Blog-Series: Bewildering
Questions, Part-5 (Rajiv Gandhi)
A Bunch of Bewildering Questions
Part-V
Bewildering Questions (1) : Freedom, Partition, Socialism, Dynacracy
Bewildering Questions (2) : Nehru's "Exemplary" Score-Card
Bewildering Questions (3) : Indira Gandhi
Bewildering Questions (4) : Sanjay Gandhi
4G.2: Rajiv Gandhi
(1G=Motilal
Nehru, 2G=Jawaharlal
Nehru, 3G=Indira,
4G=Sanjay/Rajiv)
Question-5.1
Why was Rajiv Gandhi made the PM upon death of Indira?
Rather, why was he thrust upon the nation?
Normally, the senior most minister
should have been made the PM upon the death of Indira Gandhi.
Subsequently, an internal election/process in the party should have
decided on the post.
However, to show his Dynastic-loyalty, Giani Zail Singh, the then President, allowed Rajiv Gandhi to take the oath. Rajiv was not even a minister. He had no relevant experience. He was immature. He soon demonstarted his incompetence for the job.
The most dastardly 1984-Anti-Sikh-Attacks, the worst in the history of independent India so far, happened under his watch soon after he became the PM.
He continued with his incompetent ways till the end of his term.
Prime Ministership by inheritance! That has been the great achievement of Nehru-Indira!! They converted the vibrant Indian democracy into a dynacracy (feudal dynastic democracy), and the Congress into a private estate.
However, to show his Dynastic-loyalty, Giani Zail Singh, the then President, allowed Rajiv Gandhi to take the oath. Rajiv was not even a minister. He had no relevant experience. He was immature. He soon demonstarted his incompetence for the job.
The most dastardly 1984-Anti-Sikh-Attacks, the worst in the history of independent India so far, happened under his watch soon after he became the PM.
He continued with his incompetent ways till the end of his term.
Prime Ministership by inheritance! That has been the great achievement of Nehru-Indira!! They converted the vibrant Indian democracy into a dynacracy (feudal dynastic democracy), and the Congress into a private estate.
Question-5.2
What were the academic achievements or competencies of Rajiv Gandhi?
Like a typical scion from the Nehru dynasty, Rajiv was an academic
underachiever. Rajiv Gandhi failed to do his graduation despite all the
expenses at London. He was at Cambridge till 1965, but left it without
a degree, because he did not appear for the examinations. He joined
Imperial College, London in 1966, but again left it after a year,
without a degree.
One can understand deficient education on account of financial difficulties or other exceptional circumstances. But, when a person fails academically despite all the money and all the facilities, that's a reflection on the person. Shows lack of sincerety, application and hard work, and tendency to while away time.
What's even more surprising is that if you don't wish to study, why waste precious foreign exchange (fx was very precious in those days) abroad—while away time in India!
Competence?
Nehru Dynasty scions do not need academic qualifications or expertise in any field or ground-level political experience or experience of running a panchayat or a municipality or a district or a state or a ministry to get into the top-most slot of prime minister.
They do not need to prove themselves in anything; not even in public speaking or debates, so vital for a politician. They have been poor thinkers and articulators, bereft of any worth-while vision. They have also been third-rate speakers, without exception.
India is condemned to bear the exceptionally high risk of them at the apex, and the invariably disastrous consequences that flow from that. They just parachute down as prime ministers.
One can understand deficient education on account of financial difficulties or other exceptional circumstances. But, when a person fails academically despite all the money and all the facilities, that's a reflection on the person. Shows lack of sincerety, application and hard work, and tendency to while away time.
What's even more surprising is that if you don't wish to study, why waste precious foreign exchange (fx was very precious in those days) abroad—while away time in India!
Competence?
Nehru Dynasty scions do not need academic qualifications or expertise in any field or ground-level political experience or experience of running a panchayat or a municipality or a district or a state or a ministry to get into the top-most slot of prime minister.
They do not need to prove themselves in anything; not even in public speaking or debates, so vital for a politician. They have been poor thinkers and articulators, bereft of any worth-while vision. They have also been third-rate speakers, without exception.
India is condemned to bear the exceptionally high risk of them at the apex, and the invariably disastrous consequences that flow from that. They just parachute down as prime ministers.
Question-5.3
Shouldn't Rajiv Gandhi and his government be held responsible and accountable for the 1984 anti-Sikh-attacks?
Of course, yes.
There are four sets of questions that arise about the 1984 anti-Sikh attacks.
One.
Why the attacks started?
Who started it?
Who encouraged it?
Who looked the other way?
Why the police and the army did not quell it?
The surprising and the inexcusable part was:
How could the attacks continue for four days; and that too in the capital of India, having no dearth of police, and with the army on call?
Two.
Post attacks, why were the guilty not booked?
Why instead the victims were further harassed?
Why sham enquiries were conducted?
Three.
Why the guilty and those suspected of involvement in the attacks were being protected?
Why many of them were given cushy or better positions and promotions?
Four.
Why no justice has been done till date—even after 29 long years?
The only plausible explanation is that if the State itself is guilty of its failure to protect, and is determined not to get caught, where is the question of justice, and punishment of the guilty. Especially, when the people at the top positions are involved—on account of either their inexcusable silence and inaction, or on account of their deliberate complicity. This is obvious from the way no stone was left unturned to scuttle all probes, and abort the legal process.
This has a parallel with Bofors. The State ensured the guilty were not caught. Set up JPCs and Enquiry Commissions, hand over probe to the investigative agencies, when you could no more avoid them, and then systematically abort them.
There are people who call it 1984 riots. How are they riots. Riots are when two sides attack each other. But, in 1984, only the Sikhs were on the receiving end—and brutally.
1984 anti-Sikh attacks have established such high watermarks on many counts that they are unlikely to be ever breached:
One.
The scale of the attacks.
Two.
The gruesomeness of the attacks.
Three.
The complicity of the powerful and those responsible for protection of the people—either through their involvement or their irresponsible silence and inaction.
Four.
