An investigation has to penetrate the core of a scam and not to analyse it intellectually. It is a continuum without any gap and one evidence leads to another, joined together in the chain. The Bofors scam, which is making the headline again, was India’s biggest scandal three decades ago and it also turned out to be the greatest cover-up. One thing has to be clearly understood that Indian politics never crucified scams, it always sacrificed the probe and Bofors is a newsy example. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which recently informed the Supreme Court about its willingness to continue the probe, had decided against it in 2005 when the UPA regime had developed a cold feet on the issue of challenging the Delhi High Court order. The CBI couldn’t defy the then ruler.
The agency since its inception wants to pretend to be autonomous. But, this is as unreal as fragrance in plastic flowers. No doubt, Bofors is a fit case to be revisited but the CBI, if wants to become effective, should turn the focus of probe towards the investigators and decision-makers at Raisina Hills to fix the responsibility for slaying the probe against the giant scam. A CBI officer—who chased the key middleman in the scam, Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi, across the globe and handled crucial files—believes that a probe against the top officers and their political masters may yield startling facts. He says the files containing evidence felt like fire in his hands. It was indeed fire. He was probing alleged bribing of Indian middlemen and officials in connection with the $1.5-billion purchase of 410 units of 155mm howitzer field guns. It was alleged that `64 crore was paid as kickbacks and the beneficiary included the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.
There was evidence hidden in the mist, as he says, linking Quattrocchi with various Indian figures. “We wanted to grill Quattrocchi, who had enjoyed close relationship with PM Rajiv Gandhi but on each occasion either we acted late or we had no solid evidence to convince the foreign authorities to allow us the opportunity to grill him.” He also reveals a significant aspect of the entire probe: “It did provide the officers enough opportunity to travel abroad on taxpayers’ money—`250 crore was spent on the probe by 2011. If the agency is revisiting the case, merely focusing on the foreign angle, it would be more like foreign tours for the investigators than actual probe. The probe must start from the CBI office.”
Once during the course of investigation, the CBI officer had managed to step on the tail of a key player but he was asked to back off. “And, whatever little evidence we were about to gather was sanitised within days.”
A senior officer had virtually lost his job when he spoke against the law officers in the court arguing that there was enough evidence against key players. The probe should also examine a box kept in the CBI headquarters. It is full of documents, which a top CBI officer had managed to bring back from abroad. It would be interesting to know whether it was unsealed and used against the accused. What the agency could manage was acquiring an order from the trial court to declare Quattrocchi a fugitive, and subsequently an Interpol Red Corner notice was issued in 1997. His two bank accounts in London were frozen anticipating that he would surrender. The NDA government failed to extradite Quattrocchi from Malaysia in 2003 and UPA delayed the action after he was detained in Argentina in 2007. There was also a situation that raised suspicion on the probe agency’s intent: whether it was arguing against the accused or on their behalf.
Another retired officer, who was once involved in the probe, says the CBI has burnt the Bofors candle from both ends. “The agency should record the statements of officers connected with the case under oath. It could be done directly under court’s supervision. This alone would serve the purpose in unmasking the real culprits.” CBI has a case and it is well within its rights to argue that it can deliver if asked by the government. But the evidence is not overflowing. The facade of the Bofors case is perfect but the source is shaky unless a probe to fix the responsibility of officers and politicians is ordered. If not, however judicious the decision may be, the evidence lacks grammar.