<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mukaddar Paswan and Shivnath Sao were members of a hardline Hindu group, the Bajrang Dal<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No where in Indian media which is known to exploit any referenc of this group have mentioned these two are link with Bajrang Dal. Best example of BBC dorkness which is led by Pakistani.
Shri. Mudy,
With this issue going all the way to the PMO, the entire establishment - the media included will exercise a certain amount of caution. I also notice there isn't much coverage on this development in the Indian papers. I am sure the CBI inquiry will reveal many "significant" things a few years after the elections. We may find out more about the mysterious suicidies, the political connections of the dead men, whether they are even relevant to the case, etc, etc.
Oh, yeah! The Pakis are everywhere. Perhaps the Paki's killed Shri. Dubey for building mighty highways that would make Bharat the envy of the world. While we are conjecturing, why stop there. It very well could be that the late Shri. Dubey himself was a Paki ISI agent attempting to ruin the reputation of the government though his allegations of corruption in high profile NHAI projects. Some very clever sleuths in the establishment figured this out and we all know the result. And the Pakis were once again at work blaming the PMO for leaking the name.
Welcome abladabla
<b>Mumbai Inspector arrested in Telgi fake stamp paper scam</b>
The Special Investigation Team probing the multi-crore fake stamp paper scam on Monday arrested Inspector A Sonwalkar on the charge of shielding prime accused Abdul Karim Telgi.
He was arrested by SIT Mumbai in the 1995 case registered against Telgi by Cuffe Parade Police Station, SIT sources told PTI.
At the relevant time, Sonwalkar was the investigating officer in the 1995 case against Telgi, they said.
SIT has charged Sonwalkar with allowing Telgi to escape the clutches of law despite his anticipatory bail petition being rejected by Mumbai High Court.
Sonwalkar will be produced before a magistrate tomorrow for remand.
<b>Dawood might return on his own: CBI</b>
By S Hussain Zaidi in Mumbai
Friday, 06 February , 2004, 10:28
'Drop Dawood Ibrahimâs name from the list of 20 criminals India wants extradited from Pakistan.â
This curious suggestion has been made by various state agencies to the Union Home Ministry in a new dossier on the underworld don. The dossier forms a part of the briefing for Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani prior to his visit to Pakistan. Advani is likely to go to Pakistan soon.
The idea behind the suggestion is apparently to leave open a chance that Dawood may return to India on his own, because there is little hope otherwise of getting him.
According to the agencies â among them the Intelligence Bureau, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) and the Mumbai policeâs crime branch â India is not likely to get Dawood even after the signing of an extradition treaty with Pakistan.
Pakistan will either eliminate him and show it as an instance of gang rivalry or keep him under strict surveillance to avoid a leak of the âbig secretâ, that is, his involvement in ISI activities in India, the dossier points out.
He cannot relocate to Dubai as his empire there is all but eliminated, and no other country will give him refuge as he has been branded a global terrorist, the document notes.
If his name is deleted from the Top 20, he might decide to return to India on his own in the next couple of years, a CBI official based in Mumbai said.
The idea marks a significant change in India's policy vis-Ã -vis Dawood. Along with Kashmir, which of course tops the list of contentious issues, he has been the subject of major verbal exchanges between the two countries. <b>The you-can-keep-him line will be a radical shift in position</b>.
A crime branch officer who has had the distinction of arresting Dawood during his heyday in Mumbai said: "It is highly unlikely Dawood will return to India, <b>but if he has to lead a prisoner's life in Pakistan, he might decide to live the same kind of life here too." </b>
<b>A line in the dossier that says "in a post-extradition pact scenario, either the ISI will liquidate Dawood camouflaging it as internecine gang rivalry or keep him and his movements under tight surveillance</b>."
Joint commissioner of police, crime, Dr Satyapal Singh, agrees. "After the treaty, he will have outlived his resourcefulness for Pakistani operatives. So he will either be conveniently eliminated or confined, so that their secret remains a secret forever," Dr Singh says.
The ministry of external affairs has in the document given an update on Dawood's increasingly shaky ground in the United Arab Emirates. According to the ministry, Dawood has folded up his operational base in Dubai since it has become unsafe territory for him and does not even have an office there anymore.
The dismantling of his network in Dubai began in 1998, with the sale of his White House in Deira Dubai for six million dirhams. After this, his other properties and hotels in Dubai were sold off.
"The Sheikhs who were Dawood's friends and rushed to his rescue whenever he or his brothers were in trouble no longer have any clout in the Dubai government. So his political clout has considerably diminished," notes the report.
In 1996, Dawood's brother Anis narrowly escaped being extradited to India on an Interpol notice from Bahrain due to the Sheikhs' intervention. However, Dawood cannot expect the same kind of assistance and Arab hospitality any more.
The killing of his close aide Sharad Shetty last year dealt a double blow to Dawood's Dubai empire. The UAE government not only stopped all behind-the-scenes help but moved swiftly to tighten the noose on expatriate mafia activities on its soil.
Dossa and Memon may still have some properties and stake in the Emirates and may be occasionally spotted in Dubai, but Dawood cannot risk moving to Dubai after being branded a global terrorist especially because of the example of his former protégé, Abu Salem, who landed in a Portugal prison and is now being extradited to India.
The dossier also says India should make efforts to get Dawood's cronies Tiger Memon and Mohammed Dossa also designated as global terrorists as that would prevent them from going out of Pakistan.
<b>Telgi admits payments to Bhujbal: SIT</b>
Abhijit Sathe in Mumbai | February 10, 2004 18:59 IST
Abdul Karim Telgi has admitted making payments to former Maharashtra deputy chief minister Chhagan Bhujbal in return for favours, the Special Investigation Team has claimed.
The prime accused in the multicrore stamp paper scam made the admission during the P-300 Brain Mapping tests performed on him, the SIT said.
"The responses to the words listed in target 9 (payment to Bhujbal) and target 10 (payment to Krishna Yadav) showed high level of activation and high semantic processing in both the trials. This activation strengthens the experimental knowledge of the events, which he did reveal during pre-test interview and narco test," said the report of the P-300 test presented to the special court in Pune.
Bhujbal, however, told PTI on Tuesday neither he nor his family members were involved in the scam and the scientific tests were not reliable.
The SIT had submitted the P-300 test and the polygraph test reports performed on Telgi in December 2003 to the special MCOCA court at Pune, as supportive evidence to the third supplementary charge sheet filed earlier this month.
The Forensic Science Laboratory, Bangalore, performed the tests in December 2003.
"The major findings reported by the Brain Mapping tests are indicative of the possession of knowledge about the activities (listed above) by Karim Telgi; brain activation during preparation processing while evoking primary encoding indicates active participation of Karim Telgi in all these activities," the report stated.
The report, a copy of which is available with PTI, said Telgi was subjected to three tests -- Lie Detector, P-300 Brain Mapping and Narcoanalysis. While the first two have evidential value, the Narcoanalysis test does not have evidential value but is used to support the evidence.
The Brain Mapping test was performed on Telgi in two stages. In the first stage, a pre-test interview was done, which was followed by recording of an EEG to invoke 'Event Related Potential (ERP) responses', SIT sources told PTI.
The test was conducted using three types of words. Firstly, 'neutral words', which have no direct relationship with case were presented to Telgi.
In the second part, 'probe words' directly related to the case were used to elicit concealed information.
In the third part, 'target words', which are not in part one and two, but are based on confidential findings, which the subject does not know, or polygraph findings or possibilities postulated by the investigating officers were used.
According to FSL authorities, if the subject has truthfully participated in the act suggested by target words, it would generate ERP, while there would be no ERP when neutral words are presented.
"Generation of such ERP responses associated with probe are suggestive of information in the individual, which would have been acquired only by direct participation in act or event," the report said.
In case of Telgi, the target words formed to elicit any concealed or encoded information from Telgi were:
<b>Payment allegedly made to R S Sharma,
Sharma's favour in Pune cases,
Alleged payment of Rs 75 lakh to Dilip Kamath,
Alleged payment to Mumbai Police officers Sridhar Vagal and Pradeep Sawant,
Connection with S M Mushrif in Pune,
Facilities provided in Mumbai custody by Sharma,
Threat by Roshan Baig,
Possessing mobile phone in cell,
Payment made to Bhujbal; and
Payment made to Krishna Yadav</b>Telgi, said SIT sources, showed signs acknowledging payments to R S Sharma, which he also admitted in the subsequent Narco test. He also acknowledged Sharma offered favours in Pune stamp cases, the FSL report has said.
The report said that Telgi has knowledge of Rs 75 lakhs paid to API Dilip Kamath, and he also admitted to this during the pre-test interview.
Telgi showed signs of having knowledge of payments made to Vagal and DCP Pradeep Sawant, although he denied this in the pre-test interview, the report said.
Telgi supported the words relating to facilities Sharma provided him during his stay in custody of Mumbai police, the report said.
The other side of the warrant-against-prez-Kalam story..
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/artic...493506.cms
'Scribes shouldn't play truant with court'
PTI[ FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2004 12:30:34 AM ]
NEW DELHI: The Ahmedabad magistrate who had issued warrants against the President, Chief Justice of India and other VIPs, in an affidavit before the Supreme Court said he had passed the orders after following due judicial process but accused the journalist who conducted the sting operation of "playing truant" with the judiciary.
"It was inconceivable for the deponent (the magistrate) that any person could even have the temerity to name the VVIPs in any criminal complaint, especially a case such as this, and much less be able to describe them as businessmen," magistrate Mahendra Sombhai Brahmbhatt said in his affidavit.
Referring to the manner in which the names were described in the complaint, he said TV journalist Vijay Shekhar was trying to deceive the court and appealed to the apex court to revoke the order of his suspension passed by the Gujarat HC.
The name of President APJ Abdul Kalam was mentioned as Abdulfakir Jainul Abidil and that of CJI VN Khare as Vishwanath Khare. One of the judges of the apex court, BP Singh, was named as Bishveswar Prasad Singh and Supreme Court Bar Association former president RK Jain as Rajendrakumar Jain.
The complainant was duly identified by the advocates appearing on his behalf, the magistrate said, and added, "In such circumstances, it was not possible for any reasonable person to conclude that the said accused persons are not businessmen but are, in reality, the President of India, judges of the Supreme Court and senior advocate RK Jain".
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=327808
http://www.goodnewsindia.com/Pages/content...ory/174_0_2_0_C
Why be afraid of TI?
The surveys on corruption in India by the Centre for Media Studies [CMS], are of greater relevance to our everyday life than the global ranking lists, that Transparency International [TI] publishes from time to time.
CMS's method is to run an exit poll on citizens leaving government establishments. Those polled are typically close to the ground reality of India. TI on the hand, polls the 'perceptions' of businessmen visiting various countries in the course of their travels. We will study the significant differences in these approaches a little later.