Exceedingly callous and exceptionally irresponsible manner of response of the State in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, providing little succour to victims.
Five.
Shamelessly insensitive justification of the attacks at the highest level—by Rajiv Gandhi: "When a tree falls, the earth shakes under it...”
Six.
Brazenness with which the State went about scuttling all probes and attempts to get at the truth and punish the guilty.
Seven.
Exoneration of the guilty.
Also, rewarding the guilty: accommodation and promotion of the guilty.
Rajiv was apparently so unconcerned that he did not even think it necessary to express regret on the attacks or sympathy with the victims in the parliament.
Was it his lack of concern or was it his guilty conscience that led him to keep silent on the sordid affair?
Why didn’t he prevent the attacks?
Even if it is granted that on the first day he was taken by surprise, what prevented him from acting on the second or the third or even the fourth day?
Khushwant Singh had rightly remarked:
“If he [Rajiv] was not the author of the order to ‘teach the Sikhs a lesson’, he did nothing to countermand it.”
Incidentally, a Sikh was the President of India then—Giani Zail Singh. Sitting right there in Delhi, with all the power at his command, he did nothing to save the Sikhs of Delhi!
This is what the Dynasty has done to leaders and babus. Make them totally loyal, subservient and spineless. Giani Zail Singh could not have been President unless Indira Gandhi was satisfied he was faithful to her, besides being obsequious and gutless. He did nothing either to prevent the attacks on Sikhs, or to bring the guilty to book, later. Why? Because, he just wanted to continue as president. The least he could have done was to have resigned in protest. Even much earlier, did he do anything to prevent the Operation Blue Star, and the reduction of the revered Sikh Shrine to rubble? Could he not have prevailed upon Indira Gandhi to use alternate methods, so as not to damage the shrine—and resigned if she persisted!
Strangely, it was Giani Zail Singh who, as president, swore Rajiv Gandhi as Prime Minister, upon the death of Indira Gandhi—violating all parliamentary procedures.
Normally, it should have been the senior most cabinet minister who should have been sworn-in as the Prime Minister. Rajiv Gandhi then was not even a minister. Why did Giani Zail Singh do so? Not to uphold the constitution or the parliamentary procedures, but to demonstrate his loyalty to the Dynasty! Person sitting in the highest office was reduced to being merely a lackey.
Those who are unaware of the facts should read ‘When a Tree Shook Delhi’ by Manoj Mitta and HS Phoolka, published by Roli Books, and ‘I Accuse… : The Anti-Sikh Violence of 1984’ authored by Jarnail Singh and published by Penguin/Viking. Also, ‘The Ghosts of Mrs. Gandhi’, a recollection of his personal experience during the anti-Sikh violence in Delhi written by Amitav Ghosh and included in his collection ‘The Imam and the Indian’ published by Ravi Dayal/Penguin, is worth reading.
There are four sets of questions that arise about the 1984 anti-Sikh attacks.
One.
Why the attacks started?
Who started it?
Who encouraged it?
Who looked the other way?
Why the police and the army did not quell it?
The surprising and the inexcusable part was:
How could the attacks continue for four days; and that too in the capital of India, having no dearth of police, and with the army on call?
Two.
Post attacks, why were the guilty not booked?
Why instead the victims were further harassed?
Why sham enquiries were conducted?
Three.
Why the guilty and those suspected of involvement in the attacks were being protected?
Why many of them were given cushy or better positions and promotions?
Four.
Why no justice has been done till date—even after 29 long years?
The only plausible explanation is that if the State itself is guilty of its failure to protect, and is determined not to get caught, where is the question of justice, and punishment of the guilty. Especially, when the people at the top positions are involved—on account of either their inexcusable silence and inaction, or on account of their deliberate complicity. This is obvious from the way no stone was left unturned to scuttle all probes, and abort the legal process.
This has a parallel with Bofors. The State ensured the guilty were not caught. Set up JPCs and Enquiry Commissions, hand over probe to the investigative agencies, when you could no more avoid them, and then systematically abort them.
There are people who call it 1984 riots. How are they riots. Riots are when two sides attack each other. But, in 1984, only the Sikhs were on the receiving end—and brutally.
1984 anti-Sikh attacks have established such high watermarks on many counts that they are unlikely to be ever breached:
One.
The scale of the attacks.
Two.
The gruesomeness of the attacks.
Three.
The complicity of the powerful and those responsible for protection of the people—either through their involvement or their irresponsible silence and inaction.
Four.
Exceedingly callous and exceptionally irresponsible manner of response of the State in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, providing little succour to victims.
Five.
Shamelessly insensitive justification of the attacks at the highest level—by Rajiv Gandhi: "When a tree falls, the earth shakes under it...”
Six.
Brazenness with which the State went about scuttling all probes and attempts to get at the truth and punish the guilty.
Seven.
Exoneration of the guilty.
Also, rewarding the guilty: accommodation and promotion of the guilty.
Rajiv was apparently so unconcerned that he did not even think it necessary to express regret on the attacks or sympathy with the victims in the parliament.
Was it his lack of concern or was it his guilty conscience that led him to keep silent on the sordid affair?
Why didn’t he prevent the attacks?
Even if it is granted that on the first day he was taken by surprise, what prevented him from acting on the second or the third or even the fourth day?
Khushwant Singh had rightly remarked:
“If he [Rajiv] was not the author of the order to ‘teach the Sikhs a lesson’, he did nothing to countermand it.”
Incidentally, a Sikh was the President of India then—Giani Zail Singh. Sitting right there in Delhi, with all the power at his command, he did nothing to save the Sikhs of Delhi!
This is what the Dynasty has done to leaders and babus. Make them totally loyal, subservient and spineless. Giani Zail Singh could not have been President unless Indira Gandhi was satisfied he was faithful to her, besides being obsequious and gutless. He did nothing either to prevent the attacks on Sikhs, or to bring the guilty to book, later. Why? Because, he just wanted to continue as president. The least he could have done was to have resigned in protest. Even much earlier, did he do anything to prevent the Operation Blue Star, and the reduction of the revered Sikh Shrine to rubble? Could he not have prevailed upon Indira Gandhi to use alternate methods, so as not to damage the shrine—and resigned if she persisted!
