based reporting to inform the public about where their tax rupees go.
The BJP leaders should continually hammer the point to the media and the public about why the leaders of the Congress continue to blackball any interviews?

The Rajinder Puri article from outllookindia is surprising, considering outlookindia is out and out an anti-BJP media. Puri is a reputed cartoonist and journalist. Looks serious.

@ Shantanu

I want to know the answers to the question you are asking as well. But inspite of having the political will to bring those allegedly involved to justice, the leading lights of the movement against Bofors scandal have ratehr made it a one point agenda of targetting Rajiv Gandhi and they have not even bothered to try out establish even a half broken link that moneies were paid out and that could be traced to Nehru Gandhi family.

As for the milking the issue during election time, well then the public have given a resounding anser to it time and again it has been raised. It was sad that th eissue was used to tarnish an individual rather showcassing the loopholes and the real culprits.

As for rajinder Puri or anyone else article, the reason i would not want to comment, or it is futiler to comment because they would not know the detauiled intelligence the govt knows on the issue. The likes of Jaitley, Shourie, V P Singh, and others who were at the forefront and vowed to expose the culprits have either said they dont think Rajiv was involved and or just making statements to stay in publicity or during election time.

I have lots of respect to Rajinder Puri, but sadly even he is one of us, but rather a more famed political commentator.
Especially on this issue, i would not attach much importance to anything other than truth comming out. Lets hope and wish we get something to this effect before Quttorochi dies.

@ Hemant

You might disagree with my views, but i am just trying to be practical and holistic in seeing the issue.
As for Congress, i have clearly said in various posts that, they should deeliver else they shall face the wrath of the public. Also i have made a point to the extent, the opposition needs to put the govt on alert mode all the time, sadly the famed iron man of BJP disrupted the parliament in the 14th Loksabha and after it was announced sine die, he challenged the govt for a debate – this clearly shows the bankruptancy of the BJP.

First expose of Bofors by CS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chitra_Subramaniam

Go thru this, an interesting write up.

Excerpts from The G family and Mr Q
…Recent revelations by Sweden’s former police chief Sten Lindstrom about the ‘political payments’ made by Bofors in connection with the Howitzer deal of 1986 has come as a huge embarrassment to the ruling UPA Government, the Congress and the Nehru-Gandhi family, all of whom have been working overtime to shield those who took bribes and commissions from that company 25 years ago.
…The main points made by him in the interview published online by The Hoot are as follows: There was no direct evidence that Rajiv Gandhi received a bribe but the then Prime Minister watched the “massive cover-up” in India and Sweden and did nothing; there was conclusive evidence about payments made by Bofors to Ottavio Quattrocchi, a friend of Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi; bribes paid by Bofors landed in Quattrocchi’s account through his front company — AE Services; the payments made to Quattrocchi’s company were “political payments”, nobody in India or Sweden was allowed to interrogate Quattrocchi; Martin Ardbo, the chairman of Bofors was “terrified” about the fact that the payments to Quattrocchi would become public; Ardbo wrote in his diary that the identity of “Q” should never be revealed because of his closeness to “R”; some Indian investigators wanted Lindstrom to falsely implicate Amitabh Bachchan; and finally, Indian investigators did everything to hush up the probe.
…
The facts are as follows: The Bofors saga began in the early 1980s when India called for tenders for the purchase of field guns. The three main contenders for the contract were Sofma of France, AB Bofors from Sweden and Voest Alpine from Austria. Sofma was ahead of the others through the bidding and evaluation process but in the final stages Bofors pipped it to the post. Material gathered by the CBI from Sweden and Switzerland clearly establish Quattrocchi’s hand in Bofors’ success. Bofors entered into a contract with a company called AE Services in the latter part of 1985, offering three per cent commission to it if the Indian contract was concluded before March 31, 1986. Strangely, the Rajiv Gandhi Government signed the contract with Bofors on March 24, 1986 — just one week before the expiry of this deadline.