CMS's latest survey is based on a poll of 4500 people in five major cities of India. They were exiting departments and institutions of governments, like hospitals, ration shops, registrars, law courts, railways and so on. Press Trust of India [PTI] quotes N Bhaskar Rao, Chairman of CMS, as saying, that compared with its similar poll in 2000, corruption has tended to decline. Based on responses to questions like, "did you get your work done the first time or did you have to revisit?". "did you need a middleman?", "did you bribe or use influence?", "would you do something about corruption?", "has corruption declined or increased?", "who is responsible?" etc, CMS has drawn a picture of metropolitan India today. Rao says, "corruption is not as high as is often believed, and the reasons for this can be attributed to large-scale computerisation of services, reforms initiated by vigilance departments and the rise in awareness among the consumers."
In the current survey, 28% admitted they have dealt through middlemen. That figure was 48% in 2000. 30% admitted to giving bribes, whereas in 2000, 51% had. In Hyderabad, the decline was from 63% in 2000, to 27% now. Chennai and Kolkata declined to 18% [-from 38%] and 19% [-from 51%]. In Delhi however, the figure grew from 40% to 49%.
The CMS surveys seem more relevant to our concerns. After all, TI tosses India, with its billion plus people, into one global heap, and then sifts and sorts the pile. As a result, Scandinavia, Australia and New Zealand hog the top in the rankings. Must not population, density and size of the economy be a factor in evaluating corruption? Studies like the CMS's should be encouraged further, so that deeper state-wise surveys are conducted, and an intra-India list emerges. That would build a competitive mood between states.
Did not an exercise in fine-slicing India's poverty numbers, reveal unsuspected facets. Have not the periodic lists of various states' investment numbers, spurred local policy changes leading to greater growth? Likewise, would not annual corruption ranking of states too, help spur eGovernance that tend to lower corruption levels?
The brand image, slickness and reach of TI is such, that it has assumed an oracular status. Very few Indian commentators have bothered to question its techniques. TI's list hogs the main-stream media's headlines. India's rank as the corrupt country number this or that is bandied about and all that it does is end up depressing Indians. Seriously, how relevant is TI to the Indian reality?
It polls mostly businessmen. Most of them are likely to be executives of MNC's, because it is they who stalk the world. Given their compulsion to increment results from one quarter to another, woudn't they explore every ruse -- as long as they get away without being caught? Significantly, TI observes that Enron, Halliburton, WorldCom and many other MNCs have bribed, lied and plundered for long. Given that, is TI transparent enough to state whether or not those companies' executives were among those that were polled? It's a crucial issue. After all, in bribery, it is usual for the giver to fancy himself as a blameless being.
Another reason that makes the TI reports lumpy, is the fact it makes no distinction between developed and developing nations. For instance, were the stars of TI's current list, just as honourable and clean as they are reported to be today, when they were in the early days of MNC penetration? Unlikely. Emerging nations would merit appropriate 'point-in-history handicaps'. Again, in nations with small populations, investment and growth opportunities may have ceased. And with that, room for corruption too.
In sum, the TI declarations are best ignored by Indians. We need to develop our own benchmarks. CMS's surveys are better directed. Rather than react to numbers slapped on us by itinerant businessmen, under the auspices of TI, we should take heart from the fact, that computerisation of public services, is beginning to make an impact. An effort like this which tracks the progress of eGovernance projects in India, should be ranked higher than TI's endeavours.
Reference:As cited
http://www.newstodaynet.com/27feb/ld3.htm
3 former DMK Ministers chargesheeted
NT Bureau
Chennai, Feb 27:
Nemesis seems to be catching up with those who were Ministers in the previous DMK regime.
Many Ministers in the DMK government have had chargesheets filed against them by the DVAC (Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption). Today, three more former Ministers faced the same mortification.
The three former Agriculture Minister Veerapandi Arumugam, former Handloom Minister N K K Periasamy and former Animal Husbandry Minister 'Pulavar' Senguttuvan were chargesheeted today at Salem, Erode and Trichy respectively.
The DVAC sleuths filed the chargesheets with the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the respective towns.
According to reports reaching here, the case against Veerapandi Arumugam involves a sum of Rs.1.8 crore that is alleged to be not commensurate with his known sources of income.
The DVAC had conducted raids at 16 of Arumugam's places in and near Salem. Raids were also conducted at the premises of some of his relatives. In all, seven of his family members figure in the chargesheet which runs into 60 pages. The chargesheet also has 5000 supporting documents.
DVAC is pressing for charges that Arumugam amassed the said amount during his tenure as the Agriculture Minister under former Chief Minister M Karunanidhi's dispensation.
N K K Periasamy is said to have made Rs.72.71 lakh more than from his known sources of income. Five of the former Handloom Minister's relatives also figure in the chargesheet filed by the DVAC today. The 40-page chargesheet has 4000 supporting documents.
'Pulavar' Senguttuvan is said to have made Rs.81.42 lakh more than that was declared through his regular sources of income.
DVAC has also made out a case against six of his relatives and the chargesheet runs into 70 pages with 7000 supporting documents.
DVAC sources say that the cases against the Ministers are very strong.
The DVAC, it may be recalled, had carried out raids against many of the former DMK Ministers on charges of corruption. The raids were conducted over the last two years. Already chargesheets have been filed against seven former DMK Ministers.
The seven are: Ponmudi, Durai Murugan, Jennifer Chandran, I Periasamy, Anthiyur Selvaraj, Samayanallur Selvaraj and Suresh Rajan.
DVAC says that evidences against all of them are very strong.
<i>Worst CM of Punjab in all sectors.</i>
<b>Punjab CM faces charges of nepotism</b>
Braj Mohan Singh
Sunday, February 29, 2004 (Chandigarh):
The path to the elections is far from smooth for the Punjab Chief Minister Amrinder Singh.
After facing a dissent within the state congress, Singh is now facing charges of nepotism. He's accused of appointing relatives of close aides on posts that were meant for eminent sportspersons.
State-level players have now approached the court against the government complaining that the 11 people selected as deputy superintendents of police through the sports quota in Punjab are all related to the Chief Minister's advisors while older and more experienced players have been left out
The state government asked players to submit resumes for the posts and the names were to be finalised on February 20 through an interview. But that never happened and the list came out on February 17.
Transparent process
However, the selection committee insists the process was transparent and fair. "The entire process has been made transparent. All potential candidates have been given a chance," said A A Siddiqui DGP, Punjab
This incident is just the latest in a long list of complaints and controversies the Amrinder Singh government will have to settle before the elections.
Rahul Mehta, if you are reading this please comment on Sulekha itself ? Maybe post a link to your website ?
I couldnt find a better place for this even though its not a news item.
Admins can move this to a more appropriate place if its not ok here..
http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/colum...cid=305914
Are Indians corrupt? by Sankrant Sanu
In his recent Republic Day address, Indian president Abdul Kalam spoke about what has become a hot topic in India today. He said:
ââ¦There are only three members of the society who can remove corruption⦠They are father, mother and elementary school teacher.â
The implication of his remarks is that widespread problem of corruption in India is ultimately a problem of moral character. President Kalam is not alone in these views in India: in fact, it is a common assumption.
It cannot be denied that the average citizen encounters more petty corruption in India than in the United States. If this corruption is a factor of relative moral character, then this must imply that Americans possess a higher moral character than Indians, which results in the United States having a lower degree of corruption than India. Examining data like the Corruption Perception Index published by Transparency International[1], we find that a number of countries ravaged by European colonization show up as some of the most corrupt. It must then be concluded that the people in all these countries are moral imbeciles, who can't distinguish right from wrong and haven't been taught so by their parents and teachers.
While President Kalam is right that parents and teachers play a key role in building the values of a child, we argue here that widespread corruption in society is not simply a function of morality. The phenomena of what is seen as widespread corruption is a failure of the system rather than simply of individuals, and it is in the transformation of the system that we must seek primary remedies.
Are Indians Immoral Or Is It The System?
Firstly, let us examine the question of morality. If it is indeed the case that corruption is a result of character flaws of Indians rather than problems with the system, then this character flaw must be widely seen even when Indians are removed from the Indian system. However, we don't find that Indians in America, for instance, are perceived to be especially corrupt. They are generally regarded as honest, hard-working entrepreneurs, employees and citizens. How is it that the same mothers, fathers and teachers, who have presumably failed in India, appear to have not done a terribly bad job when their children land in the US? Are our friends and neighbors in India really so much less moral than the people we meet in the US? Is high morality the prerogative of a particular race or religion?
That is, if individuals with similar backgrounds appear to act differently within two different systems, understanding the difference in the two systems is likely to provide clues to understanding the difference in perceived corruption in India and the United States.
A Moral Issue Or A Legal Issue?
Let us take a classic example in India of petty corruption. I have applied for a phone but the telephone linesman is demanding a payment to install it. (Recent changes have made this example somewhat dated, but that will allow useful insight.) This bribe demanded by the linesman appears to be a clear instance of corruption. Yet, one may argue â isn't this a straightforward business transaction? I'm paying for a service to the lineman and he is installing the phone. On giving the payment, I am certain that the line will be installed, it would be very unusual for the fellow to run away with my money. So, on one level, this business transaction has a high level of integrity â and in that sense, the linesman doesn't appear to be fundamentally dishonest. On the other hand, one can argue that this is clearly corruption because he is already getting paid by the government to perform this service and he is not doing his job.
But, what if we legalized that? What if the government made a regulation that the linesman could collect a fee of five hundred rupees per line that he installs? The same transaction is taking place but we have now privatized it and we would no longer call it corruption. Has the integrity of the person changed or have we merely changed the rules? Are we defining corruption simply within the bounds of legality or can we determine right and wrong beyond those bounds?
Let us take another example. Top public accounting firms in America have come under a cloud for taking consulting assignments from the companies that they were auditing. There was no law to prevent this, but after Enron broke out, this became a major scandal. It was clear that the paid consulting assignments to the auditor were a legal tactic to âgrease the wheelsâ of the audit and this was a practice that was widely being done in corporate America. Even though this was legal, can we deny that this is a form of corruption? If we examine the moral basis, public auditors were obligated to report on corporate accounts to the shareholders and the public. Accepting paid consulting assignments from the companies one is supposed to monitor to possibly give a more favorable picture of the accounts can only be seen as a clear instance of high-level bribery.
Similarly, many of the major financial services firms in the US are being accused of inflating the stock ratings of companies that they were doing business with to the detriment of their retail clients. Internal communications in the brokerage firms showed that analysts put out buy recommendations on stocks that they did not think would perform well, simply because those companies were giving them investment banking business[2]. Aren't the payments that the corporate clients make to the analyst firms a form of bribery for illegitimate ratings? If we were considering the moral rather than simply the legal implications of the fact that this was done by nearly all the top financial services firms, would we then be forced to admit that there is widespread corruption in corporate America?
