By Inder Jit
(Released on 14 October 1989)
Parliament’s briefest-ever session last week left much to be desired. Sadly and inexplicably, both Houses were adjourned sine die after the third day— a day ahead of schedule. Several basic issues agitating the people’s mind failed to come up for any worthwhile consideration, except that of communalism. Soaring prices, which are hurting almost all our people, received scant attention. The Opposition did succeed in raising a discussion in the Rajya Sabha on the latest Bofors revelations by The Hindu, thanks to a courageous and correct stand taken by the Chairman, Dr S.D. Sharma, in the face of heavy Government pressure. But there was virtually no discussion on the Government’s style of functioning, especially in relation to the vital question of national security. Is the Government conducting itself in accordance with established democratic norms? Or is it being run by the Prime Minister individually from the PMO — Prime Minister’s Office?
The short duration discussion on the Bofors scandal, too, was largely disappointing. It was ruled at the outset that the discussion would be limited strictly to two and a half hours under the rules. Consequently, Mr Gurupadswamy, Janata Dal, and Mr Dipen Ghosh (CPM) got no more than ten to twelve minutes each. Mr Jaswant Singh, BJP, one of the best informed members, got barely five minutes to seek clarifications. Eventually, we sat through in the Press gallery for full six hours of which almost two hours were taken up by the Defence Minister, Mr K.C. Pant and, earlier by the Minister of State for Home, Mr P. Chidambaram. This crude parliamentary manoeuvre did deny the Opposition leaders adequate opportunity to raise issues properly and in perspective. However, it gave them enough time to push the Prime Minister deeper into the dock personally. For the first time in Parliament, Mr Rajiv Gandhi and his family were accused of direct involvement in the kickbacks, now reportedly totalling at least Rs 160 crores!
Mr Gandhi thus faces an Opposition charge which no previous Prime Minister in India has had to countenance. Indeed, his credibility and honour are under frontal attack at a time when the country is getting ready for the next poll battle. The question is: Will he face the challenge boldly or will he allow some of his close but in-experienced aides to mislead him once again? He can still meet the challenge and clear his name provided he is willing to take courage in both hands and go all out to get at the truth. First and foremost, he must personally seek the help of the Swedish Prime Minister, Mr Carlsson, in identifying the culprits. He is fully entitled to do so since Olof Palme, the former Swedish Prime Minister, personally sought his assistance in securing the 155 mm gun deal for Bofors. Some letters have no doubt gone from our Government to the Swedish Government. Surprisingly, however, these have only been written at the official level and have not yielded the desired results.
The Prime Minister must simultaneously take up the matter with the Swiss Prime Minister. Mr Chidambaram accused the Swiss Government of having declined to cooperate and said: “For the past three months we have looked at the Swiss and Indian laws and concluded that the Swiss refusal was incorrect. We believe they are obliged to give us information.” Significantly, he avoided answering a pointed query from Mr Jaswant Singh: “Why have we sought Swiss help in dealing only with tax evasion, not specifying bribery, perjury and corruption?” If Mr Chidambaram is sure of his ground, why has the matter not been taken up at the highest Government level? Why has he been sitting pretty over the matter for three months? Mr Gandhi should now take up the matter with his opposite number. Happily, the Swiss Foreign Minister, Mr Rene Felber, indicated on October 13 at Mexico City the Swiss Government’s willingness to reveal banking secrets to prevent illegal actions and money-laundering.
Much else will need to be done by the Prime Minister to establish his credibility. Importantly, he must take strong action against those who concealed vital information regarding Moresco, the mysterious conduit, from the Joint Parliamentary Committee and committed a breach of privilege. Mr Win Chadha, too, misled the JPC about Svenska. Action will also need to be taken against two other sets of officials. One, those who, according to the Comptroller & Auditor General, failed to provide a suitable provision in the Bofors contract for excluding agents — and also ignored the information provided by our High Commission in London in July 1985 that Bofors had a representative in India. Two, those in the CBI who failed to get from Geneva information which the Hindu was easily able to get about Moresco and Pitco. Remember, the CBI Chief stumbled on a Swiss firm by the name of Le Moineau but accepted it as the company in question: Moineao SA.