Strangely, it was Giani Zail Singh who, as president, swore Rajiv Gandhi as Prime Minister, upon the death of Indira Gandhi—violating all parliamentary procedures.
Normally, it should have been the senior most cabinet minister who should have been sworn-in as the Prime Minister. Rajiv Gandhi then was not even a minister. Why did Giani Zail Singh do so? Not to uphold the constitution or the parliamentary procedures, but to demonstrate his loyalty to the Dynasty! Person sitting in the highest office was reduced to being merely a lackey.
Those who are unaware of the facts should read ‘When a Tree Shook Delhi’ by Manoj Mitta and HS Phoolka, published by Roli Books, and ‘I Accuse… : The Anti-Sikh Violence of 1984’ authored by Jarnail Singh and published by Penguin/Viking. Also, ‘The Ghosts of Mrs. Gandhi’, a recollection of his personal experience during the anti-Sikh violence in Delhi written by Amitav Ghosh and included in his collection ‘The Imam and the Indian’ published by Ravi Dayal/Penguin, is worth reading.
Question-5.4
Can Rajiv and the Congress be considered secular and protector of women's equality and rights after what they did in the Shah Banu case and in Ayodhya?
NO.
In what came to be known as the Shah Banu case, the Supreme Court awarded alimony to a divorced Muslim woman, Shah Bano, in April 1985, and called for honouring the constitutional commitment to a Uniform Civil Code.
With a two-thirds majority in Parliament, the Congress could have taken the Court’s verdict forward. Instead, Rajiv Gandhi had a Bill passed, the Muslim Personal Law Bill, overturning the Supreme Court’s verdict.
Rajiv Gandhi thereby bent down to Muslim fanatics, ignoring the just stand taken by his own minister, who also happened to be a Muslim—Arif Mohammad Khan. Khan finally resigned in protest!
Was it not expected of a PM to back up what was just and proper, and show support for the poor, old lady, and many like her. If you cannot be just and fair and back up a good cause, even when the Supreme Court is on your side, and you have an overwhelming majority in the parliament, can you ever be just and fair?
But, again the Dynasty instinct. Who cares for the poor, old lady; who cares for the suffering Muslim women; who cares for reforms or justice! What matters is your continuance in power and that of your Dynasty, and that requires votes of the minority. Your Dynasty instinct tells you that if you support what is backward and unjust, you may be compensated with votes. However, it was not as if Rajiv’s government was in any difficulty and he desperately required support. His government had an overwhelming majority and there was absolutely no threat to his power. But, why not secure the future too for the Dynasty—whatever it may cost to the nation and its people and its minority!
And, after having thus secured the Muslim votes, Rajiv thought, like a clever heir of a clever Dynasty, why not try and secure Hindu votes too. So allow opening of the lock of Ayodhya Temple/Masjid to have the conservative Hindus also on your side. Like Indians are still struggling with the consequences of his grand-father’s acts on Kashmir, Tibet and India-China border-dispute; they—particularly, the minority Muslim community—are also suffering from the consequences of Rajiv Gandhi’s disastrous acts on Shah Banu case and Ayodhya.
Wrote Ramchandra Guha in the Hindustan Times of 13 September 2008: “In April 1985, in awarding alimony to a divorced woman named Shah Bano, the Supreme Court called for honouring the constitutional commitment to a Uniform Civil Code. The Congress had a two-thirds majority in Parliament. However, instead of taking the Court’s verdict forward, Rajiv Gandhi had a Bill passed overturning it. Less than a year later, the locks of the shrine in the Babri Masjid were opened. As the political analyst Neerja Chowdhury wrote at the time, ‘Mr Rajiv Gandhi wants both to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.' Chowdhury remarked that ‘a policy of appeasement of both communities being pursued by the government for electoral gains is a vicious cycle which will become difficult to break’ ...Rajiv Gandhi had 400 MPs, a Supreme Court verdict, and a liberal Muslim (Arif Mohammed Khan) willing to bat for him. That he still flunked it may be attributed either to a lack of a sense of history or a lack of a robust commitment to liberal principles—or perhaps both.” Guha is mild in his rebuke. The long and short of it is that dynasts in general work not in national or community interest, but in self-interest, in their dynasty's interest; and that Rajiv in particular was a person thoroughly incompetent for the job of a PM.
In what came to be known as the Shah Banu case, the Supreme Court awarded alimony to a divorced Muslim woman, Shah Bano, in April 1985, and called for honouring the constitutional commitment to a Uniform Civil Code.
With a two-thirds majority in Parliament, the Congress could have taken the Court’s verdict forward. Instead, Rajiv Gandhi had a Bill passed, the Muslim Personal Law Bill, overturning the Supreme Court’s verdict.
Rajiv Gandhi thereby bent down to Muslim fanatics, ignoring the just stand taken by his own minister, who also happened to be a Muslim—Arif Mohammad Khan. Khan finally resigned in protest!
Was it not expected of a PM to back up what was just and proper, and show support for the poor, old lady, and many like her. If you cannot be just and fair and back up a good cause, even when the Supreme Court is on your side, and you have an overwhelming majority in the parliament, can you ever be just and fair?
But, again the Dynasty instinct. Who cares for the poor, old lady; who cares for the suffering Muslim women; who cares for reforms or justice! What matters is your continuance in power and that of your Dynasty, and that requires votes of the minority. Your Dynasty instinct tells you that if you support what is backward and unjust, you may be compensated with votes. However, it was not as if Rajiv’s government was in any difficulty and he desperately required support. His government had an overwhelming majority and there was absolutely no threat to his power. But, why not secure the future too for the Dynasty—whatever it may cost to the nation and its people and its minority!