Certainly, this becomes even more apparent in the political space. Cronyism and handing out large defense contracts to companies that have been campaign contributors has been part of the course in Washington. Money readily changes hands in Washington at the instance of special interest groups and multi-million dollar lobbying firms to buy influence. Legislative outcomes cater to the influence of big money. While this might not have the on-camera impact of a Bangaru Laxman accepting money for âthe partyâ from the fictitious defense firm in the Tehelka setup; yet the difference might well be attributed to a lack of sophistication in comparison to the Washington counterparts rather than to any fundamental difference in morality.
Yet, even if we accept that the perceived difference in corruption between India and the US is not a question of relative morality, it is an undeniable fact that petty corruption does exist at a much higher level for the common citizen in India than in the US. If Indians are fundamentally no more âcorruptâ, as a character flaw, than the people in America, why is the actual experience of the common man in India in getting basic government services like obtaining a telephone line or getting a police report filed so significantly different than the experience in America? Understanding this is a key to solving the problem of corruption that engages so many commentators in India.
Examining the System
The first major difference between the US and India is in the systems of governance. Traveling extensively in rural India, I find that the relationship and attitude of the people to the government is still that of a colonizing power, not something that either belongs to them or is in touch with their aspirations. After living in the US for many years, it is clear that there is a far higher degree of ownership and accountability of the local government to the local communities. Furthermore, the common citizen, for most of his or her needs, interfaces with the government in the local city or township rather than at the state or the national level. Power and accountability are devolved to a much greater level to the local administration. Also, American enterprise is far more privatized than is the case with India and there is less involvement of the government in daily life.
By contrast, in the Indian system, power is centralized to a much greater degree at the level of the national and state governments. Further, the centralized colonial state apparatus, right from its inception, was never designed to serve the people. As an example, the government official at the district level was called a collector, his primary role in the system was extortion, not service. Similarly, the power of the police apparatus devolved downwards as a means of control of the local population for the benefit of the rulers, not as an arm of the community for its own protection and service. The laws themselves were created and imposed in a top-down manner â and these laws were both alien to the people (the Indian penal code today is still based on the penal code created by the British in 1860, with a basis in the British system) and were created and directed for the benefit of the ruler, not the ruled. This included laws that outlawed many of the traditional sources of livelihood of the people, including textile manufacturing and metallurgy, as well as forms of traditional medicine to further the economic interests of the British.
Furthermore, even in the administrative structure, there was a clear class system. To implement the system on behalf of the rulers was the Indian Civil Service (later the Indian Administrative Service) that was originally only open to whites. Later on, the ICS also included an elite section of Indians who had been âmade whiteâ â i.e., who had gone through the colonial system of education and been indoctrinated to identify themselves with the rulers rather than the ruled. The layer of native Indian clerks and âsepoysâ at the bottom were often enforcing rules and laws that they did not believe in on people who did not understand them. These natives could, of course, never rise up to the ranks of the officers or aspire to join their class.
At the top of this system was the Viceroy, drawing his authority from the Queen of England. It was a centralized and alien power structure, sprawling like a gigantic bear on the aspirations of the people. An understanding of this system and its origins is very relevant to understanding India today. This is because, despite independence and democracy, the administrative system of India remains completely continuous with colonial India (and completely discontinuous with pre-colonial India). While at the top layer the authority of the Viceroy was replaced by the authority of the elected cabinet and the Parliament, the entire structure of the government administration essentially remains colonial in its origin and attitudes.
The system in America was, ironically, also started by people who were originally English. The dramatic difference comes from the fact that America was a colony of settlement, while India was a colony of exploitation. In America, the natives were largely exterminated since the wealth of the land lay mainly in its natural resources and not in the produce of the natives and the systems of governance that evolved were what the settlers chose for themselves. In India, the wealth lay mainly in the output of the locals. The system was designed not for the settlement of the English, but for the most efficient exploitation and control of the Indians for obtaining the local produce via extortive taxation to be carted away to England
Thus, in America, the police force, for instance, evolved from the need of local communities for self-policing. Thus, as in the settlement of the West, a sheriff would be appointed by the community from within the local populace to maintain order. Thus the sheriff was a member of the community, not an imposed elite, enforcing the laws of the central rulers. In some ways, the American experience allowed for an even greater community involvement and accountability than England since it was difficult to have centralized authoritarian control in a far-flung land with different groups of settlers, even though the overall Anglican system rested on a strong belief in a centralized ârule of lawâ enforced and created by the authority of the Church and the Sovereign Ruler.
While coming back to the problems in the contemporary Indian system, it is worth examining briefly the system that existed in pre-colonial India. It appears that this system was far more community-based in terms of village and jati laws than the colonial system. Even during the Mughal rule, though there were some centralized laws, the law-making and enforcement authority of the local communities were largely left undisturbed. Further, a large percentage of the local revenue remained with the local community by which local civil services â such as water resource management, education and order -- could be maintained. The local community, in many respects, devolved power upwards, to greater aggregates, rather than having a centralized power structure devolve power downwards[3]. In colonial times, this equation was reversed with much of the local produce being taken away by extortive British taxation, causing local institutions to decay. Furthermore, a centralized system was steadily imposed that took away the power from local communities and concentrated it into the hands of government officials.
As we mention below, this system remained largely unchanged post independence, though people like Mahatma Gandhi realized the harm that the destruction of the local community had caused. While there have been some reforms in the system, in the form of the Panchayati Raj act, yet more progress remains stymied by the fact that the panchayats have very little relative authority and control over the sources of revenue, which remain in the hands of bureaucrats.
From Colonization to Socialism
The post-independence socialist system further strengthened the approach of an essential patriarchic system â where the state knew best and private enterprise was something to be controlled by spools and spools of red tape.
Along with the politicians, the popular media projected the image of the corrupt, greedy, rapacious businessman, colluding with the corrupt politician and cruelly suppressing the people. The difficulties faced by an honest businessman in the legitimate and necessary enterprise of creating wealth for himself and for the nation were rarely appreciated. In the book, `India Unbounded', Gurcharan Das, former CEO of Proctor and Gamble India, documents the insanity of the license raj that sought to reduce business to the same level of low-performance as the government. You could actually be penalized for producing efficiently or more than the allotted quota.
Even now, despite some liberalization with respect to business, there is a dramatic contrast between the ease by which one can set up a new business in the United States as compared to India. In the former case, the state is geared to assist you. In the latter case, it is often standing in the way.
Finally, both the colonial period with its widespread poverty and the breakdown of job security in traditional occupations, as well as the controlled economy of the socialist period led to the creation of a culture of scarcity. This culture of scarcity itself led to a desperation, an attitude of every man for himself, a need to break the symbolic and literal queue and get in front, since it was doubtful whether staying in the queue would get one served at all.
Thus, to the inherited colonial system was added the license raj with its opposition to private enterprise, where the rules were not designed to serve the people and encouraged a culture of scarcity where one had to circumvent the rules to succeed â and we were headed into the inevitability of what we call corruption.
The Creation Of A Parallel System
So, what does all this tell us about corruption? The first and foremost idea we must realize is that the people and the state, for well over a century, have been antagonistic to each other. The colonial government apparatus has been designed to control the people, not to support them. For the common people, the business community and even the lower-level government functionaries, the system has been both incomprehensible as well as an obstacle to their needs and desires. In this situation, the system is something that needs to be overcome and avoided rather than something to be abided by. A huge amount of creativity and energy of the people is thus expended in finding ways to circumvent the system rather than support it.
Furthermore, there is little or no performance accountability within the administrative system. It is very difficult to fire corrupt or non-performing employees, and very few rewards for honest and conscientious employees within the system. As a result, corruption is a form of subverting the system, both by the employees as well as by their customers, the general public â by creating an unofficial, but functioning system of private transactions in lieu of the dysfunctional and often antagonistic official one from the perspective of the people. This is one aspect of understanding why a large number of countries that show up at the bottom of Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index are former colonies.
Why is the unofficial system functioning? Going back to the telephone example, making a payment to the linesman will ensure that the work is done. The linesman will probably himself have a system of ârevenue-sharingâ with other officials and employees, as a result of which a parallel system and economy is created. What are the characteristics of this economy? That one's job will get done relatively efficiently, that the bribe-receiver will be accountable to the bribe-giver, and the people who are more productive in this system will make more money than the people who are less productive. In other words, this system partly restores the very characteristics of accountability, efficiency and recognition of performance that should be part of any well-functioning system and which is largely missing in the official system.
This does not imply that all is well. There are plenty of problems with the parallel system, including the fact that there is a high degree of overall inefficiency in having two systems -- and this ultimately is debilitating and costly for the nation. Over times, it erodes the very foundations on which the institutions of the state rest. But before we can talk of eliminating or minimizing this parallel system of bribe taking and giving, it is critical to understand the real problems with it.
One of the biggest problems with the colonial apparatus of government is that it is a corrupting system. That is, it is a system that is more challenging for an honest individual than for a dishonest one. How is that?
Let us take the example of an honest telephone linesman. He goes about his job installing a telephone line without demanding a bribe. The problem is that he now becomes a threat to the revenue of the unofficial system. This means that he will be targeted by his peers who are operating within the unofficial system and in the likely case of his boss being part of the âcutâ, he will get transferred to some other, less privileged location, so that the unofficial system can continue unhindered. Obviously, he will also be making less money than his peers. All in all, the system will make it both harder and much less attractive for him to remain honest â that he does so will be as a result of the sheer force of his will.
Similarly, for the ambitious businessman interested in growing (and thus creating jobs), the system has stood as an obstacle. He had to succeed despite the system, not because of it. Are Indian business people fundamentally dishonest? I would say not. In fact, business in India has traditionally relied on a very high degree of trust â with word of mouth agreements often standing in lieu of signed contracts. It is this high degree of mutual integrity that has enabled Indian traders to control a majority of the world diamond trade today, for instance. Yet, like the government employee, the successful businessman has been penalized by the system, making him complicit in its corruption.
Thus, rather than fundamentally corrupt individuals, we have a corrupting system â a system in which it is more difficult and less rewarding for someone to be honest than to be corrupt. A well-functioning system is one in which exactly the opposite is true â the cost of being dishonest is far greater than the rewards of being honest. A corrupting system is corrosive to all that encounter it â it literally breeds corruption and transforms honest people into corrupt people over time. Ultimately, this corrosive system completely dissolves the integrity of the official system â to survive at all, one needs to start playing by the unofficial rules. Of course, the unofficial rules soon need their own enforcement mechanisms and the money power starts combining with muscle power. This raises the importance of non-state enforcers and the spiral into criminality begins. One can see a higher degree of such breakdown in places such as Bihar, for instance, where parallel âsenasâ and private justice have replaced even these non-functional state institutions.
Why then have we tended to study corruption largely as a symptom of social morality and culture? We need to remember that the larger system also consists of the institutions of education and media, all of which relate very differently to the people in the Indian context than in the United States. There is a noticeable difference between social science programs in India and the United States in how they study their own societies. The Indian elite intelligentsia tends to study their own society largely through colonially inspired categories and lenses. As such, it is programmed to construct cultural blame for criminal acts in a way that academics in the United States are not[4]. This creation of culture blame (and culture shame) is a phenomenon found in most colonial societies. It was an original construction of the colonizing powers that set up and controlled the institutions to make the natives easier to rule by having them accept the cultural superiority of their masters (and the relative inferiority of their own). Social science studies in India thus show continuity from colonial times and institutions and a disjunction from the people at large.
