A Question of Answers: No documentary evidence on Rajiv in Bofors

The Bofors gun deal, which had sullied for ever the "Mr Clean" image of the late Rajiv Gandhi in 1986, and brought down his government in the 1989 general election, is caught in a legal labyrinth.

Sixteen years on, the infamous deal of a successful field gun continues to haunt the country, the political fortunes of the Gandhi family, the fate of the influential Hinduja brothers and that of Ottavio Quattrochi, the Italian businessman who is said to have wielded enormous influence in the corridors of power in the Eighties.

Of the main people involved in the Bofors kickbacks case, three have died - Rajiv Gandhi, Win Chadha, and former defence secretary Rakesh Bhatnagar. It is the Hinduja brothers and Quattrochi who now face the prospect of a trial and possible conviction in the case.

The case took a dramatic turn last week, when the Supreme Court ordered the suspension of the case for four weeks, which has come as a breather for the Hindujas.

At the same time, a Malaysian sessions court rejected a plea for the extradition of Quattrochi because the judge felt that the charges brought against the Italian by India's Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) were vague.

Joginder Singh, then director of the CBI, had brought back the crucial papers from Swiss authorities in January, 1997, after a protracted legal battle in Swiss courts, which clearly established the fact that A B Bofors, the Swedish arms manufacturer, had paid commissions to the Hinduja brothers, Quattrochi and Win Chadha.

Singh, who spoke to Gulf News, had submitted a report based on the evidence provided by the Swiss documents in May, 1997.

Excerpts from the interview:

Question: With the Supreme Court suspending the proceedings in the Bofors case against the Hinduja brothers for four weeks, and with a Malaysian court rejecting the plea for the extradition of Quattrochi, does it show that the CBI has not done its homework properly?
Answer: The CBI will be blamed for everything. But I am confident that the Supreme Court willl set aside the Delhi High Court observation that the CBI should have taken the permission of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) before proceeding with the case. It is an unrealistic demand, and it will not be possible to pursue any case if there is such a conditionality.

And I am also confident, that the Malaysian judiciary will finally agree to extradite Quattrochi.
You were the man who brought back the crucial documents from the Swiss authorities as director of the CBI. Is there clinching evidence in the documents that kickbacks had been paid?
Yes. There is clear evidence that AB Bofors had paid $7.34 million into the account of Quattrochi. But the money was in the Swiss banks only for 48 hours. It was transferred into other accounts in other banks in other countries.

Which are those countries?
I do not remember the names of all the countries. You can call them the "tax havens". One of my colleagues found out in one of the countries - I think it was the Bahamas - how the whole transaction was operated. A woman told my colleague that she was paid $500 for money to be deposited into her account and then transferred out immediately.

How long do you think the Bofors case will take before convictions against the guilty can be obtained?
Not in my lifetime, nor in your lifetime. There is need to pursue the matter in all the countries where the money has been transferred, and it will take years. It took six years in the Swiss courts alone. The Indian government under V.P. Singh had sent Letters Rogatory, requesting for the transfer of bank documents relating to the supsects.

Both Quattrochi and the Hindujas fought at every level. Finally, the Swiss courts saw the merit in the Indian demand, and allowed the documents to be handed over to India.

You have seen the Swiss documents closely. Is there evidence that Rajiv Gandhi had received money? He had claimed two things. He told Parliament at one point during the controversy that neither he nor any of the members of his family had received any money.

There is no evidence in the papers that are now available that Rajiv Gandhi had received any money, nor Sonia Gandhi. But we cannot rule out that in future no documentary evidence would crop up that may disprove the claim.

Right now, there is no documentary evidence against Rajiv Gandhi or his family.

Rajiv Gandhi's government is guilty of going out of its way to award the contract to A B Bofors. An under-secretary in the defence department had carried the Bofors file and got 16 signatures in a day in March 1986, from various officials and ministers.

Among those who signed the papers of the Bofors contract were V.P. Singh, who was then the finance minister, and Sukh Ram, who was minister of state for defence.

Later on, in the course of investigation, V.P. Singh told the CBI that he was not aware of the payment of bribes.

The then defence secretary, Rakesh Bhatnager, said that there were no middlemen in the deal. But the civilian officials were so confused that they did not take an undertaking from A.B. Bofors that there would be no middlemen.

Is there any possibility of prosecuting the A.B. Bofors managers for paying bribes?
I do not think it is possible because the European governments are not going to extradite any of their citizens.