And, after having thus secured the Muslim votes, Rajiv thought, like a clever heir of a clever Dynasty, why not try and secure Hindu votes too. So allow opening of the lock of Ayodhya Temple/Masjid to have the conservative Hindus also on your side. Like Indians are still struggling with the consequences of his grand-father’s acts on Kashmir, Tibet and India-China border-dispute; they—particularly, the minority Muslim community—are also suffering from the consequences of Rajiv Gandhi’s disastrous acts on Shah Banu case and Ayodhya.
Wrote Ramchandra Guha in the Hindustan Times of 13 September 2008: “In April 1985, in awarding alimony to a divorced woman named Shah Bano, the Supreme Court called for honouring the constitutional commitment to a Uniform Civil Code. The Congress had a two-thirds majority in Parliament. However, instead of taking the Court’s verdict forward, Rajiv Gandhi had a Bill passed overturning it. Less than a year later, the locks of the shrine in the Babri Masjid were opened. As the political analyst Neerja Chowdhury wrote at the time, ‘Mr Rajiv Gandhi wants both to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.' Chowdhury remarked that ‘a policy of appeasement of both communities being pursued by the government for electoral gains is a vicious cycle which will become difficult to break’ ...Rajiv Gandhi had 400 MPs, a Supreme Court verdict, and a liberal Muslim (Arif Mohammed Khan) willing to bat for him. That he still flunked it may be attributed either to a lack of a sense of history or a lack of a robust commitment to liberal principles—or perhaps both.” Guha is mild in his rebuke. The long and short of it is that dynasts in general work not in national or community interest, but in self-interest, in their dynasty's interest; and that Rajiv in particular was a person thoroughly incompetent for the job of a PM.
Question-5.5
Isn't it an absolutely false claim that liberalisation started with Rajiv?
YES.
Finding that there is all round praise for the liberalisation heralded by Narsimha Rao, the Dynasty chamchas were quick to pass on the credit to Rajiv, claiming that the liberalisation actually commenced with Rajiv.
They conveniently forget—knowing no one would remember it—what Rajiv himself said on the subject. He stated at the Qinghua University, “The focus of our socialism is the uplift of the poor, succour to the weak, justice to the oppressed and balanced regional development. To attain these ends, we believe the State must control the commanding heights of the economy...”
In fact, the manifesto of the Congress under Rajiv promised another heavy dose of socialism as the 1991 elections approached. Despite this, people are mislead into believing that it was Rajiv who ushered in reforms.
The financial bankruptcy and the severe economic crisis that India faced in 1991 was thanks to gross economic mismanagement of the past decades ruled by Nehru, Indira and, of course, Rajiv Gandhi, who was at the helm during the immediate preceding years—foreign debt had doubled between 1985 and 1991.
Finding that there is all round praise for the liberalisation heralded by Narsimha Rao, the Dynasty chamchas were quick to pass on the credit to Rajiv, claiming that the liberalisation actually commenced with Rajiv.
They conveniently forget—knowing no one would remember it—what Rajiv himself said on the subject. He stated at the Qinghua University, “The focus of our socialism is the uplift of the poor, succour to the weak, justice to the oppressed and balanced regional development. To attain these ends, we believe the State must control the commanding heights of the economy...”
In fact, the manifesto of the Congress under Rajiv promised another heavy dose of socialism as the 1991 elections approached. Despite this, people are mislead into believing that it was Rajiv who ushered in reforms.
The financial bankruptcy and the severe economic crisis that India faced in 1991 was thanks to gross economic mismanagement of the past decades ruled by Nehru, Indira and, of course, Rajiv Gandhi, who was at the helm during the immediate preceding years—foreign debt had doubled between 1985 and 1991.
Question-5.6
Wasn't IPKF a huge Rajiv misadventure?
YES.
The naive Rajiv Gandhi and his advisers thought the Sri Lankan Tamil issue provided them an opportunity to show off their great prowess in International Affairs. You are a big guy, so you unilaterally decide with Sri Lanka what the solution of Tamil issue should be, without involving LTTE and Pirbhakaran. And, later, you just call Pirbhakaran to Delhi and want him to sign on the dotted line, and expect he would do so!
Then, you dream you are a super power. And, to show to the world your responsibility as a super power, you send in your IPKF to Sri Lanka. What happens? LTTE becomes your sworn enemy. Your soldiers, who do not have full freedom to act, are killed by scores. Sri Lanka itself treats you as an alien, enemy force, which should be thrown out. So you make a mess of the whole Sri Lankan Tamil issue, and your soldiers come back bruised and despised, having failed in the thankless task.
The naive Rajiv Gandhi and his advisers thought the Sri Lankan Tamil issue provided them an opportunity to show off their great prowess in International Affairs. You are a big guy, so you unilaterally decide with Sri Lanka what the solution of Tamil issue should be, without involving LTTE and Pirbhakaran. And, later, you just call Pirbhakaran to Delhi and want him to sign on the dotted line, and expect he would do so!
Then, you dream you are a super power. And, to show to the world your responsibility as a super power, you send in your IPKF to Sri Lanka. What happens? LTTE becomes your sworn enemy. Your soldiers, who do not have full freedom to act, are killed by scores. Sri Lanka itself treats you as an alien, enemy force, which should be thrown out. So you make a mess of the whole Sri Lankan Tamil issue, and your soldiers come back bruised and despised, having failed in the thankless task.
Question-5.7
What about presentation of Rajiv as Mr Clean?
A
publicity stunt, that Rajiv himself exposed.
Media, ever ready to please those in power, dubbed Rajiv Gandhi Mr Clean. He responded with Bofors. And it was not just Bofors. There were other financial scandals, including HDW. There are unconfirmed reports that Bofors was not necessarily the first such case, and that even as a pilot during the time of his mother, Rajiv Gandhi was perhaps associated with certain defence deals.
The extent to which the Government and Rajiv, personally, went to mislead the public and scuttle the probe itself proved their involvement in some way or the other. What is interesting about the Bofors case is not its main focus—the bribe. By today’s standards it was too less. What was indeed interesting, rather revealing, was the way, the machinations, and the extent to which the government under Rajiv, and even successive government, could go to save the possible culprits, mislead the public, and scuttle the probe they themselves instituted.