A Culture Of Entrepreneurship?
If there were a cultural generalization that can be drawn about the Indian response to a non-functioning and antagonistic system, one would hazard the generalization of Indian entrepreneurship.
Even in a repressive state-controlled economy, entrepreneurs like Dhirubhai Ambani managed to circumvent the system and succeed. People such as JRD Tata, stymied by government control at home, established industrial enterprises throughout South-East Asia. Indians that migrated throughout the world demonstrated a talent for entrepreneurship â from low-tech hotels and restaurants to the high-tech software revolution.
We needn't look only at large entrepreneurs, but at small ones as well. The unorganized sector â small businessman, traders and others -- remains a very large part of the Indian economy and employment base. From the vendors boarding buses at strategic stops selling knick-knacks to the mushrooming STD operators, people found creative ways to innovate.
In fact, large hierarchical institutions have rarely been part of the Indian ethos, whether in religion, government, or even private enterprise. Our religious ideas themselves were entrepreneurial and not controlled by large centralized hierarchical institutions, unlike Western Christianity. Our pre-colonial laws themselves were highly diverse, localized and community-based rather than all of them being handed down and enforced by a single central authority. Even functions such as the maintenance of land-records were not state-run, but managed by private individuals â the dependence of their livelihood on their reputation for honesty assured the integrity of the system. A network of specialist contractors rather than monolithic institutions managed even large projects, such as the construction of fabulous buildings or the manufacture of ships. In contemporary times, the now famous Mumbai tiffinwalas, profiled in Forbes, distribute 175,000 tiffins a day exceeding Six Sigma quality of delivery, based solely on a network of private operators[5].
So, we are no strangers to either free enterprise or small government. Corruption can then be regarded as forced, perverse manifestation of this spirit or even a form of dissent in the context of an alien and antagonistic system. If the system were changed to support and harness this entrepreneurial spirit rather than stymie it, the sky is the limit to what we can achieve.
Towards Change
How then do we create change in the system so that it is more responsive to the people, more fulfilling to the employees and more effective for the nation? The following steps should be considered, in order of importance:
1. Reducing the size of the government and privatizing non-essential functions.
2. De-centralizing government functions away from large hierarchical bureaucracies and creating greater local accountability.
3. Simplifying laws, rules and procedures, taking into account the actual needs and practices of the people and creating a greater focus on customer service in public institutions
4. Simplifying taxation, reducing duties on property taxes and property transfers and creating greater transparency and âbuy-inâ for the use of tax-proceeds by devolving more taxation and spending to local administration from the center and states
5. Tackling campaign finance reform â realizing that elections today involve large expenditures and creating rules for legal campaign contributions that take this into account while reducing the influence of criminal/black money
6. Creating a clear performance-based reward system within the government to create greater incentive for honesty and performance
7. More effective enforcement and prosecution of the remaining corrupt personnel to increase the cost for the corrupt
The first fact to realize is that the answer is not more rules and larger bureaucracies, but a more transparent, accountable and responsive system. One option there is simply greater privatization where market demand and competition will drive accountability. The telephone example is again a good one. If we are fundamentally corrupt, why is it that we do not have to pay a bribe in India to get a mobile phone? How would the situation have been different if mobile phones were to be a government monopoly instead? The answer is simple â in the case of competitive private enterprise, it is in the interests of the private operator to provide greater customer service â it is only in a monopoly where these interests are divergent. Some of these aligning of interests can also happen in semi-private models. In a recent journey on a local bus in Delhi, I was pleased to find courteous service and the conductor making sure that I got a ticket. Later I was told that the driver and conductor now get a percentage of the proceeds and both the quality of service and the revenue that is collected by the government has gone up as a result.
Secondly, a restructuring of government function needs to happen so that there is far greater local accountability. Let us take the example of education. Currently, appointments and administration of teachers for schools are centralized at the level of the entire state. This means that accountability flows into the state level bureaucracy that is itself only accountable to the ministers. Since the ministers are elected, it turns out that the loop of accountability to the consumers is closed only at the highest level. This is inefficient and frustrating at all levels. The teachers find that they are subject to arbitrary transfers by bureaucrats, the end consumers are not in the loop at all of teacher accountability or performance, the ministers find themselves deluged with personal requests for low-level appointments and the bureaucrats find themselves at the mercy of politicians. I recently met one of the senior-most bureaucrats in the state of Rajasthan with a reputation for honesty. A visit to his house showed that he had a very simple lifestyle. However, he was despondent about his lack of ability to make change. âEverything in this system is delegated upwards,â he said. âEven the transfer of a chapprassi will come as an order from the minister.â Clearly, the system serves no one well.
In contrast, the accountability in the US in areas of day-to-day contact of citizens, such as education or the police force, is usually far more local. School boards operate at a city or school district level. The boards are elected and accountable to the parents. Similarly, the mayor of the city and the local police chief are the highest level of authority that concern the citizens in most local matters â not state level police chiefs, secretaries or governors.
The importance of having a more performance oriented government system can also not be over-emphasized. A job that is satisfying and rewarding is itself an incentive not to look for other avenues of gratification. I was recently talking with a government executive engineer who had been posted at the Bhakra-Nangal Dam for many years. I was surprised to learn that he was a civil engineer. When I asked what work was there for a civil engineer on a dam that was constructed several decades ago, he replied laconically, âThere is no work.â This is a sad commentary on the affairs of the government â what kind of performance will such a system monitor?
Taxation is another area of reform. Land and property transactions as well as local retail sales remain areas of high black money generation. There was a time when capital gains on sales of property were as high as 66%. No one in their right mind, after holding property for twenty years, would pay 66% of it in tax to the government â especially when the government appeared as a black hole of antagonistic incompetence, serving very little useful purpose. While this has been reduced, property transfers still remain expensive transaction with high stamp duties. Devolving more taxes down to the local community level, where the benefits of the government expenditures are both more visible and more accountable, will also help in this regard.
It is also worth noting that greater prosecution of corrupt officials has been placed last in this list even though it often receives the greatest emphasis from anti-corruption crusaders. This is because enforcement, while necessary, will remain ineffective in tackling the magnitude of the problem in the absence of systematic reform. At the present time, community activism can yield better long-term results when directed towards crafting a more responsive system than simply pursuing a few high-profile enforcement cases.
Similarly, continuing to harp on corruption as simply a moral problem without addressing first the issues of systemic reform exacerbates the problem of corruption rather than helping it. This is because if the problem is that we are corrupt, it becomes very difficult to change anything, since it is obviously very difficult to change who we are as people. It is no surprise that in the light of this belief, very few people in India believe that we can fix the problem of corruption. Realizing that much of it is a problem of the system can be an empowering and actionable idea, even while the road may be long.
It is worth remembering that, even with all the problems in the Indian system, it still survives and functions because there remain a remarkable number of honest people trying to do their jobs, despite all the difficulties and disincentives. It is this honesty that we must build on and nourish as we create a blueprint for deep, systematic changes.
Beyond Systematic Corruption: Re-Examining Individual Morality
While in this article we have discussed the systematic origins of petty corruption, this is not meant to imply that values are not important. It also does not imply that fixing the system will create some kind of utopia, where no corruption or criminality will occur. However well functioning the system, there will always remain criminals and outliers â no society is free from that. A dysfunctional system, however, makes it easier for criminal tendencies to come to the fore. Also, the survival of the parallel system, profitable to vested interests, is always in conflict with those that seek to uphold the primary system and not play by the rules of the secondary one. Thus the parallel system creates its own forms of extra-legal enforcement, where criminal elements readily find room, to ensure its survival.
Reforming the system can go a long way towards a different relationship between the people and the state, where it makes sense for most people to play by the rules. However, as we mentioned earlier, even societies like the US where rules are generally not set up in opposition to the people, the problem of corruption remains. Also, in any situation, there are always criminal elements that will tend towards making the quick buck irrespective of the system. Reform of the system is unlikely to change these people, but it changes the tolerance of the system towards these elements.
To tackle these kinds of corruption, which goes beyond systematic reform, we would need to return to the question of values that president Kalam spoke about, literally what a society learns to value. If excessive, unbalanced materialism becomes the over-arching value, with all means considered legitimate to get it and no training in self-control, then it is inevitable that there will be corruption in society. But tackling this is a question of inner transformation, where it is recognized that the legitimate human strivings for artha and kama need to be guided by dharma.
Certainly in the traditional Indian context, the teachers and the parents transmitted values. The teacher was interestingly called acharya, a word that is based on the root achar, or conduct. Thus the transmission of values was by personal example and conduct of the teacher, not by âmoral scienceâ lessons. Values were embedded in the role models of daily life.
The other form of transmittal of values is via stories and exemplars. Stories that were told by grandparents and parents during childhood also have a positive role in the creation of values. Finally, the example set by parents as well as those portrayed as âsuccessfulâ role models to emulate is certainly also important. In the contemporary world, mass media is a very powerful force in the creation of samskara. In a responsible society, mass media would recognize this role rather than view its role solely as âanything goesâ entertainment, blindly aping western mores or measuring its success in purely materialistic terms. But this is ultimately a matter of awakening to responsibility, not ham-handed government censorship.
So, once the systematic problems are tackled, we will be at the level of the âdevelopedâ world in terms of corruption. As we mentioned earlier, the developed world is certainly no exemplar as far as morality goes. To go beyond this, one comes back to the messages of the rishis on inner transformation. This inner transformation is ultimately what can enable us to go beyond greed, avarice and a consumerism that obsessively seeks satisfaction outside oneself to move towards âsantoshâ, a santosh that is ultimately the basis for the elimination of all corruption.
Notes:
[1]www.transparency.org
[2]Wall Street faces prospect of criminal charges, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0...,689537,00.html
[3]For a picture of Indian society in pre-colonial and early British times, the mult-volume Collected Works of Shri Dharampal are highly recommended.
[4]An interesting example is the fact that prevalent spousal killing for insurance money in the United States is not dissimilar with spousal killing for âdowryâ in India. The former is not tracked or studied as a crime attributed to âcultureâ in the US while the latter is studied solely in that category in India. Similarly, âabortionâ is treated in liberal discourse in the US as a matter of âa woman's right to chooseâ, while in Indian liberal discourse it is labeled as âfoeticideâ, to emphasize its relation to murder, and studied as a culture-attributed crime. Similarly, marriages under 18 are studied as the phenomenon of âchild marriageâ in India and labeled as âevilâ in scholarly writing. A similar phenomenon is studied as âteenage marriageâ in the US. Interestingly, even in the case of âchild marriageâ in India, the consummation of the marriage almost invariably happens post-puberty in India so the phenomena are not dissimilar. Interestingly, states such as Massachusetts have a legal age of marriage as low as 12, and nearly 15% of marriages in the US took place in the 15-17 age group (1970 figures).
