Is the filing of the Bofors chargesheet, just days after the new government has taken over, more of a meticulous legal document linking kickbacks to Rajiv Gandhi? Or a political move to embarrass his widow, Sonia Gandhi? As leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha, she'll be in a spot answering uncomfortable queries on her husband's role. The Bofors ghost will continue to haunt.
With the Bofors chargesheet reportedly ready for over two months, the BJP-led nda government was clearly waiting for the elections to conclude and assume office. Now, nine protracted years after the First Information Report (FIR) was filed in the Bofors case, and eight years after Rajiv was assassinated, the long-awaited chargesheet, presented in the trial court of special judge Ajit Bharihoke, detailed charges that seem well-chronicled before.
The contours of the chargesheet, containing documents detailing bank accounts, minutes of the negotiating committee and depositions of key witnesses, appeared not much different from what the FIR and media exposes have revealed. In fact, it is the chronicle of a story foretold. However, the main question still remains unanswered: was any money laundered into the account of the former Indian premier or was there any account in Rajiv's name at all?
The CBI almost openly admits that it cannot throw light on the issue. "We do not have any incriminating evidence. There is no bank account or a personal memo to link him directly in corruption charges," says an official. In fact the agency has placed him in 'column two' of the chargesheet, indicating that the proceedings against him have to be dropped now that he's dead.
Also, beyond the reports which have already appeared in the media of the Gandhi family's closeness with Italian businessmen Ottavio Quattrocchi, there is no clinching evidence to establish the crucial financial/business link between Rajiv Gandhi and the much talked-about Mr Q.
The list of those charged with criminal conspiracy, misuse of office and receiving kickbacks in phantom accounts include Rajiv, former Bofors AB president Martin Ardbo (whose diaries reportedly constitute clinching evidence in the case), Quattrocchi, former Bofors' India agent Win Chadha and former defence secretary S.K. Bhatnagar, who single-handedly through a series of meetings 'clinched' the deal for the PM.
According to some analysts, however, the hurry in filing the chargesheet without waiting for the second set of crucial bank documents from Sweden-which may have thrown more light on the payoffs question-is difficult to explain. The documents which are now with the federal councillor in Geneva are expected in India later this year. CBI director R.K. Raghavan had made a trip to Geneva during the elections, to enquire about the status of the papers. The bank documents which reportedly relate to payments made to various agents, government officials and some others have been pending in Swiss courts since over a decade, blocked by a set of appellants who have tried preventing them being sent to India. Of them, the Hinduja brothers are the only ones whose case has not been dismissed by the Swiss courts. Those who lost their case include Quattrocchi and Chadha.
"The Hindujas have invoked a clause under the Mutual Assistance Act to stop the passage of the papers to India. But now that we have filed the chargesheet, we hope it will act as a catalyst," says a CBI official.
Investigations conducted disclosed that former defence secretary S.K.Bhatnagar, Win Chadha, Ottavio Quattrocchi, Martin Ardbo (M/s Bofors) and the late Shri Rajiv Gandhi entered into/were parties to a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance thereof the contract for the supply of guns to Bofors was awarded misusing their office and by committing various acts of omission and commission," the 4,500-page CBI chargesheet says. The charges are based on a series of examinations and interviews conducted with top civil and military administrators of the Rajiv Gandhi years: 1984 to 1989.
The main charges hinge on the question of circumstantial evidence that throw light on the role of some top government functionaries of the period. According to the chargesheet, foreign firms bidding for Indian defence deals having authorised agents representing their case was the established norm. In the question of the purchase of 400 155-mm howitzers, there was a definite change of policy.
"By May '85, the Government of India also did not approve of the appointment of Indian agents acting for foreign principals in defence deals," the document says. Accordingly, Bhatnagar held discussions with the supplier firms - Sofma from France, Bofors of Sweden and the International Military Services of the UK - and told them "to reduce their offers to the extent of commission". In other words, the government as a matter of policy did not want brokers to come into the picture.
According to the chargesheet, subsequent developments showed that all rules were thrown to the winds. Sofma reacted by informing the government that they'd terminated contracts with all their agents. But Bofors, despite this, chose not to send any communication to the government. "Even during July '85, when the military attache of the Indian High Commission, London, informed that Chadha was a Bofors representative, Bhatnagar did not choose to obtain any clarification from Bofors," the chargesheet says.