Sten Lindstrom, since retired, was the head of Swedish police, and had led the investigations into the Bofors deal in the late eighties and the nineties. He was a conscientious, honest cop, who did his best to bring the corrupt to justice.
Chitra Subramaniam, now Chitra Subramaniam-Duella, was a journalist for The Hindu based in Geneva when the Bofors scandal broke. She did path-breaking investigative work on the Bofors deal. She shifted to The Indian Express when The Hindu reportedly discontinued her investigative reports on Bofors under political pressure. It is thanks to her that the government failed to suppress the scandal.
Ottavio Quattrocchi, or Q, was an Italian businessman and reportedly a friend of the Gandhis. During Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi’s time in the 1980s, Snamprogetti, an Italian company, won dozens of projects (around 60) from the Indian Government. That was thanks to Quattrocchi, who reportedly had free access to the PM’s residence, could freely barge into the rooms of ministers and secretaries. Those in the government who dared to oppose him risked being humiliated or side-lined.
Wrote Ashok Malik in The Pioneer of 28 April 2012, “Those who stood up to him [Quattrocchi]—opposing him on grounds of technology (Thal Vaishet project, 1980) or price (Hazira-Bijapur-Jagdishpur pipeline, 1985) were humiliated or side-lined. HBJ destroyed several careers. Mr Nawal Kishore Sharma lost his job as Petroleum Minister. Mr PK Kaul was sacked as Cabinet secretary. Mr GV Ramakrishna and Mr AS Gill, two outstanding Petroleum Secretaries, were thwarted from being considered for Cabinet Secretary-ship. In the case of Thal Vaishet, Mr KV Ramananthan, then Secretary for chemicals and fertilisers and frontrunner for the Cabinet Secretary’s post, was shunted out to the Planning Commission.”
Sten, in an interview to Chitra published on The Hoot on 24 April 2012 explaining why he turned a whistleblower, said:
“I knew what I was doing when I leaked the documents to you. I could not count on my government or Bofors or the government of India to get to the bottom of this...
“We were conducting several search and seize operations in the premises of Bofors and their executives...In the pile were one set of documents to Swiss banks with instructions that the name of the recipient should be blocked out...Bofors was unable to explain and then we found more and more documents leading to India...
“But he [Rajiv Gandhi] watched the massive cover-up in India and Sweden and did nothing. Many Indian institutions were tarred, innocent people were punished while the guilty got away. The evidence against Ottavio Quattrocchi was conclusive. Through a front company called A.E. Services, bribes paid by Bofors landed in Quattrocchi’s account which he subsequently cleaned out because India said there was no evidence linking him to the Bofors deal. Nobody in Sweden or Switzerland was allowed to interrogate him...
“Ardbo was also concerned about the role of Arun Nehru who had told Bofors in 1985 that his name and Rajiv Gandhi’s name should not appear anywhere. As the stories began to appear, Ardbo knew what I knew. He had written in his notes that the identity of N (Nehru) becoming public was a minor concern but at no cost could the identity of Q (Quattrocchi) be revealed because of his closeness to R (Rajiv Gandhi). He had also mentioned a meeting between an A.E. Services official and a Gandhi trustee lawyer in Geneva. This was a political payment. These payments are made when the deal has to be inked and all the numbers are on the table...
“During that trip to Sweden, the Indian investigators planted the Bachchan angle on DN (Swedish Newspaper Dagens Nyheter). The Bachchan’s took them to court in the UK and won. DN had to apologise and they said the story had come from Indian investigators. I was disappointed with the role of many senior journalists and politicians during that period. They muddied the waters...
“After the LR [Letter-Rogatory] was lodged in Switzerland, I was waiting for the official track with India and Switzerland to begin. It never did. Whenever the public prosecutor Ekblom and I heard of any Indian visits to Stockholm, we would speak to the media expressing our desire to meet them. Can you imagine a situation where no one from India met the real investigators of the gun deal?”
The above clearly shows how the investigation was a hogwash.
Funnily, while the foreign governments—Swedish and the Swiss—were willing to cooperate and furnish documents that could help identify the guilty; our CBI was reluctant to acquire the documents and welcome the cooperation voluntarily offered by them! Such is the level of political control over CBI, and such is the pathetic state of our investigative machinery!!
Even though the Bofors scandal came to light in 1987, a case was registered only when VP Singh became the PM in 1989. His government lasted barely a year. Chandrashekhar government followed, with the backing of the Congress. Thanks to the same, the CBI lawyer started arguing in the court against the government’s case itself!
In 1991, unknown persons—obviously those who must have received bribes—went to court in Geneva to ask the Swiss authorities not tell the Indian Government who the accounts belonged to!
Then in 1992, India gave a note to the Swiss Foreign Minister saying the Bofors case was politically motivated, and requested the Swiss authorities not to cooperate with the Indian investigators and to ignore any requests made by other arms of the Government. Guess, who gave the note? India’s Foreign Minister in the Congress Government, Madhavsinh Solanki, when he met his Swiss counterpart at the WEF meeting.
Soon after Interpol advised India in July 1993 that Ottavio Quattrocchi was one of the persons appealing against the transfer of the Swiss bank documents, Quattrocchi flew out of India. A Congress politician reportedly helped him fly out.
India finally received documents from Switzerland in 1997 that established payment of kickback to Quattrocchi. Quattrocchi was then living in Malaysia. NDA Government tried his extradition, but failed—it lost in a lower court on a Friday, appealed to a higher court on the following Monday, but, over the weekend, Quattrocchi fled Malaysia.
To allow the case to die a natural death, UPA allowed two unfavourable court verdicts to go unchallenged. One was quashing of bribery charges in 2004. The second was quashing of charges against Hindujas in 2005 on the ground that papers presented to the court were authenticated photocopies, not originals.
UPA allowed de-freezing of Quattrocchi’s bank accounts in London in December 2005, and he was allowed to have his ill-gotten money.