Mr Lindstrom’s observations have shamed our investigating agencies, our system of justice and our claim that the rule of law will prevail at all times. The simple question that India has been asking for the last 25 years is: Why did Bofors pay Quattrocchi, an Italian businessman and friend of the Nehru-Gandhi family $7.3 million when we purchased guns for our Army?

Excerpts from Guns and poses by NK Singh, 26 May 2012:
..Notwithstanding the belief that people’s memories are short, they are not prepared to forget allegations of this sort at high places.
In respect of this deal, the Rajiv Gandhi government incriminated itself most on three counts.
The first was the way it reacted to the Swedish radio broadcast of 16 April, 1987 that Bofors had paid commissions to win the contract. This was not straightaway very damaging as such things can happen behind the back of any government. A prompt transparent enquiry could have nipped the trouble in bud. In contrast, the response was one of successive denials.
..In India, not only were the allegations rubbished, but the Congress working committee, in a resolution adopted on 18 April, 1987, presided over by Rajiv Gandhi, said “an atmosphere of cynicism and despair is being fostered undermining the confidence and determination of the nation.”
The fact of the matter was that even though the controversy broke out on 16 April, 1987 with the Swedish radio broadcast, and the nation and Parliament were repeatedly told that nobody, howsoever high, “will be allowed to go free”, nothing worthwhile was done. It was only when the VP Singh government assumed office that a regular case was registered by the CBI on 22 June, 1990 and an investigation taken up.