The real cinch comes now. CBI investigations reveal that before August '85, Quattrocchi contacted one Myles Stott of AE Services of the UK. And at his behest, AE Services entered into a consultancy agreement with Bofors in November '85, in connection with the possible award of contract by the Indian government to Bofors for the supply of the guns. In turn, Bofors was to pay a fee of 3 per cent of the total value of the contract. Importantly, the contract said that the agreement would cease to be in effect on April 1, '86, if Bofors did not get the contract. According to the CBI, then started a pattern listed below:
The chargesheet further states that when the payment of large amounts as bribes to local agents in secret bank accounts surfaced, Rajiv swung into action, seeking a denial of the allegation from the Swedish government through the then ambassador in Sweden, B.M. Oza. "The Swedish government refused to do so without conducting some investigation, for which a formal request was made by the Indian government on April 21, '87," the chargesheet states.
Bofors, in the meantime, gave a letter to Oza denying any payments. However, Oza promptly advised the Indian government not to take cognisance of the letter and argued that it wait till the official report of the Swedish government came out.
Highly-placed sources in the investigating agency maintain that the actions and words of Rajiv Gandhi at this juncture gave cause for suspicion. "Why did he have to go against his ambassador's action?" asks a CBI official involved in the drafting of the chargesheet. Rajiv Gandhi spoke to the Swedish premier, Olof Palme, saying that there was no need for investigation by his government in the light of the Bofors report. Subsequently, the Swedish government made a public announcement that there would be no investigations into the matter, contrary to what the Indian government had sought through official channels.
"But the Indian ambassador, who was kept in the dark, continued to persist till the Swedish PM told him about the Indian PM's conversations," says the chargesheet.
The case against Rajiv strongly rests on his "suspect actions", like not keeping Oza informed, canceling the visit of Bofors officials to India in July '87 on the plea of a constitution of a joint parliamentary committee and the haste showed in rushing through with the Bofors deal before March 31, '86. The CBI has banked heavily on Oza's statement, which it describes as "most damaging", showing the duplicity of Rajiv. According to Oza, who has recorded his memoirs in An Ambassador's Evidence, Rajiv Gandhi and members of the pmo indulged in a massive cover-up. The CBI has also relied on the statement of Arun Singh, former minister of state for defence, that he was personally in favour of scrapping the Bofors deal when the kickbacks story surfaced and was surprised why Rajiv persisted. The statement of Sarla Grewal, then personal secretary in the pmo, has also been recorded to support the CBI's thesis on the "swiftness shown" in the deal. But when the case does come for trial, all this may just be circumstantial evidence.
Surprisingly, Gopi Arora, a former principal secretary in Rajiv's cabinet, has been omitted in the chargesheet. "His sanction has not been denied and is still before the government," says an official. Also not mentioned in the chargesheet is the former minister for external affairs, Madhavsinh Solanki. "He had no role in the deal. He just carried a letter," says a CBI official.
As many as 83 witnesses back the CBI's case. Of the kickbacks, it alleges that AE Services received $7.3 million and Chadha's Svenska $23 million for seeing the contract through. The money which was channeled into front firms Colbar Investments and Wetleson Overseas in July '88 were being controlled by Quattrocchi and his wife Maria, says the CBI. From here, the chargesheet says, it was further funnelled to accounts in the Channel Islands, a tax haven.
As for Chadha, the CBI states that Bofors had a consultancy agreement with Svenska since '78 which enjoined upon the former to pay a commission to Svenska in respect of any contract signed in India, Sri Lanka or Nepal. "Though Chadha denied having any connection with Svenska, investigations revealed that Chadha had full power of attorney and full rights to open and operate Svenska's accounts," says the CBI.
But according to some senior investigators, the Bofors case may not go away so soon. "Four of the bank accounts have been identified. The key now is the identity of the fifth account about which little seems to be known till now," says one.
Political reactions were predictable. Said Congress leader Kapil Sibal: "It is the biggest political and legal farce staged in recent times." But BJP spokesman Venkaiah Naidu was happy that "the law was finally taking its course". With the case now in the trial stage and the main accused still out of reach-and the last batch of papers yet to arrive from Sweden-the Bofors saga is far from over.
Tags