Argentina police detained Quattrocchi in 2007 on account of then still existing Interpol alert, but, as expected, UPA so handled the matter that Quattrocchi again got away.
Writes Seema Mustafa in her article, ‘Why there won’t be any progress on Bofors’, in DNA of 27 April 2012: “In 2004, when I asked Lindstrom to name some living persons who had full details of the Bofors kickbacks he responded without hesitation, ‘Martin Ardbo, Ottavio Quattrocchi and Sonia Gandhi...’ Ardbo has since died...”
Writes Kuldip Nayar in ‘Beyond the Lines’:
“Rajiv Gandhi had bent all the rules to order Bofors’ howitzers. Even the circumstantial evidence testified to his involvement. A close friend of his told me that Rajiv Gandhi had opened a new account abroad and had deposited the kickbacks there. This benefited his Italian in-laws, parents of Sonia Gandhi. Ottavio Quattrocchi, an Italian middleman in Delhi, close to Sonia Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, was responsible for the clandestine payment.
“Quattrocchi had once threatened to sue me for defamation because of what I had written about his ‘nefarious activities’ in my book The Judgement (1977). He escaped punishment for all he had done and was eventually allowed to leave India, the CBI ensuring that no harm came to an individual so close to the Dynasty. When I checked with some senior officers in the agency, their reply was that there were orders from above. H.R. Bharadwaj told me in Bangalore that he had ‘put everything in order’ before moving to Karnataka as governor. According to former CBI director Joginder Singh, Quattrocchi was aware in advance of every move the agency proposed to take against him. For example, he was shown all official papers before he appeared for extradition proceedings at a Malaysian court. I once asked Foreign Minister Madhavsinh Solanki in the Narasimha Rao government about the documents he had delivered to the Swedish government regarding the kickbacks. New Delhi was keen that the Swedish authorities remained silent. He did not comment on the documents but said that the Bofors gun deal was ‘as messy as Narmada’s non-use of water’.”
Media, ever ready to please those in power, dubbed Rajiv Gandhi Mr Clean. He responded with Bofors. And it was not just Bofors. There were other financial scandals, including HDW. There are unconfirmed reports that Bofors was not necessarily the first such case, and that even as a pilot during the time of his mother, Rajiv Gandhi was perhaps associated with certain defence deals.
The extent to which the Government and Rajiv, personally, went to mislead the public and scuttle the probe itself proved their involvement in some way or the other. What is interesting about the Bofors case is not its main focus—the bribe. By today’s standards it was too less. What was indeed interesting, rather revealing, was the way, the machinations, and the extent to which the government under Rajiv, and even successive government, could go to save the possible culprits, mislead the public, and scuttle the probe they themselves instituted.
Sten Lindstrom, since retired, was the head of Swedish police, and had led the investigations into the Bofors deal in the late eighties and the nineties. He was a conscientious, honest cop, who did his best to bring the corrupt to justice.
Chitra Subramaniam, now Chitra Subramaniam-Duella, was a journalist for The Hindu based in Geneva when the Bofors scandal broke. She did path-breaking investigative work on the Bofors deal. She shifted to The Indian Express when The Hindu reportedly discontinued her investigative reports on Bofors under political pressure. It is thanks to her that the government failed to suppress the scandal.
Ottavio Quattrocchi, or Q, was an Italian businessman and reportedly a friend of the Gandhis. During Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi’s time in the 1980s, Snamprogetti, an Italian company, won dozens of projects (around 60) from the Indian Government. That was thanks to Quattrocchi, who reportedly had free access to the PM’s residence, could freely barge into the rooms of ministers and secretaries. Those in the government who dared to oppose him risked being humiliated or side-lined.
Wrote Ashok Malik in The Pioneer of 28 April 2012, “Those who stood up to him [Quattrocchi]—opposing him on grounds of technology (Thal Vaishet project, 1980) or price (Hazira-Bijapur-Jagdishpur pipeline, 1985) were humiliated or side-lined. HBJ destroyed several careers. Mr Nawal Kishore Sharma lost his job as Petroleum Minister. Mr PK Kaul was sacked as Cabinet secretary. Mr GV Ramakrishna and Mr AS Gill, two outstanding Petroleum Secretaries, were thwarted from being considered for Cabinet Secretary-ship. In the case of Thal Vaishet, Mr KV Ramananthan, then Secretary for chemicals and fertilisers and frontrunner for the Cabinet Secretary’s post, was shunted out to the Planning Commission.”
Sten, in an interview to Chitra published on The Hoot on 24 April 2012 explaining why he turned a whistleblower, said:
“I knew what I was doing when I leaked the documents to you. I could not count on my government or Bofors or the government of India to get to the bottom of this...
“We were conducting several search and seize operations in the premises of Bofors and their executives...In the pile were one set of documents to Swiss banks with instructions that the name of the recipient should be blocked out...Bofors was unable to explain and then we found more and more documents leading to India...
“But he [Rajiv Gandhi] watched the massive cover-up in India and Sweden and did nothing. Many Indian institutions were tarred, innocent people were punished while the guilty got away. The evidence against Ottavio Quattrocchi was conclusive. Through a front company called A.E. Services, bribes paid by Bofors landed in Quattrocchi’s account which he subsequently cleaned out because India said there was no evidence linking him to the Bofors deal. Nobody in Sweden or Switzerland was allowed to interrogate him...
“Ardbo was also concerned about the role of Arun Nehru who had told Bofors in 1985 that his name and Rajiv Gandhi’s name should not appear anywhere. As the stories began to appear, Ardbo knew what I knew. He had written in his notes that the identity of N (Nehru) becoming public was a minor concern but at no cost could the identity of Q (Quattrocchi) be revealed because of his closeness to R (Rajiv Gandhi). He had also mentioned a meeting between an A.E. Services official and a Gandhi trustee lawyer in Geneva. This was a political payment. These payments are made when the deal has to be inked and all the numbers are on the table...