[5]http://www.forbes.com/global/1998/0810/0109078a.html
When India performed shakti 1 & 2, there was a document, very lucid and cogent that described to a layman why it was right to go newclear. That document helped put things in perspective.
Now I have talked to many people (and all of them are very knowledgeable individual), they are very keen to debate on Bofors but all most all lacked any knowledge of what really happened or what the issue is/are (and it was accordingly agreed by all of them).
I myself do not claim to be any knowledgeable on the subject apart from few tit bits here and there. It's imperative that we know what happened and I would appreciate if people can fill in the detail. More important, if anyone can summarize it as 'that' document on Shakti was summarized (does anyone have a copy of it).
I will give a shot at what I know.
Bofors saga --
During Rajeev Gandhi Premiership, India had plans to induct 2000 pieces of artillery. Many different guns were tested, and two out of them, Sofma and Bofors were short listed. During that time this order would have been the biggest military order in India's history (in fact the value of the deal was bigger than Pakistan's defense budget).
The technical detail of testing was kept a secret (as it is today), but it was later revealed by Sundarji (then Army Chief), under court orders that Sofma was ahead of Bofors. Though a point needs to be made that many times India has chosen weapon System that were not on the top of the list because of other reasons (like price, tech-transfer, other genuine political considerations etc etc.)
Like today, during that time, defense deal took a lot of time to get finalized (for example AJT requirement took 17 years). If the deal was as big as Bofors/Sofma, it was natural that it took time and that it was cleared by the Prime Minister himself (today also all big deal are cleared by the cabinet). Sofma/Bofors obviously wanted to win the deal, sooner the better.
Ottavio Quattrochi, an Italian businessman was heading a multinational fertilizer company in India (a fertilizer company, not a defense company). His family was close friend of Sonia Gandhi, the Italian born wife of Prime Minister Rajeev Gandhi. In fact both the family had at least on 4 occasion had celebrated family holidays together.
Quattrochi, accepted an assignment from Bofors to get them the deal before a certain date, his commission in the deal is unknown, but 7.8 million dollars have been conclusively proven to go to his account (7.8 million dollars of 1986-87 value). The deal for artillery was then closed in favor of Bofors (over better ranked Sofma), 3 days before that date. The speed with which the deal was concluded can only be termed spectacular. The point to keep in mind here is that Quattrochi was neither a defense agent, nor any way connected to Bofors which is a Swedish company, i.e. apart from being close to the Gandhi family he added no value to this deal.
Apart from Quattrochi getting commission, Commission to the tune of 65 million (1985-86 dollars) were also paid. Paying commission in defense deal is a normal Industry practice, but at that time, it was a law in India not to pay commission and Bofors had also agreed not to pay commission as part of the deal. The other people that got commission were Win Chadha, allegedly Hindujas etc.
When the news of Kickback surfaced, Rajeev Gandhi initially denied any Kickback, then later denied that any of his member involvement in the kickback (once it was conclusively proven that kickbacks were paid).
Since Bofors scandal broke out, most of the time it has been a congress government or Congress supported government at the center except for the last 6 years. The congress government have done everything in their power to derail the
Search of truth. In fact, a cabinet Minister, Madhavrao Solanki had to resign as he was caught delivering a letter to the Swedish authority requesting them not to release documents that Indian court and FBI had requested for investigation.
That is the primer, now lets go to some question answer
1. Isn't Bofors a good gun. How is it wrong in buying it.
Bofors is indeed a good gun as it has proven since. Sofma might have been better. But Bofors is really good and adequate for the task. Where the deal has hurt India is, initially it was thought that we would buy 410 pieces and license manufacture another 1600. The way defense deal work is, no one wants to give you technology unless you buy from them. We bought the gun, then the scandal broke and as a result, India has only 410 guns (not 2000 as planned), no technology and had to buy 1500 dollar a shell for the gun during Kargil crisis. We are now again trying to buy a similar gun in similar amount for 2-4 billion dollars. What could have been achieved 18 years ago (and for what we paid), we are doing it today.
2. Isn't 64 million dollars too less to worry about. In India we have bigger scandals everyday.
True, we have bigger scandals (like Telgi, fodder scam), and no scandal is better or worse than other, Bofors scandal is about using influence by foreign power to do something that endangers the security of the country. Giving someone 1 lakh rupee as a bribe to get telephone connection is not a similar crime like giving someone 1 lakh to commit manslaughter. It is not the amount but the nature of the crime that makes it heinous.
3. Has not Rajeev Gandhi been cleared from Bofors.
Yes, he has been. There are two ways a person is cleared of a criminal case, either he is proven innocent or there is not enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt that proves the person guilty. In the second case a person though having committed the crime is let go because his guilt cannot be proven (as in O J Simpson case). Rajeev Gandhi acquittal falls in the second category.
4.If what said above is true and R. Gandhi has been acquitted, why there is a big deal about Bofors.
The answer to the above has to do with two facts, 1. A person holding public office is held to higher standard of public scrutiny. It is not enough for that person to get acquitted because of lack of proof; he should get acquitted because he/she was innocent. The other angle to the argument is that since the person is powerful, it is easy for him to supress evidence so that he can get acquitted because of lack of proof. Since, Madhavrao Solanki episode shows these kinds of tactics were used.
2.The second fact is that since Shri R. Gandhi is deceased there are other people connected with the deal that have not gotten Scot free. The effort should be to bring those people to justice.
5. So are you saying that Bofors investigation is political, i.e. now Sonia Gandhi has to be targeted and that why this case is on the fore front now.
Let's start with the last part- The case of Bofors has not been brought up by the current NDA government. The chief Swedish investigator chose this time (which makes sense from his point of view as it puts maximum pressure on the witness to answer his questions) to raise the Bofors issue through an Indian paper Asian Age, whose chief editor is MJ Akbar. This paper is now way even sympathetic to the current regime.
The second question is why Sonia is being targeted. The point to remember here was that the Bofors deal was signed (over much preferred Sofma), in a quick time when Quattrochi came into picture. He was paid commission for his service. Quattrochi had no locus-standi vis a vis Bofors, he was chief of a Fertilizer company, i.e. he added no other value other than persuade R. Gandhi to conclude the deal. His ability to influence Rajeev Gandhi was because he is Italian as Sonia Gandhi is and both were friends, i.e. Sonia is the chain that links Rajeev Gandhi and Quattrochi. So then the question arises, did Sonia play any part in Bofors Scandal? Did she or her family back in Italy get any part of the commission etc etc.
Till now she has not been questioned regarding Bofors. As stated earlier, a person aspiring for Public office is subjected to higher scrutiny. According to the chief Swedish Investigator, Sonia Gandhi, Quattrochi and Martin Ardbo only know the whole truth. The other two persons are out of India, out of reach of Indian investigators. Martin Ardbo has publicly vowed not to reveal the truth (the ruth will go with me to my grave) and Indian govt cannot extradite him to stand trail in India. As far as Quattrochi goes, CBI has let him slip away (under congress regime) and since he is the obvious culprit he would be the last one to cooperate. That only leaves Sonia Gandhi.
5. So it is indeed political, Sonia has already said that Bofors is being resurrected to mar the chances of her children and possibly her Grand children?
Rhetoric apart, the only thing Sonia Gandhi has to do is to tell everything to the Investigative agency under oath, what she knows about Bofors. (Mind you, she has never been questioned till now) and let the Law take its own course. Whether the issue is political or not is beside the point as also is, whether it will be used against her or not.
rgds,
fanne
Excellent right up.
Definitely guns are good for Indian Army; according to common belief defense contracts in developing countries are always with bribes. But in this case foreigner was able to influence head of India because of common nationality. It is also called as treachery.
Congress still manages to bank roll its election with all illegitimate money it acquired for last 46 years.
Swiss govt. still refuses to disclose Sonia and Rajeev accounts in Zurich and Logano.
Same entity Sonia Manio, is dreaming for highest post of India. Can we trust our defense or country interest to such entity?
This investigation turnout to be more expensive them the bribe amount but it is a lesson for future dealing. One should not ignore and all culprits should be punished.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The clout of Sonia Gandhi is so pervasive that recently one judge had
cleared Rajiv of Bofors bribe and reportedly that judge's name was
found in the panel for appointment by the Congress government of
Delhi after his retirement<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Recently, same shady deals of Cong-I with Iraq were also in media.
Sonia is a main link and she should answer under oath.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->More important, if anyone can summarize it as 'that' document on Shakti was summarized (does anyone have a copy of it).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont want to digress but for the benefit of newcomers here is the critical look document on the Shakti tests in Pokhran
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>A Critical Look at India's Nuclear Critics</span>
Last-Modified: June 9, 1998
Awards Won Disclaimers - A Must Read
Introduction
I received this article by email. Not sure who is the author of this article. It is a long but well written article. Take time to read it, it is time well spent. Please do pass it on to others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After India exploded 5 nuclear devices, a lively debate has been started in India (and elsewhere) on issues like nuclear testing, CTBT, economic consequences etc. However, after weeks of incessant talk shows and columns on these topics, it is becoming apparent that the debate is being led by technically uninformed loud mouths whose sole qualification may be `peace activist' or `environmental crusader'. Even the tag `scientist' is meaningless if he/she doesn't know the technical details of CTBT, NPT, subcritical tests or fourth generation nukes. Worse, the political personalities are not technically well informed enough to counter this set and sometimes even second their opinions if it suits them politically. After the Pakistan tests, decibel levels shot up further.
While this reflects very well on the freedom of expression enjoyed in our society, it does place a certain responsibility on those better informed to raise the level of public awareness.
A regular feature of most debates seem to be a set of rhetorical questions whose answers are taken to be evident. Sadly, they are evident one way for the unwary and another way for the well informed, and therein lies the danger. Just as a lie if repeated often may become the truth, a falsehood not contradicted long enough may also become the truth. This article is an attempt to answer some of these questions. The first part is structured as Question-Answer. Inevitably, some answers need to address fairly technical issues or require elaboration. In order to maintain continuity, these technical issues/elaborations have been clubbed together under `Part-II Technical Issues'. The Question-Answer section contains many references to this section (as [See This Topic]) but the reader may skip them on the first pass. The issues discussed here are more technical rather than political / social. The author believes that only after the technical nuances have been mastered can the latter issues be meaningfully dealt with.
Part-I Frequently Asked Rhetorical Questions
Questions: Why now? What has changed so dramatically? Why not wait longer? Implied Ans: We could have waited forever. We tested because we are crazy.
Real Answer: First of all it must be appreciated that there does not always have to be a single reason for everything. In this case, there were at least two.
