Shri Arun Jaitley on Bofors in Rajya Sabha
Thursday, 26 April 2012
RE. BOFORS CASE
THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION (SHRI ARUN JAITLEY): Mr.
Vice-Chairman, Sir, I wish to raise an important issue which is of
concern not only to the hon. Members of this House, but also to the
entire country. The larger issue is -- I can assure my friends in the
Uncorrected/Not for Publication Government that I have no intention of
referring to individuals – what is the capacity of our Indian State and
all agencies of the State in pursuit of truth to find out where we have
gone wrong? Today, we see in our neighbouring country on the western
border, for somewhat similar facts, you almost had earthshaking
consequences because the Government of the day did not take certain
steps which would bring probity into public life. In India, we have
spent 25 years trying to unearth the truth. It is a serious reflection
on the health of our entire investigative process, its lack of
independence that despite having got conclusive proof, we are unable to
nail where the culprits are. I am more concerned really with the health
of our investigative agencies than any other political factor.
Obviously, we are all concerned with defence preparedness. It is of
utmost importance to us that there is transparency in the procurement
process. The Government, at some stage, had taken a decision, perhaps,
rightly that we must eliminate middlemen so that collateral
considerations don't come in. The Government, which took this decision,
needs to be complimented for that. Yet, we had, in the mid-90s during a
particular purchase, somebody intervening again as middleman. Even when
the disclosures were made in 1987, from 1987 till 1989, not even an FIR
was registered. In 1990, some steps were taken. Then you have repeated
efforts to make sure that this whole process is stalled. I was
personally aghast when I came across a question even being raised before
our judicial institutions: the CBI is not a lawfully constituted body
which can investigate the case. Something as absurd was this and
therefore efforts were made to stall this. Fortunately we had
interventions of the highest judiciary and the matter proceeded.
SHRI ARUN JAITLEY (contd.): Thereafter,
you have, by that process commencing in 1990, India receiving some
documents, and in 1999, a comprehensive charge sheet is filed. Sir, when
the purchases were taking place, one company which had entered the
whole process in October, 1985, was a company called the A.E. Services.
Its contract with the Swedish supplier said, “We shall obtain for you
the Indian order on or before 31st March, 1986, and only then, we are
entitled to kickbacks.” Obviously, this gentleman was very powerful; he
could swing the contract. The contract is finally executed on 24th of
March, 1986. Who this gentleman was, and the pursuit of truth went on.
In 1994, the Swiss Authorities finally informed the Government of India
who the recipients were. And, they found that behind this company, the
recipient was a gentleman whose name begins with ‘Q’. Within three days,
he is allowed to escape the country. This is how the due process is
defeated. Why was he so powerful that he could swing the contract? The
monies are traced; the account is traced. You don’t need any further
conclusive evidence. What did you do when the other Governments were in
power? In 1999, a conclusive charge sheet, with entire evidence, is put
in. When the United Front Government was in power, the Director, CBI,
brought voluminous documents. The Government, in 1999, takes efforts in
Malaysia, and the efforts to deport him didn’t succeed. The Government
then, after a Friday verdict, moves the Supreme Court in Malaysia on
Monday only to be told that he had gone from Malaysia to Argentina.
Finally, when the present Government came to power in 2004, he is found
out in Argentina. The Ambassador, Mr. Rath, is told, “We don’t want to
pursue action against him because the action will be costly.” There were
a series of judicial verdicts which scuttled the whole probe. Each one
is appealed against and overturned. In 2004, one probe says, “No case is
made out”. It is not even appealed against. And we give a whole burial
to the case. This is now a sad chapter in history. Nothing more can be
done. I do not know if fraud unravels everything, this will be a
textbook illustration of a fraud as to how to kill the pursuit to get
the truth. And, every time, some disclosure or some interview or some
comment comes, it only comes in relation to the facts which are already
in; most of them are in public domain. And the facts are very simple.
Somebody swung the contract; somebody got the kickbacks. The details of
the Swiss Accounts, which are very impossible to get, were obtained.
Repeated efforts to cover up were there. And, this man, indeed, was very
powerful, and then, he is allowed to escape. He jumps from one
jurisdiction to another. And the Indian State looks helpless. You know
the truth. You got at it. And you are not able to capture the man. Sir,
as I said, initially, my intention is not to embarrass any Government or
any party or any individual. But, is it not a case that we introspect
that how easy it has become for people who indulge in this kind of
activities to get away? You need friendly Governments. You need
investigative agencies which have become utterly non-professional. The
pace of investigation varies with the political colour of the Government
in power. It slows down with the colour of the Government in power. And
we prided ourselves when we looked at our Western neighbour, “Look,
what a great democracy we are, the largest in the world, and where are
you!” And, today is the date, and there can’t be a better day than this
to introspect what they are doing in pursuit of a similar truth and how
helpless we are looking at this. My intention, Sir, was only to draw the
attention of the House to this hard reality.