“During that trip to Sweden, the Indian investigators planted the Bachchan angle on DN (Swedish Newspaper Dagens Nyheter). The Bachchan’s took them to court in the UK and won. DN had to apologise and they said the story had come from Indian investigators. I was disappointed with the role of many senior journalists and politicians during that period. They muddied the waters...
“After the LR [Letter-Rogatory] was lodged in Switzerland, I was waiting for the official track with India and Switzerland to begin. It never did. Whenever the public prosecutor Ekblom and I heard of any Indian visits to Stockholm, we would speak to the media expressing our desire to meet them. Can you imagine a situation where no one from India met the real investigators of the gun deal?”
The above clearly shows how the investigation was a hogwash.
Funnily, while the foreign governments—Swedish and the Swiss—were willing to cooperate and furnish documents that could help identify the guilty; our CBI was reluctant to acquire the documents and welcome the cooperation voluntarily offered by them! Such is the level of political control over CBI, and such is the pathetic state of our investigative machinery!!
Even though the Bofors scandal came to light in 1987, a case was registered only when VP Singh became the PM in 1989. His government lasted barely a year. Chandrashekhar government followed, with the backing of the Congress. Thanks to the same, the CBI lawyer started arguing in the court against the government’s case itself!
In 1991, unknown persons—obviously those who must have received bribes—went to court in Geneva to ask the Swiss authorities not tell the Indian Government who the accounts belonged to!
Then in 1992, India gave a note to the Swiss Foreign Minister saying the Bofors case was politically motivated, and requested the Swiss authorities not to cooperate with the Indian investigators and to ignore any requests made by other arms of the Government. Guess, who gave the note? India’s Foreign Minister in the Congress Government, Madhavsinh Solanki, when he met his Swiss counterpart at the WEF meeting.
Soon after Interpol advised India in July 1993 that Ottavio Quattrocchi was one of the persons appealing against the transfer of the Swiss bank documents, Quattrocchi flew out of India. A Congress politician reportedly helped him fly out.
India finally received documents from Switzerland in 1997 that established payment of kickback to Quattrocchi. Quattrocchi was then living in Malaysia. NDA Government tried his extradition, but failed—it lost in a lower court on a Friday, appealed to a higher court on the following Monday, but, over the weekend, Quattrocchi fled Malaysia.
To allow the case to die a natural death, UPA allowed two unfavourable court verdicts to go unchallenged. One was quashing of bribery charges in 2004. The second was quashing of charges against Hindujas in 2005 on the ground that papers presented to the court were authenticated photocopies, not originals.
UPA allowed de-freezing of Quattrocchi’s bank accounts in London in December 2005, and he was allowed to have his ill-gotten money.
Argentina police detained Quattrocchi in 2007 on account of then still existing Interpol alert, but, as expected, UPA so handled the matter that Quattrocchi again got away.
Writes Seema Mustafa in her article, ‘Why there won’t be any progress on Bofors’, in DNA of 27 April 2012: “In 2004, when I asked Lindstrom to name some living persons who had full details of the Bofors kickbacks he responded without hesitation, ‘Martin Ardbo, Ottavio Quattrocchi and Sonia Gandhi...’ Ardbo has since died...”
Writes Kuldip Nayar in ‘Beyond the Lines’:
“Rajiv Gandhi had bent all the rules to order Bofors’ howitzers. Even the circumstantial evidence testified to his involvement. A close friend of his told me that Rajiv Gandhi had opened a new account abroad and had deposited the kickbacks there. This benefited his Italian in-laws, parents of Sonia Gandhi. Ottavio Quattrocchi, an Italian middleman in Delhi, close to Sonia Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, was responsible for the clandestine payment.
“Quattrocchi had once threatened to sue me for defamation because of what I had written about his ‘nefarious activities’ in my book The Judgement (1977). He escaped punishment for all he had done and was eventually allowed to leave India, the CBI ensuring that no harm came to an individual so close to the Dynasty. When I checked with some senior officers in the agency, their reply was that there were orders from above. H.R. Bharadwaj told me in Bangalore that he had ‘put everything in order’ before moving to Karnataka as governor. According to former CBI director Joginder Singh, Quattrocchi was aware in advance of every move the agency proposed to take against him. For example, he was shown all official papers before he appeared for extradition proceedings at a Malaysian court. I once asked Foreign Minister Madhavsinh Solanki in the Narasimha Rao government about the documents he had delivered to the Swedish government regarding the kickbacks. New Delhi was keen that the Swedish authorities remained silent. He did not comment on the documents but said that the Bofors gun deal was ‘as messy as Narmada’s non-use of water’.”
Question-5.8
Didn't Rajiv allow Anderson to get away?
YES.
Bhopal Gas Tragedy was consequent to the leakage of poisonous gas from Union Carbide plant at Bhopal on 2 December 1984 causing over 10,000 deaths and about 500,000 injuries, making it the worst ever industrial accident in world history.
Warren Anderson, the CEO of Union Carbide, was arrested on charges of manslaughter. Strangely, he was allowed to post bail and escape to the US. All subsequent extradition efforts by India were unsuccessful. It has been reported that Arjun Singh, the then CM of MP facilitated Anderson’s escape at the instance of Rajiv Gandhi.
Bhopal Gas Tragedy was consequent to the leakage of poisonous gas from Union Carbide plant at Bhopal on 2 December 1984 causing over 10,000 deaths and about 500,000 injuries, making it the worst ever industrial accident in world history.
Warren Anderson, the CEO of Union Carbide, was arrested on charges of manslaughter. Strangely, he was allowed to post bail and escape to the US. All subsequent extradition efforts by India were unsuccessful. It has been reported that Arjun Singh, the then CM of MP facilitated Anderson’s escape at the instance of Rajiv Gandhi.
Question-5.9
Wasn't Rajiv partly responsible for the insurgency in Punjab and Kashmir, and for Operation Blue Star?
YES.
The rise of the insurgency in Kashmir in the late eighties was partly stoked by the Rajiv Gandhi’s government rigging of the 1987 elections in cahoots with the National Conference. Among those defeated, thanks to rigging, were some of the future leaders of the jihad.