Security issue: (a)Pakistan - Its ability to hit deep into India is certainly a new dramatic development. (b)China - Here the change has been more gradual. Given their continued testing since 1964, they have been improving their nukes. The gap between India and China has been widening steadily. At some point a correction had to be applied. The fact that we have survived so far is no reason not to test, but a reason not to push our luck any further. After all, if we live to be 35 years old we do not say, "Hey! I've survived so far, so why get life insurance now?". [See China and its Neighbors]
CTBT issue:
What will CTBT do?
CTBT aims to ban certain types of nuclear tests, while allowing certain other types [See CTBT: technical specs]. Significantly, but NOT coincidentally, it means that if you have conducted enough tests already, you can keep making more and better n-bombs but if you have not done any tests so far then you can never make a USEFUL bomb. [See US and CTBT]
But did we not refuse to sign it in 1996 Geneva? So why not continue with our policy of `option is open'?
At the time of the Geneva conference it was stated that the conference will have to UNANIMOUSLY agree to the CTBT draft and that CTBT would come into force if all 44 countries with nuclear (weapons or reactor) technology ratify it. Subsequent developments [See CTBT and UN] indicate that CTBT may have been enforced without unanimous approval, possibly by a General Assembly vote in 1999. Instead of just *US aid* sanctions, we could then face *UN trade* sanctions like Iraq, if we ever had to test post UN CTBT enactment.
Why is it not mentioned?
This is a major reason for testing now, but is understated in public for two reasons: (1) It means taking on the Big-5 rather than little Pakistan and (2) It requires making very technical rather than emotional arguments and consequently requires significantly more (long term) effort. But if we scientists want India to be a nuclear power, we MUST put in that effort towards educating our public and politicians.
Note that after an initial phase of Pak bashing, India has finally stated unambiguously that Pak alone was not the reason for invoking the N option. The basic asymmetry and long term dangers inherent in NPT and CTBT would have made these tests necessary, with or without a nuclear Pakistan.
Questions: What have we achieved by these tests? Hadn't we already proved ourselves in 1974? Are we any safer now?
Implied Answer: Nothing but trouble. Yes. No.
Real Answer: What we achieved now (that we hadn't in '74)
We have demonstrated that we have Usable n-devices. A device too heavy for us to transport out of our country would not deter anyone!
Over the years, the role of tests have changed dramatically. It used to be that a test verified a bomb design. Subsequently, tests were conducted to verify design tools for making n-bombs, i.e., tests have gone from being consumer goods to capital goods!! This calls for a drastic re-evaluation of our old concepts. The cost we are paying for the tests is not for 5 bombs but our *ability* to make them in future. Consequently, if we had not tested before Sept 1999 [See CTBT and UN], then we would have committed all our future generations to enforced nuclear disarmament in a world full of nuclear weapons/threats (See question on disarmament). Surely a nation that has watched Mahabharat should realize the danger of making such tall promises/commitments on behalf of future generations & situations!
The safety factor
Arms race: See the question on peace and arms race below.
Deterrence: It is well said that the generals (and the public) are always preparing for the last war. (Not last as in Armageddon, but last as in the most recent one!) This is evident even now during our debates which are fixated on the utility/futility of the H-bomb. Yes, the H bomb is seldom an option. From this the unsuspecting pacifists concluded that n-bombs are useless. The NATO/US generals, unfortunately, concluded otherwise. They simply demanded smaller, and hence more usable, n-bombs. The nuclear threat in future will not be that Calcutta may get wiped out but that our armored corps may get wiped out by a few nuclear artillery shells. Not only is this scenario more likely, it is utterly lacking in the `world will stand by us' safety factor. No civilian casualties, limited battlefield radiation. Certainly not a `crime against humanity' which would bother the international community beyond expressing grave concern.
In the recent tests we have shown that we are also in the reckoning for these `designer nukes'. This deterrence was UTTERLY lacking in the '74 test. In layman terms, making these small bombs is more difficult than making big bombs just as making a wristwatch TV is than a 14in TV. [See Types of Nukes]
India-Pak: The international loud mouths would have you believe that deterrence requires rationality and does not apply to Indo-Pak. The reality is starkly, and awkwardly, different. Within days of both India and Pakistan going nuclear, the following doctrines emerged:
India will not use a first strike and
Pakistan reserves the right to first strike and will exercise it if any of their cities is about to fall. Both doctrines are reasonable and SAFE. There is no talk of launching an all out attack if satellites/radars detect a launch from the other side, the kind of error prone hair-trigger deterrence practised by the `rational' powers. Given Pak deterrence, Indians can stop dreaming about crossing over with massed tanks and besieging Lahore. Given Indian depth and range, Pak can forget about getting away with a first strike. So now we can return to our low intensity conflicts without the threat of escalation. The real incentive to solve the Kashmir issue comes not from the threat of nuclear war but precisely because such open warfare is now ruled out as a solution.
Question: Hasn't India destroyed NPT/CTBT and drive towards N disarmament? Can disarmament take place now?
Implied answer: It has, and for that we should be ashamed. Little hope for disarmament now, thanks to India
Real Answer: Yes, we did deal a body blow to NPT and CTBT. And that is all. We have not dealt a body blow to disarmament because it was never there to begin with. What were NPT and CTBT trying to achieve? They were eliminating hypothetical nuclear weapons only - the few crude devices that `rogue' states may have produced. In return for this, NPT gave legitimacy to the 5 nuclear weapons states (NWS) to stay nuclear forever. That means [See Number of Nukes] NPT legitimized over 35,000 *actual* nuclear warheads while eliminating a hundred *hypothetical* warheads. CTBT was even worse. It was aimed at letting these same NWS develop `fourth generation' warheads, which are far more USABLE [See Types of Nukes] and in return it would have eliminated the same phantom warheads as NPT. NPT and CTBT were instruments of surrender rather than treaties.
Does disarmament stand a chance now? I believe the answer is YES. More so now than before! Consider this: there were three types of weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, chemical and biological. The world quickly agreed to ban the last two and concrete steps have been taken in that direction. So why not nuclear? All the talk of `verification reliability' applies to all three types, so that can't be the real reason. I believe the real reason was the perception that ANYBODY could make chemical / biological bombs. They were low technology (poor man's nuke, they called it) options that gave no advantage to the big guys. So they were banned. Nukes were different. Did their development not require a galaxy of brilliant people like Oppenhiemer, Feynman, Teller? That hi-tech image has stuck, along with the associated perceived strategic advantage. The US has openly stated that the utility of CTBT to US lies in CTBT's ability to freeze that advantage [See US and CTBT]. Given the license to N arms ALREADY granted by NPT to the Big-5, if CTBT was allowed to also assure a monopoly then there would have been absolutely no incentive to disarm. SALT treaties would reduce the bloated stocks for US and Russia, but no NWS has ever committed to total elimination. Now, with India forcing the NWS to face a world sans CTBT-assured nuclear monopoly, their assessment might change. An advantage based on sophisticated (and costly) convention weapons may be deemed more sustainable than nukes if nukes are perceived as giving too many `small' countries a viable deterrence. This won't assure peace, but for what its worth, the world may be rid of nukes.
Questions: Won't these tests start an arms race and hamper peace in the region?
Implied answer: Of course they will. There goes the neighborhood!
Real Answer: Just because it is said on BBC/CNN, it doesn't have to be true.
Arms race: This term has come to be used indiscriminately. An actual `arms race' can only be sustained between equals. This has happened only once in the nuclear sense, between US & USSR. They both wanted PARITY, never trusted the other and kept racing. It was the desire for PARITY that made the balance unstable till such time as one collapsed out of fatigue. Consider, however, the other nuclear linkages. USSR-UK:France, USSR-China and our own China-India. All these relationships were so asymmetric that the issue was DETERRENCE, not parity; and deterrence does admit stable solutions [See Number of Nukes]. The trouble with this stable order began with Pakistan having a (pre-tested) n-device. Now there was a possible parity with India, ergo there was scope for nuclear/conventional race.
By testing 5 devices of increasing complexity, India has in one stroke restored the asymmetry. Pakistan matched us numerically for show, but not technically or in terms of infrastructure. So we will have a stable asymmetric chain once again, albeit with one more link to it: Russia-China-India-Pakistan. Moreover, the stability of this configuration will be guaranteed by the size and technical sophistication of the underlying economies, a far more dependable anchor than international goodwill.
Peace: This will neither help nor hurt the peace prospects. Peace requires a change of mind set, not technology level. Most people easily confuse the means of warfare with the need for warfare and think that peace can be achieved by technological deprivation. Try telling that to Rwandans. Using guns, pistols and usually just machetes, they managed to kill more than 200,000 (Washing- ton Post, 19/5/94) while Hiroshima casualties were estimated at 130,000 (N.Y.Times, 6/8/94: After 40yrs, A Bell Tolls). On the other hand UK and France have been nuclear neighbors and yet enjoyed mutual peace.
Questions: Can we afford nuclear arms? Shouldn't we be spending on food & housing?
Implied Answer: No, nukes are a rich man's toy.
Real Answer: Not so fast, my politically correct friend!
The cost of nukes: This is where one needs to distinguish between the needs of a genuine n-arms race and a stable asymmetric deterrent. The cost of a n-arms race is, of course, open ended and prohibitive. The loser goes bankrupt and the winner goes into debt. However, it is not clear what the `nuclear' part has to do with it. The same sorry results can be guaranteed with jets/tanks/carriers. Like paying $600,000,000 for 28 F16's sitting in Arizona. It would appear that so long as there is a `race', its bad news.
So we come now to the cost of maintaining asymmetric nuclear deterrence. It turns out that if one does have a big enemy, then it is cheaper to use a nuclear deterrence than a conventional one. This conclusion was arrived at by Trueman (President) and Dean Acheson (Sec of State) in '51. [See Bang for the Buck]. The US is rich, but rest assured they count their pennies. (Where their projections went haywire is in failing to stop at deterrence and sliding into a race.) So now we have the worlds richest nation
using nukes because it cannot afford the alternatives and
urging poorer countries not to use nukes.
The lesson to be learned from US-USSR is that we SHOULD seek a nuclear deterrence w.r.t. China but NOT seek parity. And if Pakistan tries for parity rather than deterrence, its their economic funeral - not ours. No economy 1/7th our size can sustain parity with us in the long run.
Economic sanctions: As mentioned before, these are all *aid* sanctions, not trade sanctions. Even for these cosmetic acts, there was no consensus among G-8 countries. Since the impact (or lack thereof) of these sanctions will play itself out on the world stage, history itself will make clear the `price' India has paid for the N tests. Not signing CTBT may have attracted similar sanctions [See CTBT and UN].
Nukes vs social spending: In order to make this case, one would have to substantiate a number of other claims first. Detailed budget figures are hard to get but one must have certain standards in deductive reasoning.
It would need to be shown that the dominant reason for our underdevelopment is lack of funds rather than mismanagement.
