Sonia Gandhi is banking on the truth about the bribes never emerging from the legal web it is trapped in.

By Harish Gupta

It wasn't totally unexpected. After a taste of the mass hysteria at Sriperumbudur earlier this month, it was only a matter of time before the politician in Sonia Gandhi surfaced. But within four days, when she demanded that the names of those who had received kickbacks in the controversial Bofors gun deal be revealed, she took even the most seasoned politicians in the country off guard.

In many ways, Sonia's Bofors offensive was a calculated move. Despite all the speculation, there has as yet been no evidence to establish Rajiv Gandhi's link with those who received the estimated Rs 64 crore bribes from the Swedish arms manufacturer. It is in the safe knowledge of this that Sonia has challenged the Government. She is also aware that nothing much can come out of the investigation until this election -- and probably a few more -- is over.

The CBI admits that it is not possible for the agency to disclose the names, account numbers and other details unless all the relevant documents in the possession of the Swiss authorities are received. When these papers do arrive, under an agreement with the Swiss courts. they can only be used to establish bribery charges or for prosecution in acts deemed illegal in both Switzerland and India. After the Sonia offensive, Federal Prosecutor Andre Fels said in Zurich that the Swiss authorities would "certainly protest if the first set of documents is made public". If the Indian Government went ahead, they would "reconsider" releasing the second set of documents.

Recklessness on the part of the Indian Government has ramifications beyond Switzerland. For example, the Indian Government has submitted its Letters Rogatory to Britain for uncovering details of a certain bank account in Guernsey, Channel Islands. Some $7.3 million (Rs 13 crore) of the money paid by Bofors as commission for the howitzer deal eventually reached this account. The money is believed to have first been deposited into an account held by A.E. Services in Zurich. From there it was transferred to the Geneva account of Colbar Investments, allegedly connected to the controversial Italian Ottavio Quattrocchi, before making its way to Guernsey.

Even here, no criminal case has been made out against Quattrocchi as yet because the Indian authorities have not been able to ascertain the nature of his alleged offence. Quattrocchi, after all, was never a public servant. Though the Bofors papers in possession of the CBI clearly say that the Italian played a key role in the deal, the name of the person on whose behalf he had taken the money and to whom it finally went are yet to be established.

It is for this reason that the CBI team sent by former director Joginder Singh to Malaysia in 1996 to seek the extradition of Quattrocchi returned empty-handed. It is admittedly curious how Quattrocchi -- whose company, Snamprogetti, dealt with fertilisers and power projects and had nothing to do with armaments -- swung the Bofors deal. Even so, this in itself is not an offence that warrants extradition. Also, Bofors may have violated an understanding with the Indian Government by paying commissions or bribes, but the agreement did not have any punitive clause. This was amazing negligence on the part of Indian negotiators. It is a haphazardness that continues to dog the Bofors mystery.

While it was Bofors that drove Rajiv Gandhi's government out of power in 1989, it is ironical that Sonia is using the same issue to gain a foothold in active politics. On a minor scale, Bofors could yet again become a poll issue. The BJP has already raised six questions on the gun deal. Prime Minister I.K. Gujral too has challenged Sonia by saying that "the people who are being suspected of having a hand in it, have very long arms. They are trying to see that full information does not come in". Sonia is also being charged with seeking to scuttle the probe by making the demand now and preventing names of the ultimate beneficiaries becoming public.

But even if the Government decides to call Sonia's bluff and pursue the investigation to its logical conclusion, it would take at least three to four years for all the facts to emerge. In any case, given the elaborate network of transactions, it would be nothing short of a miracle for the Government to trace the exact route the bribes took and identify the real beneficiaries.

Sonia's detractors claim that she is banking on the impossibility of the full story of the Bofors deal ever emerging. It is a claim difficult to disregard.

INDIA VOTES

© Living Media India Ltd