Backroom manipulations by Rajiv and his coterie were also partly responsible for the mishandling of Punjab and for the ill-thought Operation Blue Star.
The rise of the insurgency in Kashmir in the late eighties was partly stoked by the Rajiv Gandhi’s government rigging of the 1987 elections in cahoots with the National Conference. Among those defeated, thanks to rigging, were some of the future leaders of the jihad.
Backroom manipulations by Rajiv and his coterie were also partly responsible for the mishandling of Punjab and for the ill-thought Operation Blue Star.
Question-5.10
Is it fair to defend the indefensible: the pathetic record of Rajiv's gross failure on all fronts?
NO.
Rajiv Gandhi’s “achievements” notwithstanding, here is a sample from an intellectual and a thought-leader from the top ranks of the MSM (Main Stream Media): “...All this [about Rajiv Gandhi] is true enough, but I think it misses some of his deeper achievements. We forget, for instance, how bad things were when he took over...Many people, predicted that the Indian experiment was at an end and that chaos was around the corner...It was Rajiv Gandhi’s five years in office—from the autumn of 1984 to the winter of 1989—that showed the world that India was here to stay. We had our problems. But our survival was not in doubt. Even if Rajiv had not done anything else, that single achievement alone is enough for an entire nation to owe him a debt of gratitude...”
What an audacious statement! So, 42 years after independence, ruled mostly by the Dynasty, and after 5 years of rule by Rajiv Gandhi, Indians must thank the Dynasty, because but for them India as a nation would not have survived! What a wise concoction and a clever counterfactual! With nothing worthwhile to show for their achievements, declare that India would have gone to pieces but for the Dynasty.
What if a contrary counterfactual is posed: India would have been far more integrated and united and prosperous had the Dynasty not weighted India down! Had Mahatma Gandhi not ushered in the Dynasty by making Nehru the PM, and had the non-socialists like Sardar Patel or Rajaji taken over the reins and guided India along with competitive capitalism and free enterprise economy, India would have been a much more united, rich, prosperous, first-rate, first-world nation by 1980!
What is even more galling is the “vision” of such “eminent” intellectuals, and the liberties they take with the facts of history. While many countries who were behind or far behind India when India gained independence have long since become prosperous and part of the first world, such “intellectuals” are relieved India has at least survived! Given such abysmally low expectations, any dumb of the Dynasty would come out in flying colours.
Rajiv Gandhi’s “achievements” notwithstanding, here is a sample from an intellectual and a thought-leader from the top ranks of the MSM (Main Stream Media): “...All this [about Rajiv Gandhi] is true enough, but I think it misses some of his deeper achievements. We forget, for instance, how bad things were when he took over...Many people, predicted that the Indian experiment was at an end and that chaos was around the corner...It was Rajiv Gandhi’s five years in office—from the autumn of 1984 to the winter of 1989—that showed the world that India was here to stay. We had our problems. But our survival was not in doubt. Even if Rajiv had not done anything else, that single achievement alone is enough for an entire nation to owe him a debt of gratitude...”
What an audacious statement! So, 42 years after independence, ruled mostly by the Dynasty, and after 5 years of rule by Rajiv Gandhi, Indians must thank the Dynasty, because but for them India as a nation would not have survived! What a wise concoction and a clever counterfactual! With nothing worthwhile to show for their achievements, declare that India would have gone to pieces but for the Dynasty.
What if a contrary counterfactual is posed: India would have been far more integrated and united and prosperous had the Dynasty not weighted India down! Had Mahatma Gandhi not ushered in the Dynasty by making Nehru the PM, and had the non-socialists like Sardar Patel or Rajaji taken over the reins and guided India along with competitive capitalism and free enterprise economy, India would have been a much more united, rich, prosperous, first-rate, first-world nation by 1980!
What is even more galling is the “vision” of such “eminent” intellectuals, and the liberties they take with the facts of history. While many countries who were behind or far behind India when India gained independence have long since become prosperous and part of the first world, such “intellectuals” are relieved India has at least survived! Given such abysmally low expectations, any dumb of the Dynasty would come out in flying colours.
Question-5.11
Did Rajiv deserve Bharat Ratna?
Certainly
NOT.
Giving Bharat Ratna to Rajiv Gandhi meant not only total diminishing of its value; it was also an insult to the deserving ones who got it earlier. What to speak of Bharat Ratna, Rajiv Gandhi didn't even deserve a Padma Shree! And, why even a Padma Shree? If some wrong has been committed, there is no shame in rectifying it. And, it's never too late! The Bharat Ratna undeservedly given to Rajiv Gandhi must be withdrawn.
Then there are uncountable number of institutions, ports, bridges, and so on named after Rajiv Gandhi. Why? Totally improper and undeserved!
The government ought to set up a competent body, invite inputs from public, and should evolve well thought-out transparent rules and processes (that should be put up on the web) to decide on Padma, Bharat Ratna and other awards, and on naming of institutions, structures and bodies. The said body should also review awards undeservedly given in the past, and rename hundreds of things named after the Nehru Dynasty.
Giving Bharat Ratna to Rajiv Gandhi meant not only total diminishing of its value; it was also an insult to the deserving ones who got it earlier. What to speak of Bharat Ratna, Rajiv Gandhi didn't even deserve a Padma Shree! And, why even a Padma Shree? If some wrong has been committed, there is no shame in rectifying it. And, it's never too late! The Bharat Ratna undeservedly given to Rajiv Gandhi must be withdrawn.
Then there are uncountable number of institutions, ports, bridges, and so on named after Rajiv Gandhi. Why? Totally improper and undeserved!
The government ought to set up a competent body, invite inputs from public, and should evolve well thought-out transparent rules and processes (that should be put up on the web) to decide on Padma, Bharat Ratna and other awards, and on naming of institutions, structures and bodies. The said body should also review awards undeservedly given in the past, and rename hundreds of things named after the Nehru Dynasty.