The sums involved must make sense, i.e., it should not be that money saved by cutting our entire nuclear weapons program increases our social sector spending by a fraction. Right now we spend 3% of our GDP on defense. The bulk of even that 3% goes into salaries. If delaying our nuclear prog. by 5 yrs would ensure that by 2003 we would be rich (or at least without poverty), it would have been worth it. Consider, however, that we have already delayed it by 25 yrs and we are still not rich - just poor and non-nuclear.
One must be consistent in applying this argument. ALL `non-essential' expenditure must be likewise cut. For e.g., tenured positions for talking heads, all of arts and culture, astronomy, pure science, exotic accelerators, all leisure activity, foreign trips, boutiques, fashions...
All things being equal, one should pay more attention to economic development rather than defence. This, however, assumes two things.
minimum current defence requirements have been taken care of and
changes to defence needs can be met as and when necessary. Our present troubles arise because of (ii).
With NPT, CTBT and FMCT regimes, we are faced with an immediate deadline for developing our defences. So far, thankfully, there have been no attempts to place a cut off date for economic development. We can get nuclear today and rich tomorrow but not rich today and nuclear tomorrow. If we want a future for India where she is well off and strong, then the present exercise of N option was inevitable.
PART II: Technical Details, Elaborations and References
Types of Nukes:
Fission device - Popularly called Atom bomb. Two or more subcritical masses of a radioactive material are suddenly brought together. A run away chain reaction ensues releasing lots of energy. Yield is determined by how much fission takes place before the blast dissipates the rest of the material into subcritical aggregates. Since chain reaction is involved, CTBT bans testing of such devices
Fusion device - Popularly called H-bomb. A fission device is used to start a fusion reaction in tritium (isotope of hydrogen). Again, the challenge is to make it all happen before the bomb destroys itself. Yields from H-bombs are much higher than from A-bombs. Since a fission device is used as a trigger, testing of such devices will be banned by CTBT.
Subcritical devices - The latest fad. A subcritical mass of radioactive material is made to fission due to fast neutrons produced by some other radioactive material. A self sustaining chain reaction is neither required nor produced though yields can reach hundreds of tons. CTBT will NOT ban such tests. NWS have asserted their determination to continue developing such nuclear devices.
Pure fusion devices - The fission trigger is to be replaced by chemical explosives. Since the fusion of tritium is not a chain reaction, even these very high yield devices can be tested under CTBT. Of course, for these tests to go anywhere, scientists must have some prior data about tritium fusion. Since this can only be done through testing conventional fusion devices, only countries that have already conducted sufficient tests can benefit from this CTBT loophole!
Usable nuclear device - It is relatively easy to build a very large (in terms of the weight of the device) nuclear device that successfully explodes. To be called a weapon, it must be small enough to be transported (accurately) to the target. It is this miniaturization that makes testing necessary [See US and CTBT] even for fission devices.
Since large bombs are an overkill in most cases, the drive has been towards smaller bombs of less yield. Boosted fission devices and other "fourth generation" bombs are the result. A source of fast neutrons, other than the nuclear fuel itself, is used to cause fission in the nuclear fuel [See CTBT: technical specs]. The high yield bombs served two purposes.
It enabled one to threaten mass destruction of the enemy
It enabled one to use missiles with large terminal errors. Even if the missile missed by 5 miles it was OK, since anything within 10 miles would be wiped out any way. Those who now look down on some states for following the first doctrine conveniently forget that they would have achieved just the same effect even while fighting a `propah, military targets only' war by the second doctrine.
Now that missiles have become MUCH more accurate, low yield devices can be used with them. This will reduce the political fallout and mass destruction of civilians. This now gives NWS the option of using nuclear weapons in Third World conflicts.
CTBT - Technical specs:
Reference - Los Alamos Study Group
The treaty bars all signatories from conducting all nuclear tests that involve any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion. Exactly what "nuclear explosions" are prohibited will be determined by parties to the CTBT, and possibly the International Court of Justice, on the basis of the treaty text, the (sparse) negotiating record, and the future practice of all states parties, including their statements at review conferences. As with NPT, the nuclear weapon states (NWS) have inserted escape clauses for themselves. The NWS have stated that the treaty bars explosions involving a self-sustaining chain reaction. Accordingly, they claim, subcritical tests are permitted though they involve the production of neutrons by fissile materials. However, such tests involve a nuclear "explosion" though a chain reaction does not occur. It remains to be determined whether the CTBT bars tests of possible "fourth-generation" weapons in which fissile material is "burned", without a chain reaction, at a rapid rate resulting in yields of tens or 100s of tons.
CTBT and UN:
After India's categorical refusal to sign the CTBT draft in Geneva, there have been several indications that efforts would be made to by-pass or coerce India.
Extract from the Los Alamos Study Group:
The NWS could ratify the CTBT and then seek to persuade/coerce India to endorse the treaty. This appears to be the present US strategy.
More direct indications come from the Special briefing on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Washington, DC, April 7, 1998. John Holum, Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms, while answering a query on the future of CTBT had this to say:
QUESTION: Back on the CTBT, you spoke earlier about a review conference in September 1999, if you can't get all 44 countries to ratify the treaty. Assuming that conference becomes necessary, what specific options are available at that time to bring the treaty into force? My understanding is that the conference would not be able to waive the original requirements stating that all 44 countries would have to ratify it. What is the current thinking about what measures could be taken to accelerate the ratification conference if that becomes necessary?
ACTING UNDER SECRETARY HOLUM: "You're getting a little ahead of the game, I think, because we need to ratify first before we can even go. So if we're not going, it won't be fruitful to develop a strategy.
"One thing that such a conference would do is presumably talk about a political strategy. The test ban, as most of you probably know, takes 44 specifically named countries before it can enter into force; 41 of those 44 have signed the treaty, and we expect they'll ratify. Three - India, Pakistan and North Korea - have not signed, and I'm sure an intense focus of the conference, assuming the other 41 have ratified by then, will be, what is the right political strategy to engage the other three, to bring them on board?
"Some people have suggested that the countries who are present there could make a decision to adopt a different test ban treaty. They couldn't amend this one, but they could adopt on their own a test ban treaty that would have all the same provisions but a different entry into force provision. That's a theoretical possibility, I suppose. Or they could decide on provisional application. I think any of those kinds of options would be very difficult to pursue because the entry into force provisions of the treaty were the product of very intense negotiations and they wouldn't be likely adjusted by countries that presumably will have ratified by then. Certainly, the two who ratified last week, who have just ratified - the UK and France - have strong views on that question."
End quote.
It is telling that just about every possibility was discussed save that of accommodating India's concern!
US and CTBT:
The CTBT, when originally proposed, would have led to (forced) nuclear disarmament. At that time not enough was known to either design new weapons or verify safety of old weapons without explosive testing. That is when the NWS opposed CTBT. Subsequently a technological threshold was breached whereby, if one had sufficient data, there would be no more need for testing. Tests were now purely the requirement of nuclear aspirants. Suddenly the NWS were gung-ho on CTBT. Even then, France and China had to scramble up the technological ladder at the last minute with their 1996 tests. Once again, we turn to Holum (see above) for a clear exposition of the US perspective. (Note: The quotes from Holum only do not imply that the other NWS were any less cynical. It is just that the US is more open.)
"...I want to underscore here the importance of ratifying this treaty for one of our most important international security challenges, and that's to intercept and prevent the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to more countries."
"...You can make a nuclear weapon without testing, but it's a much bigger challenge, much more difficult to make weapons of small enough size to be of great danger to us. We had to dig a trench under a B-29 bomber to put our first nuclear weapons on board. Without testing, it's an insurmountable challenge, virtually, to get them down to the sizes and weights that would be of particular danger to us."
"...So then the argument becomes, well, if we're not going to test anyway, why not hold the rest of the world to the same standards?"
Now for a final quote, which I think takes the cake. Having just testified that the US would not be inconvenienced by CTBT anymore since it no longer needed explosive tests, Holum gives the following `ethical' reason for the US signing CTBT:
"... Remember that the non-nuclear weapons states have considered, since the time the Non-Proliferation Treaty was negotiated in the 1960s, that part of the bargain was an agreement on the part of the nuclear weapons states to engage in good-faith efforts towards disarmament; and the Test-Ban Treaty was specifically mentioned at the time in the late 1960s as part of the bargain. So, in order for us to make our case effectively for non-proliferation, we need to hold up our end of the bargain; and the test ban is part of it."
Number of Nukes: (Time magazine May 25, 1998)
Known
US 12,070
Russia 22,500
UK 380
France 500
China 450
Presumed [These are just guesses and have no official sanctity]
India about 65
Isreal 64-112
Pakistan 15-25
As the numbers show, only US-Russia were in a `race'. The rest were content with just deterrence. It also shows that US-Russia SALT talks are about removing redundancy, not renouncing N weapons.
Bang for the Buck:
Reference: http://h-net2.msu.edu/~diplo/reGardner.htm
The following is an extract from the above source.
In his State of the Union message, January 7, 1954, Eisenhower's two leading defense planning considerations dealt with the new nuclear weapons technology.
"First, while determined to use atomic power to serve the usages of peace, we take into full account our great and growing number of nuclear weapons and the most effective means of using them against an aggressor ... [including] the tactical use of our nuclear weapons .... Second, the usefulness of these new weapons creates new relationships between men and materials. These new relationships permit economies in the use of men as we build forces suited to our situation in the world today ...." (p. 5, _DAFR_, 1954)
In sum,
significant planning for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Western Europe by the U.S., and thus, NATO was underway by 1951,
Eisenhower supported this approach from the moment he was first informed of its possibilities and,
the features most appealing to Eisenhower were the ability to `get more bang for the buck' -- ,i.e., more than he could get from comparable conventional weapons, and the possibility to save the lives of his troops -- men he had spent his entire career protecting.
China and its Neighbors:
Much is said about the recent reduction of tension with China. Much less is said about its past track record of hostilities following such `friendship' as discovered by India('62), USSR('69) and Vietnam('79). Further, while USSR and even tiny Vietnam held their own, India was routed. These lessons of history seem lost on our die-hard China apologists. Recent events in Taiwan and Spratleys also indicate that while friendship with China is desirable, keeping one's guard up is also essential. Contrast the flippancy with which many Indians dismiss the Chinese threat (`It happened 35 yrs ago') with the pragmatism with which US has dealt with Japan & Germany. Even though they were *defeated*, more than 50 yrs ago, they are still denied their own military/armament build-up. If defeated, and *politically reformed* Japan and Germany are still suspect, shouldn't we be wary of an undefeated and unreformed China that is getting stronger by the day?
Back to nuclear page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guestbook: Add View
You can reach me at mahesh@mahesh.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This page has been accessed times since June 15, 1998.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Page | Personal | India | Long Distance Links | Immigration | Internet
Search www.mahesh.com
Copyright © B.G. Mahesh
<b>Bofors: she has to protect 'Q', he will not protect her otherwise</b>
S Gurumurthy
www.newindpress.com/column/Column.asp?ID=IE620040412083932&P=old&By=S+Gurumurthy
The Bofors scandal is back on front pages. For many it is an old issue. But for those who were in schools in April 1987 when Bofors expose started, it may be altogether new. They need to know some history.