The second count was the way all suggestions and moves to coerce Bofors to disclose details of the deal were shot down in some way or the other at the highest level here in government.
We have the corroboration on this from Ambassador Oza and late Army chief K Sunderji. Much more damning information, however, came later, in 2010, in an account given by former comptroller-general late CG Somiah, in his book The Honest Always Stand Alone.
Arun Nehru and Arun Singh, close friends, had been inducted by Rajiv Gandhi, as ministers of state, in home and defence respectively. Because of their proximity to the PM, both of them wielded enormous power. Ultimately, however, both left the government under circumstances leading to a lot of speculation. One persistent view was that Arun Singh left the Rajiv Gandhi government on account of his differences over Bofors.
This has been confirmed by Somiah in his book. He writes that much later when he questioned Arun Singh during a chance meeting on a flight from Hyderabad to Delhi as to why he had resigned, Singh told him he had no other option but to do so when the Prime Minister did not support his decision to invite the chairman of Bofors for a discussion in Delhi to clarify certain aspects of the case. He writes further that NN Vohra, then additional secretary, ministry of defence, who had worked with Arun Singh, confirmed this account later. Much earlier, Mr Vohra had been quoted as saying that Rajiv Gandhi had “lit up”, at him, when he had gone to him with some such message. Somiah goes on to write that after General Sunderji had retired and settled in Coonoor, the latter told him he had sent a secret note to the Prime Minister, suggesting cancellation of the entire deal with Bofors, but the note was returned to him by SK Bhatnagar, then defence secretary, without any action on his suggestion. Bhatnagar confirmed this to him, though he had his own grievance against the CBI, for prosecuting him in the case.
..The third, of course, was the case of Italian national, Mr Ottavio Quattrochhi. In the long history of the Bofors case, the action of the government to help de-freeze the London accounts of Mr Quattrochhi was perhaps the most sordid chapter. It was worse than even what Mr Madhavsinh Solanki, foreign minister under PV Narasimha Rao, had done when he had quietly passed on an unsigned memo to his Swiss counterpart at Davos, suggesting suspension of investigation in Switzerland.
Mr Quattrochhi was the last to enter the scene in this deal. His AE Services came into the picture on 3 August, 1985, and its solicitor, Mr Bob Wilson, signed an agreement with Bofors on 15 November, 1985, for payment of 3 per cent commission by the company to it, but which, significantly, also stipulated that commission would not be paid to AE Services if the contract was not awarded by 26 March, 1986. And lo and behold, the contract was cleared in double quick time by the Union Cabinet on 23 March, 1986.
In June 2003, Interpol reportedly alerted the CBI that it had detected two accounts held by Mr Quattrochhi and his wife, Maria, with BSIAG Bank, London. The accounts held a total of Rs 21 crore.
On the strength of a Letter Rogatory obtained by the CBI from the designated special court in Delhi, the two London accounts were frozen in July 2003. The CBI had contended in its petition to British authorities that Mr Quattrochhi “in a deceitful manner had been transferring funds from one account to another to evade detection by the law”. The agency had also claimed that it was believed that “the amount of three million slashed away in the account was part of 7.34 million US dollars paid to him (Mr Quattrochhi) by AB Bofors through AE Services.” The Crown prosecution service had argued on behalf of CBI before the United Kingdom Court of Appeal that there was need to probe the source of deposit and the British High Court had upheld the contention of the agency then.
The beginning of 2006, however, saw a complete somersault by the Government of India in pursuing the case against Mr Quattrochhi. A stunned nation heard Union minister of law, Mr HR Bhardwaj, telling a television channel, on 12 January, 2006 that the government had conveyed to the Crown prosecution service in UK its opinion to defreeze the two bank accounts held by Mr Quattrochhi. “We have conveyed to them the recent rulings of Delhi High Court rejecting the case against Hinduja brothers as well as status of investigation,” Mr Bhardwaj said.
It transpired that in an unprecedented move, the additional solicitor-general of India, Mr B Dutta, was sent all the way to London to brief the Crown Prosecution Service that CBI did not have any evidence to link the deposits of Mr Quattrochhi in a London bank with the Bofors pay-offs. We knew so far of investigating and senior law officers of the government being deputed abroad for pursuing cases or nabbing the culprits, but never for helping an accused getting out of legal clutches, particularly one who had been evading appearance, and against whom a non-bailable warrant and a Interpol red-corner notice had been issued. Why this compulsion to help?
The High Court in London ordered on 11 January, 2006 that the two accounts be de-freezed. A lawyer, Mr Ajay Agrawal, moved the Supreme Court the next day for directions to the government to prevent de-freezing of the two bank accounts in London. A three-member Bench comprising Chief Justice Mr YK Sabharwal, Mr Justice CK Thakker and Mr Justice RV Raveendran made it clear on 15 January, 2006 that it must be ensured that Mr Quattrochhi did not withdraw the money until further orders. Political parties, including the Communist Party of India (Marxist), an ally of the government, was outraged and wanted the government to retrace its steps. The BJP alleged collusion and asked for the dismissal of Mr Bhardwaj.
Nothing worked. During the hearing of the petition on 21 January, 2006, the Supreme Court was informed by the additional solicitor-general of India, Mr Gopal Subramanium that Mr Quattrochhi had withdrawn Rs 21 crore on 16 January, 2006 itself, soon after the order of the court to maintain the status quo. When Mr Subramanium told the court that there was “no longer any reasonable prospect of the case against Quattrochhi proceeding to trial,” the Bench told Mr Subramanium: “Why don’t you file a closure report before the special court?” Mr Subramanium replied that the CBI had now taken the position that there was no case to proceed against Mr Quattrochhi. To the delight of all in the government and others who wanted to help Mr Quattrochhi, a fait accompli was presented. Ultimately, on 29 September, 2009, Mr Subramanium told the Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice Mr KG Balakrishnan and Mr Justice P Sathasivam and Mr Justice BS Chauhan that “the Central government has consented for withdrawal of the prosecution of Quattrochhi.” He further indicated that the CBI would file the closure report in the court of the chief metropolitan magistrate on 3 October, 2009. The CBI duly did so and the prosecution against Mr Quattrochhi was withdrawn. This is how a grand burial was given to the Bofors case.