archive: Do they deserve the bribe, because the guns are good?
Do they deserve the bribe, because the guns are good?
S. Gurumurthy
The New Indian Express
July 18-22, 1999
Title: Do they deserve the bribe, because the guns are good?
Author: S. Gurumurthy
Publication: The New Indian Express
Date: July 18-22, 1999
First, Chidambaram; next Mani Sankara Iyer and now Moopanar. Poor
advocates for the Gandhi Family. What they failed to realise is that
their defence of the Bofors case indicts the Gandhi amily more clearly
than even the evidence that has unfolded.
After Rajiv Gandhi's assassination Chidambaram said that Bofors probe
must be shelved. As if it is part of homage to the assassinated
leader. In fact, by this suggestion, Chidambaram cleared whatever
little doubt remained about the involvement of Rajiv Gandhi in the
payoff. This suggestion so badly recoiled on the otherwise articulate
Chidambaram, that for years no one dared to defend the Bofors case or
Rajiv Gandhi's role.
As the press has reported that the Bofors gun is performing in Kargil
as well as it was chosen for, Congressmen like Mani Sankara Iyer and
ex-congressmen like Moopanar have begun implicitly pleading for pardon
for the Gandhi family. Their unspelt logic is that since the guns are
shooting well, the Bofors prosecution itself is irrelevant. Mani says
"Bofors is vindicated". Moopanar says "Kargil has certified the
quality of Bofors guns". The hidden intention of Mani and Moopanar is
to extricate the Gandhi family from corruption charge by talking about
the quality of the guns.
Neither Mani Sankara Iyer nor Moopanar is unintelligent. Both of them
know what they are saying --and meaning. They know that it was not the
quality of the Bofors gun, which was in issue ever. In fact, even the
BJP leader Jaswant Singh had commended the choice of Bofors gun. So
did General Sundarji. The charge is not that the Gandhi family made
money by saddling a poor gun on the army. The charge was - and
continues to be - that money was made on Bofors gun which was good.
The amount of bribe was not just Rs 64 crores as some people think.
That was the amount paid till the date the bribe got exposed. The
total contracted bribe would have exceeded Rs.180 crores if it had not
been detected half-way through.
In fact, no one has denied that bribes were paid. Actually, the
payment of bribes by Bofors has been admitted by the Bofors
Corporation itself and also by the Swedish government audit. It has
been established by the Swiss bank documents published by newspapers
and later transmitted to the CBI by the Swiss government on a request
by the Indian Government. It is undeniable --and ndenied-- that the
Bofors CEO Ardbo's diary speaks of talks with 'Gandhi family trustee';
it says that 'G must be saved at all costs'; that 'Q must be
protected' and so on. Everyone knows what he codes 'R' or 'G' or 'RG'
referred to. Likewise, Quottrocchi's involvement which has been
established only confirms that the entries in Ardbo's diary are
correct.
What is in dispute is not whether bribes were paid. The issue is to
whom. Was the Gandhi family involved in receiving the payment as the
circumstances indicate? Is the entry in the Ardbo diary about Gandhi
family trustee is as true as in the case of Quottorocchi? The way
Rajiv Gandhi personally ensured that the Bofors deal was cleared
before 31st March 1988, the date by which he written agreement of
Bofors to pay bribe to AE Services (one of the names through which
bribe was received) was to expire if the gun deal was not clinched by
that date, is itself sufficient to indict Rajiv Gandhi. The
investigation that is on now in Geneva is to trace the bribes into the
accounts believed to be operated by the trustees for the Gandhi
family. The Hindujas are resisting the investigation.
So Mr. Moopanar, the issue is not whether the Bofors guns are good or
not. The issue is whether the Gandhi family received the bribe
admitted to have been paid. All circumstantial evidence indicate that
the Gandhi family must have been involved. The good quality of the gun
is not an answer to the charge of bribe.
What Mani and Moopanar have left unsaid, but effectively said, is
this-- since the guns are good, never mind if somebody has made money,
as the decision to buy the Bofors gun is correct after all.
This reminded me of what the late Ramnath Goenka told me about a very
senior Minister who has had the distinction of having been a central
minister continuously from 1950 to 1979. Goenka said that the minister
used to take money for taking not the wrong, but the right, decision,
that is for doing the right thing. What Ramnath Goenka told me was
vindicated by what a CBI official who interrogated me in the Fairfax
case told me about the same minister.
In the early 1970s, Mrs. Indira Gandhi was preparing secret dossiers
on all her ministers' misdeeds so that if they attempted to step out
of the line, they could be warned and brought to their senses. She had
asked this officer to prepare a dossier on the same minister. When the
CBI officer interrogated the former Private Secretary of the minister,
an interesting episode indicating how making money for doing the right
- not the wrong - was the hallmark of that minister came to light.
The case related to allocating Railway wagons to private parties. The
wagons were then in short supply. A party had been chosen on merit for
allocating 50 wagons. But before he was told of the decision a deal
was struck that he must pay Rs.50,000, of which Rs.25,000 must be down
payment and the balance after the allocation order was issued. The
party paid Rs.25,000. The minister noted on the file "Approved". And
his PS was asked to collect the balance before the order was handed
over. The party acted clever. Knowing that the minister had approved
the allocation, he thought that he need not pay the balance as it was
only a matter of time that the order came to him. Sensing trouble the
PS reported to the minister. The minister called for the file and
wrote the word "Not" before the word "Approved". Now the decision read
"Not Approved". The PS let the party know the latest decision. The
fellow came crying and paid the balance. The minister called for the
file and corrected the word "Not" into "Note" - now the decision read
"Note Approved".
Correct and meritorious decision, yet yielding to the minister what he
wanted-- money, which in law, is bribe pure and simple. When the CBI
official told this to Mrs. Gandhi she laughed like mad and said the
minister deserved the money. Even though Mrs. Gandhi did say this, the
law did not. And it has not yet said that a minister can take bribe
for a correct decision.
But, is that not what Mani and Moopanar are saying? That is, since the
Bofors guns are good, those who decided to buy such good guns deserve
to take bribes. Is that right, Mr.Moopanar?
Couldn't these self-constituted advocates find better ways of
defending Sonia's family from the charge of bribery in Bofors case?
The way they are defending actually indicts the family even more as
their defence is really a ground for Presidential pardon for proven
offenders.
Back
Top
|