The Bofors pay off charge surfaced through the Swedish radio broadcast in April 1987. The radio had said that to secure the contract for supply of guns to the India the Swedish gun company, Bofors, had paid bribes to Indian politicians and officials. This expose' came close on the heels of two other exposes, the Fairfax investigation and the HDW pay off charge pointing to the involvement of Gandhi family in financial scandals. In just under a month the Bofors scandal had the Rajiv Gandhi government with a historic majority of 406 members in the 540 member Lok Sabha fighting for survival.
Rajiv Gandhi never recovered from the Bofors charge. Neither did the Congress. The issue eventually unseated Rajiv Gandhi in the 1989 elections. When he was elected in 1984 with a majority that bettered Nehru's and Indira Gandhi's, many thought he had been elected to rule India for the next 25 years. But Bofors case changed the Congress-centric politics of India.
<b>Initiated during VP Singh's regime, the Bofors case was never pursued honestly till the NDA came to power, with the Chandrasekhar, Narasimha Rao, Devegowda and Gujral governments actually stifling the case for almost a decade</b>. The Vajpayee government finally, but hesitantly, filed prosecution against Rajiv Gandhi and others. Since then the case is going back and forth in courts.
The Bofors bribery issue tormented Rajiv Gandhi to no end. When evidence mounted against him and his family, Rajiv Gandhi was forced into humiliation to defend himself. He had to tell the parliament in 1989 that neither he was involved in the pay off, nor his family members. Even this humiliating denial did not bring the scandal to a close. Actually Rajiv's denial was soon perceived as a lie. Further investigations by the press first and later by<b> the CBI clearly pointed to the involvement of the family through Sonia's close friend, Ottavio Quattrocchi. No one disputed Quattrocchi's closeness to Sonia. He was with Sonia and Rajiv on every holiday they had had as a family including the famous Lakshadweep holiday in 1986.</b>
<b>Who is this gentleman, Quattrrochhi? First, he is an Italian. Next he landed in India virtually as part of the Sonia's stridhan to the Gandhi family. Third he represented Snamprogetti, an Italian group. During the 1970s and 1980s he had swung many a deal from India for Snam. Many Indian civil servants used to feel uncomfortable at his sight. He was not just a power broker, but a power himself.</b>
<b>Before a Parliament committee a senior civil servant had to confess that government contracts were awarded to Snamprogetti, which Quattrocchi represented, for 'superior extra-technical reasons'! Poor man, an honest Tamilian, lost his turn to become the cabinet secretary. This was when Indira Gandhi was in power. So Quattrochhi has a history of association with the Gandhi-Sonia family long before Rajiv became Prime Minister and Sonia entered politics.</b>
<b>No one can dispute, not even Sonia, that Quattrrochi received $ 7.1 millions from Bofors for swinging the $1.2 billion gun deal for the Swedish gun maker, Bofors. This is how he achieved it. The Indian government was testing the suitability of guns from different countries over years, but would not decide. Suddenly, AE Services, a shell company, told Bofors in October 1985, 'Come, let us have a deal. We will get the gun contract for you by March 31st 1986. If we do it give us 3% commission. Otherwise you need not pay'</b>.
On these terms Bofors and AE Services entered into a contract on October 15, 1985. Who could give this kind of commitment, not just the commitment to get the gun contract, but also assure it would be done within a certain date? Only the man who can decide. Or the man who can get the decision maker to decide. Precisely as AE Services had promised to Bofors, the Indian government gave the gun contract to Bofors on March 22, 1986, seven days ahead of the schedule committed by AE Services. It is now proved that out of the first tranche of commission of $.7.3 millions paid to AE Services $7.1 millions finally went to Quattrrochhi. Most of the sum now remains frozen in the accounts held in Quoattrochhi's name in England, by the order of the British government. In 1993, on the Swedish government passing on the secret bank documents, Quattrrocchi ran away from India and turned a fugitive in Malaysia. Sonia's heart bled for him.
<b>The total commission involved is 3% of $1.2 billions, that is, $36 millions, equal to approximately Rs 160 crores today. Having got this kind of money to Quattrrochhi, Sonia still remains in the middle class range economy, declares for herself a moderate wealth of just Rs 72 lakhs, including an ancestral house in Italy, her stridhan property, valued at Rs 10 lakhs!</b>
After remaining dormant for a while, the Bofors pay off is now back on the national stage again. The man who has brought the issue in to focus now is Sten Lindstorm, the Swedish police investigator who first conducted the investigation into the pay off as the head of the Swedish Audit Bureau. He has said that Sonia needs to be questioned on the pay off.
The diary of Martin Ardbo, CEO of Bofors at the time Bofors won the gun contract by bribe, showed entries which clearly pointed to the involvement of not just Quattrrochhi, but also Rajiv Gandhi. Ardbo had written about 'meeting Gandhi Trust lawyer'. He had also written about the need to protect 'Q', obviously Quattrochhi, to save 'G', obviously Rajiv Gandhi. He was keen to protect 'Gandhi' at all costs.
He had written all this in his diary after the Swedish radio expose and after investigations by the Swedish government had started. Now Sten Lindstorm has penned an article in Asian Age insisting that Quattrrocchi is involved and saying that the relations between Quattrrochhi and Sonia should be investigated and Sonia should be asked to testify. Lindstorm's article which expands on what he had told this websiteâs newspaper in the year 1998 has brought the issue back on the stage.
Now, madam Sonia needs to talk. Particularly as she had defended the very culprit who is proved to have taken the bribe after having delivered the guaranteed performance of getting the gun contract to Bofors by March 31, 1986 on March 21st itself, that is with ten days to spare! Yes he has taken the bribe. The issue is, on behalf of who?
Yet as recently as 1999 Sonia defended Quattrocchi who had run away from India to Malaysia. Narasimha Rao who just closed his eyes to enable his escape. She defended him even after the Swiss court once, Delhi High court twice and the Supreme Court finally held him part of the Bofor's fraud. She stunningly asked the media to show evidence against Quattrochhi! Yes she has to protect 'Q'. He will not protect her otherwise.
Author's email: comment@gurumurthy.net.
www.hindu.com/thehindu/ho...tector~of~
<b>Govt. agrees to make CVC protector of "whistle blowers" </b>
New Delhi, April 16. (PTI): The Supreme Court was today informed that the Centre has agreed to the suggestion of Solicitor General Kirit Raval, to put in place a guideline making Central Vigilance Commission the authority to protect "brave persons" like Satyendra Dubey who expose corruption.
Raval informed a Bench comprising Justice Ruma Pal and Justice P V Reddi that the Union Government has accepted his proposal and a notification making CVC the sole authority on protection of "whistle blowers" would be enacted before April 26, the next hearing of two PILs on this issue.
The proposed notification would provide for stringent action against those who leak out the name of the person exposing corruption in public life, a deed for which Dubey faced extreme consequences last year.
The proposal said while entertaining those complaints made by persons revealing their identity, the CVC would conduct preliminary investigations into the alleged corruption and if it was of the opinion that either the complainant or the witnesses needed protection, it would issue appropriate directions to the Government authorities.
In his suggestions, Raval had stated that the CVC would be the Designated Agency to receive complaints from Government servants or members of public "on any allegations of corruption or mis-use of office by any employee of the Government of public sector organisations.".
However, he said that the CVC would not entertain any anonymous complaint.
Bofors ko maro goli.
Ther have been many more scams since then, even if we uncover 1% of them major heads have to roll.
Take Telgi scam, is there anybody who wants to bell the cat?
Ideally such scams should come under the jurisdiction of Home Ministry and Finance ministry and Law Ministry.
To think the current crop of BJP leaders are different and less corrupt than Congress is the joke of the year.
This sporadic eruptions about currption of Congress in Bofors Gun deal is like a pimple that shows up on the face once in while. The real STD BJP contracted while getting the power requires more aid(s) and attention before it becomes a much bigger threat.
Spinster, it is the oldest argument in the book that such corruption is widely prevalent and that therefore in the scale of things Bofors was not that big. There are 2 things (maybe more than 2) wrong with such an argument. First, 2 wrongs do not make a right, wherever there is corruption iit is wrong, no matter who commits it and using comparisons to say that is not a big deal,does not help. It is nobody;s contention (at least not mine) that the BJP is lillly white, but one has to specific and discuss each case separately. The second point is that Bofors happened 20 years ago and for the standards of that day it was the biggest scandal , involving the PM himself. There surely is nepotism in india as elsewhere (the Bush family comes to mind), but it is rare even in India to find large scale corruption by Union Cabinet Ministers, although I am sure one can come up with stories going back to TTK and Mundhra. Over a fifty year period , a half a dozen cases does not count as that much ....
<b>Billionaires in poll fray in Punjab </b> <!--emo&:thumbdown--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Jaideep Sarin (IANS)
Chandigarh, April 24
If their assets are anything to go by, candidates in the fray for the parliamentary elections in Punjab could form a billionaires' club!
The mandatory affidavits declaring assets and finances filed by candidates along with their nomination papers has brought to public notice the billionaires among top politicians in Punjab.
With cash, property and assets running into billions of rupees for most candidates, political circles here are buzzing â not with what they have declared, but with what probably has not been revealed.
<b>Former chief minister and Akali Dal chief Parkash Singh Badal's son Sukhbir Badal, contesting from Faridkot, for instance, has declared funds and assets worth over Rs 200 million</b>. <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>His bungalow in Chandigarh is pegged at Rs 25.2 million. However, its market value is estimated to be over Rs 40 million</b>, according to property dealers.
<b>His Orbit Resort, which was valued at Rs 4.5 billion by the state vigilance department during an investigation of corruption charges against him, is missing from the declaration.</b> <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>Though he is seen driving around in swanky cars, as per the declaration he only owns a tractor worth Rs 400,000</b>. <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The list declared by Chief Minister Amarinder Singh's wife includes the Moti Bagh Palace, which is priced at Rs 350 million, and her bank deposits are placed at nearly Rs 2.7 million. <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo--> She is seeking a re-election from Patiala.
Cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu contesting from Amritsar on Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ticket has declared assets and cash worth over Rs <b>61.6 million, apart from three luxury cars</b>. <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>Federal minister SS Dhindsa, contesting from Sangrur on an Akali Dal-BJP ticket, has declared bank deposits worth over Rs 1.45 million. His grossly undervalued property is placed at Rs 7.2 million</b>. <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Arvind Khanna, contesting on the <b>Congress ticket, has declared two Benz, Rs 2 million cash and jewellery worth Rs 1.1 million.</b> He also owns a commercial plot in Mehrauli near New Delhi.
<b>Former prime minister IK Gujral's son Naresh Gujral, contesting from Jalandhar on an Akali Dal-BJP ticket, has declared cash and assets worth Rs 230 million. He also owns two imported cars.</b> <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo-->
|
