Swedish national daily 'Dagens
Nyhetter' Editor-in-Chief Peter Wolodarski was barely eight years old when the
Bofors deal was struck in 1986, the same year that the Swedish Prime Minister
Olof Palme, who wrangled the deal thanks to his friendship with his Indian
counterpart Rajiv Gandhi, was killed.
By the time he was 12, Wolodarski
was a journalist. Or so, the Wikipedia page on him claims. This prodigal
journalist was probably touring India for the first time, but he was
certainly interviewing the President of India for the first time. And,
certainly, for the last time.
If at all, the interview illustrates
his unexplained cynicism and a puerile attempt at portraying the President as a
political person, on the eve of the latter’s visit to Sweden
– the first by an Indian President. Believe me, this person wouldn’t last a week
in an Indian newspaper! Can you imagine him asking Mukherjee what he thinks of
Putin!
My brief on Wolodarski’s
subjectivities will remain unjustified till I quote from a portion of his
article where he trying to make the Swedes understand Mukherjee. He
writes:
“Pranab Mukherjee is the opposite
(to PM Narendra Modi): he is a veteran of the Congress Party, which dominated
Indian politics, and which Olof Palme’s Social Democrats had close cooperation
with. President Mukherjee has belonged to the country’s political elite since
Indira Gandhi’s days. Since the early 1970s, he has occupied just about every
governmental position that one can imagine – except for one, Prime Minister. But
for the Nehru-Gandhi family’s total dominance in the post-war India,
Mukherjee might have also managed to lead the
government.
Instead, he became president three
years ago, a role that is essentially ceremonial.”
Even a primary school student would
say, correctly, that Wolodarski, came to the interview with a premeditated
political mind.
He then asks Mukherjee what “he
hopes to achieve” in Sweden. The President says, “to
strengthen the relationship”. He mentions several areas, but certainly, and
specifically, not defence.
Yet, Wolodarski thinks he has
reached a right point in his article to recall the Bofors scandal, gives a brief
summary and writes:
“In New Delhi, we are skilfully assured that “The
Bofors ghost” is buried, and perhaps that change in particular has contributed
to the state visit.
I didn’t plan on taking up the old
armaments corruption scandals, but rather on asking a question about how new
Bofors affairs with the accompanying corruption can be avoided, especially if
trade between Sweden and
India is to
increase.”
Then, he
notes:
“At this point, President Mukherjee
becomes animated:
- First of all - it is yet to be to
be established that there was a scandal. No Indian court has established it, he
reminds us.
- I was the defence minister of the
country long after Bofors, and all my generals certified that this is one of the
best guns we are having. Till today, Indian army is using
it.
- The so-called scandal which you
talk of, yes, in the media, it was there. There was a media trial. But I’m
afraid, let us not be too much carried by
publicity.
So it was a media
scandal? (this is the
sub-heading)
-I do not know. I’m not describing
it, you’re putting that word. Don’t put that word. What I am saying is that in
media it was publicised. But up to now, no Indian court has given any decisive
verdict about the alleged scandal.”
Wolodarski does not explain what
exactly led to Mukherjee becoming “animated” with reference to Bofors. And the
President’s wouldn’t tell, would he?
His remarks were bound to attract
attention from the very Indian media which probably faced the stiffest silence
from the country’s political leadership – read primarily as the Congress
leadership -- in its attempts all these years to unravel the final truth about
the Bofors scandal.
The issue trended in the social
media platforms as well. But no one was willing to say what he or she truly
felt, no one willing to share any ounce of information he or she still possessed
or had access to. They had the right excuse this time – how can one comment on
what the First Citizen of this country said?
But why did Mukherjee say what he
said? The utterance is such that it lacks the sophistication of an innocent
remark. I do not want to disrespect the President in any manner, but that is the
sense I get.
We are a democracy, we have an
independent media, and short of imputing motives we have the right to ask:
1.Was it a redemption of a political
debt to the first family of the Congress?
2.Would his silence to the question
have been more meaningful?
3.Is it believable that Bofors was
only a media trial and there was nothing more to
it?
4.Was that an attempt to re-write
history and if so, whose?
Having said that, to be fair to the
President, should he have instead said, yes, it was a scandal? Would that have
enriched the image of his and the country’s stature on the eve of his visit to
Sweden? No. It would have ended up
embroiling the President’s Office in a scandal. It would have led to an
embarrassing moment in Indo-Swedish relations. When asked a direct question, I
do not think the President had much room to maneouvre to avoid saying anything
that could be construed as inappropriate and politically incorrect. His
statement does not take away even an inch from the Indian media its insistent
efforts to bring the Bofors culprits to book howsoever high they might have
been. I don’t think no journalist is seriously hurt by the use of the phrase,
“media trial”. That’s the media’s bread and butter!
The world has moved on. India
revoked the Bofors blacklisting when there was a sudden demand for the gun’s
spare parts during the Kargil war. Since, AB Bofors has changed owners so many
times it’s quite complex to recall here. Most of the dramatis personae of the
scandal are dead. The Swedes are desperate for defence ties with India,
what with their companies bound to get their balance sheets hurt if they don’t
get a part of the big Indian defence slice. No wonder that they vociferously
support the Make In India campaign – so long as they get the contracts to help
Indian companies set up defence manufacture in India.
Recall the Sweden India Nobel Memorial Week, which began to focus on Nobel Peace
Laureate Kailash Vidyarthi themed on “Sweden Made in India: Co-creating the Future”, organized by the
Swedish embassy in India. Sweden
expects a big fillip to trade tries following Mukherjee’s visit and they are
leaving no stone unturned to make the visit memorable. In spite of Wolodarski.
Parting
nuggets:
- The most famous
of the many owners of Bofors was none
other than Alfred Nobel, who owned it
from 1894 until his death two years later. The credit of turning Bofors from an iron and steel
producer to manufacturer of cannons.
- Three members of
the same family, all of whom became PMs of India, went to Sweden,
within a gap of nearly 15 from each other! Nehru in 1957, Indira Gandhi in 1972
and Rajiv Gandhi in 1986 and 1988.
- “Kroners for
Cronies” was the phrase – alluding to the friendship between Rajiv Gandhi and
Olof Palme – that rang through the world media in the early days after two
Swedish Radio reporters first talked about the scandal in their bulletin on the
morning of April 16, 1987.
- VP Singh came to
power by campaigning against the scandal – his references to the Lotus account,
his popular act of taking a small calculator out of his pocket to tell crowds in
1989 that it contained the Swiss Bank account number – but did nothing to solve
the kickbacks mystery.
- George Fernandes
talked about exposing the kickbacks accounts and Ram Jethmalani asked Rajiv
Gandhi 10 questions a day, but nothing happened when they became defence
minister and law minister, respectively, in the Vajpayee government. Jethmalani
would go on to represent the Hinduja brothers win their way out of the courts in
2003.
- One man who made
his mark was an emerging brilliant lawyer, Arun Jaitley. VP Singh appointed him
Additional Solicitor General in 1990 and he pursued the case with great vigour.