The petition to President Zail Singh rested on evidence that India’s ambassador to Sweden, Mr Bhupat Ozha, had communicated with the government to say while payments had indeed been made in connection with the Bofors deal, they were not made for the "winning of the contract". In other words, payments were not made to official middlemen. Subsequently Mr Ozha wrote a book in which he recounted his experiences of that time. According to law, it is a crime for any government official to withhold knowledge about any conspiracy to defraud the state if he or she is privy to such information. Under this law, the available evidence, if correct, suggested that both Rajiv Gandhi and Mr Arun Nehru were guilty although neither may have accepted money. It may be recalled that Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi also held the Defence portfolio and had monitored the Bofors deal. A few days after he received the communication from our ambassador in Sweden, he misled parliament by affirming that no payments were made in the Bofors deal. It was this information that sustained the petition presented to President Zail Singh. The President consulted a retired chief justice who opined that a prima facie case did exist. However, President ZailSingh was advised against taking action.
It is not the intention here to revive the Bofors controversy. Others will do that. What needs understanding is that no part of the Establishment seems genuinely committed to rooting out corruption. The sole motive apparently is to extract partisan advantage without affecting the prevalent corrupt political system. Media tends to be part of the system. The facts recounted above were shunned by some famous editors who were crusading against the Bofors corruption. After Mr Arun Nehru’s name surfaced, they backed off.
Will the Oil for Food scam repeat what happened in the Bofors case? The PathakInquiry Authority has indicted Mr Natwar Singh and his son Mr Jagat Singh for having misused their offices although neither has been accused of accepting money. They helped family relatives and friends. Mr Andaleeb Sehgal and Mr Aditya Khanna are accused of making money. But neither Mr Natwar Singh nor Mr Jagat Singh was at that time in the government. Soclearly they were misusing the offices they respectively held in the Congress party? If that is so, how can the Congress party be given a clean chit? It is for the Congress party to determine through an internal inquiry whether or not Mr Natwar Singh misused his office. By giving a clean chit to Congress the The PathakInquiry Authority has clearly exceeded its brief.