The short duration discussion gave them (opposition) enough time to push the Prime Minister deeper into the dock personally. For the first time in Parliament, Mr Rajiv Gandhi and his family were accused of direct involvement in the kickbacks, now reportedly totalling at least Rs 160 crores!
The then Defence Secretary, Mr S.K. Bhatnagar, the Law Secretary, Mr P.K. Partha, the Special Secretary in the PMO, Mr Gopi Arora, and the Additional Defence Secretary, Mr N.N. Vohra, deserve to be complimented for having sought “to ensure complete openness” from Bofors in regard to the contract and precise payments made, vide the minutes of the meeting between them and Mr Morberg on behalf of Bofors on September 19, 1987. But they stand indicted on another score. They seem to have done little thereafter to follow certain commitments made by Mr Morberg in regard to Moresco. The Bofors’ executive had then agreed to provide, among other things, “the code names and the banks to which payments in favour of Moresco were remitted.” Also the modes of payment with account numbers/codes of the banks to/through which paid, names of persons/parties to whom payments were made. Expectedly, the Opposition members asked: Why? Because of the Italian connection? However, there was no answer.
Importantly, Mr Jaswant Singh raised the issue of national security arising out of General Sundarji’s sensational interview to India Today and the Defence Ministry’s rejoinder. He asked: Who determines national security. (Gen Sundarji, it may be recalled, took the stand that the Bofors contract could be cancelled without jeopardising national security. The Defence Ministry disagreed.) Further, if the Government differed with General Sundarji’s assessment why had it not informed the Army Chief? Mr Pant reaffirmed the Defence Ministry’s stand that the Army Chief’s view was “only one input” in assessing the threat perception. Lt. Gen. J.S.Aurora interrupted to query: “Did you refer the matter to the Chiefs of Staff Committee?” This seemed to stump Mr Pant, who replied in so many words: “The Navy and the Air Force know little about artillery. This is an artillery matter.” An Opposition Member queried: “Is security then a matter to be determined by the artillery?” There was again no answer.
The Prime Minister must simultaneously take up the matter with the Swiss Prime Minister. Mr Chidambaram accused the Swiss Government of having declined to cooperate and said: “For the past three months we have looked at the Swiss and Indian laws and concluded that the Swiss refusal was incorrect. We believe they are obliged to give us information.”
Is Mr Gandhi trying to protect someone? Perhaps yes, according to many MPs. Certainly not, according to the others. In any case, this is not the first time that a Prime Minister faces a difficult choice. Nehru encountered following the Chinese debacle a strong demand for Krishna Menon’s head. The manner in which the Congress Party tackled the situation offers an abject lesson. Durga Das recalls the situation in his Memoirs: India from Curzon to Nehru and After. He writes: “Whichever way Nehru turned, he found pressure on him to throw Menon out… Hare Krushna Mahtab, Deputy Leader of the party, and Mahavir Tyagi claim that the fatal blow was struck by the Executive Committee, whose action they had carefully planned and rehearsed. Nehru shouted at the Committee members at the meeting and threatened to dismiss them all. But the solid phalanx was not intimidated and the Committee made it clear that no one was bigger than the country. Menon must go or…
Importantly, Mr Jaswant Singh raised the issue of national security arising out of General Sundarji’s sensational interview to India Today and the Defence Ministry’s rejoinder. He asked: Who determines national security. (Gen Sundarji, it may be recalled, took the stand that the Bofors contract could be cancelled without jeopardising national security. The Defence Ministry disagreed.) Further, if the Government differed with General Sundarji’s assessment why had it not informed the Army Chief?
“Satya Narayan Sinha, Chief Whip and Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, told me that a private meeting he had with Nehru that night at the Prime Minister’s residence clinched the issue. He told Nehru point-blank that if he did not drop Menon, his leadership was in danger. Lal Bahadur Shastri confided he, too, met Nehru privately and convinced him that unless he dropped Menon his own position would be endangered. Indira Gandhi, worried for her father’s sake, went to Vice President Zakir Hussain and asked him to tell Nehru that Menon’s dismissal alone would appease the Congress Party and the country. So, Nehru wrote to Radhakrishnan recommending acceptance of Menon’s resignation” — and a mounting crisis was defused. Mr Gandhi should now adopt one way open to him: go all out to identify those guilty of defrauding the nation and punish them. Much more is at stake than the huge kickbacks. — INFA