Chitra Subramaniam’s memoir, Boforsgate: A Journalist’s Pursuit of Truth, was released recently to rave reviews. It brings back spotlight on her highlighting her role in the expose. Chitra Subramaniam, in Geneva for another story, took up in a big way the Swedish Radio broadcast on April 16, 1987, that bribes were paid by manufacturers of Bofors guns to Indian politicians and officials of the Defence Ministry, in order to win the contract for sale of howitzer guns to India.
In the light of the Swedish Radio broadcast, she started her reportage from Geneva, when she was attached with The Hindu, as a stringer. This triggered a chain of events. Mr Clean image of the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was shattered and eventually he lost the General Election in 1989.
On April 20, 1987, Rajiv Gandhi told the Lok Sabha, “You show us any evidence that there has been involvement of middlemen, of payoffs or of bribes or commissions, we will take action and we will see that nobody, however high-up, is allowed to go free.” Apparently, the intent was to wound, but afraid to strike. Innuendoes and insinuations were directed at Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi, apparently to derive political mileage, in the absence of hard evidence. Perhaps, that way their objective was indeed achieved.
Nearly 40 years and counting, there is not even a shred of evidence till date of the alleged bribery and the money trail. The charge first made in public through the Swedish Radio broadcast that senior Indian politicians and key Defence Ministry officials were paid bribes to win the contract, has not yet been established.
Strongest judicial pronouncement on this entire episode came from the Delhi High Court on February 4, 2004. The judicial pronouncement gave clean-chit to late former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and passed strictures on the CBI for spending Rs 300 crore and still failing to gather evidence on the alleged bribe amount of Rs 64 crore, apparently paid to Indian politicians and Defence Ministry officials.
The Vajpayee Government, which was in office, chose not to file an appeal in the Court judgment. It was Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, who got Rajiv Gandhi posthumously named in the Bofors chargesheet on October 22, 1999, in Column 2, as he was deceased, within 10 days of his coming back to power as Prime Minister on October 13, 1999. Surprisingly, Vajpayee chose to look the other way, when the Judiciary rubbished the entire thesis of bribery.
Newspaper correspondents, self-styled sleuths, investigative reporters, legal eagles, whistle-blowers, MPs, ex-MPs and hoards of their ilk, jumped on to the Bofors bandwagon to dig out sone murk. During the Left-BJP-backed National Front Government of V P Singh in 1989, Arun Jaitley was appointed as Additional Solicitor-General, exclusively entrusted with the task of marshalling evidence of money-trail in the Bofors deal, but despite the weight of the Central Government behind him, the exercise failed. Determined efforts persist, but success continues to elude.
There are two issues at stake. One, was the Bofors gun bad? Two, was the price bad?
Answer to Question 1 is the Kargil War with Pakistan in 1999 during the Vajpayee Government, the Bofors gun helped India to post a convincing victory. Answer to Question 2 is that Bofors gun was cheaper by Rs 97 crore, compared to the Sofma gun of France, which was priced at Rs 1436.76 crore. All in all, fabrication of the bribery charge is hard to build, in such a scenario.
Chronology establishes the facts. In December, 1982, General Staff Evaluation of the Army Headquarters laid down the parameters for acquisitions: (1) Best Technology; (2) High rate of fire and burst-fire capability; and (3) Long-range. None of these parameters were violated.
Sofma offered towed gun that was self-propelled, as a package. This package gave an edge to Sofma over Bofors, initially. Between 1978 and 1982, field trials were carried out.
During 1982-84, gun-locating radar was not available. Against this backdrop, on August 24, 1984, in the evaluation, Sofma was placed at Number 1 and Bofors was placed at Number 2. This was reiterated in February, 1985, and again on March 19, 1985, well after Rajiv Gandhi became Prime Minister. As Vice-Chief of the Army, Sundarji, too, favoured Sofma over Bofors.
Gen Sundarji, who became Army Chief on February 1, 1986, made a conscious decision to change his preferences, based on a new information that changed techinal considerations. In 1985, information was received that the United States cleared passing gun-locating radar to Pakistan. This information about the gun-locating radar was not available earlier, though it was discussed in 1982-83 in military journals, it was expected to be available from the year 2000. But officially it became clear in 1985. In the light of this new development, advantages of the Sofma package disappeared.
Negotiating Committee was established under then Defence Secretary S.K. Bhatnagar which, in November, 1985, Shortlisted Swedish manufacturer AB Bofors and France’s Sofma for the best choice of howitzer.
Gen Sundarji opted for Bofors and gave detailed reasons for his decision. The burst fire capability, the long range of fire capability of 30 km and irs shoot-and-scoot capabilitybecame the basis for reordering the preferences. Perhaps, Gen Sundarji citing reasons for his change in preference is deliberately overlooked.
During the price negotiations, Bofors brought down its price by Rs 197 crore, while Sofma reduced its price by Rs 70 crore. In the bargain, Bofors was Rs 97 crore cheaper than Sofma. If mala-fide was there, then price negotiations probably do not stand to reason.
Sidestepping facts, Bofors is customarily chanted as Mantra by the high priests of the Media and the Opposition.
Notwithstanding the judicial snub in February, 2004, Bofors was raised in the run up to the General Election in April-May, 2004. Again, as part of the Congress-Mukt Bharat campaign, Bofors ghost is once again sought to be resurrected.
Significantly, 2025 marks the 40th Anniversary of the Negotiating Committee, headed by the then Union Defence Secretary S K Bhatnagar, deciding in November, 1985, to shortlist Swedish manufacturer AB Bofors and France’s Sofma for the best choice of howitzer. Incidentally, both guns were put to the mandatory field trials and made it to the Shortlist.
As for the money trail, money paid to Ottavio Quattrocchi and Win Chadha, named as recipients of the kickbacks by the CBI, was a different payment not linked to the Bofors gun deal. A Bofors official in Stockholm is said to have pointed out that money paid to its former agent in India Win Chadha and Snam Progetti’s former chief representative Quattrocchi related to severence of their contracts with the arms manufacturer.
In fact, Bofors controversy crossed all limits of sane discussions, bordering on the ludicrous, in the whisper campaigns that Bofors gun was sub-standard, which imperilled national security. National Front Chairman N T Rama Rao had gone to the extent to say that rusted guns were provided to the brave Indian Army Jawans, imperilling their security. It prompted Dr Y S Rajashekhar Reddy’s repartee that NTR should stand 30 km away and Bofors gun should be fired. If NTR escapes unscathed, he would be compelled to admit that the guns were rusted.
| 
