Note: This concise article aims to provide a broad overview of significant events across different timelines. It offers general information based on already available data and should not be considered a conclusive analysis of the topic. Readers are encouraged to explore further evidence on this subject for a more comprehensive understanding.
Synopsis
- Introduction
- Gerald Bull’s Expertise
- Iraq Howitzer Deal and Its Cancellation
- Gerald Bull Assassination
- Indira Gandhi’s Strategic Approach
- Indira Gandhi’s Plan to Procure Howitzers
- Initial Artillery Evaluation and the Halted Negotiation
- Rajiv Gandhi and Olof Palme
- Rajiv Gandhi’s Plan to Procure Howitzers
- Bofors Howitzer Deal
- Scandal Broke Before the Guns Fired
- Joint Parliamentary Committee
- V.P.Singh’s Exit
- Amitabh Bachchan’s Resignation
- Arun Nehru and Ayodhya
- Political Chess Game
- Bofors Changed the 1989 Election Outcome
- Formation of the National Front Government
- Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi
- Investigation Angle
- Unanswered Questions in the Assassinations
- Chitra Subramaniam
- Sten Lindstrom and the Swedish Angle
- Bofors Corporation and Swedish Politics
- After the Bofors Scandal
- Vajpayee’s Political Phase
- The Tehelka scandal of the BJP
- The Rafale scandal of the BJP
- Unproven Bofors Allegation
- Conclusion
- Backdrop
- Summary of the Story
- Brief Notes
- References
Introduction
In 1981, under the guidance of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi entered politics by addressing a farmers’ rally organised by the Congress Party. Later that year, he contested the Amethi Lok Sabha by-election and won with a significant vote margin, becoming a Congress representative in Parliament. After the assassination of Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi was chosen as the next Prime Minister to bring fresh blood into the Congress Party and to ensure stability in the party and the Government. He later won the general election and formed a Government with a clear majority.
Focusing on information technology and telecommunications, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, with the support of various domain experts including the well-known technocrat Sam Pitroda, gave priority to modernising India. It would not be incorrect to say that the foundation laid by Rajiv Gandhi is the reason why India stands as a global leader in IT and telecommunications today. He reduced the voting age from 21 to 18, established the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) for distance education, introduced the anti-defection law to prevent elected representatives from switching parties, pushed for the implementation of the Panchayati Raj system to strengthen rural development, and encouraged the expansion of technical education. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Rajiv Gandhi brought in major reforms and technological advancement.
Meanwhile, his tenure was politically turbulent, marked by issues such as the Bofors scandal, conflict with the President, the Sikh issue, the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF), the Bhopal gas tragedy, internal separatist movements, the Shah Bano case, the Ayodhya dispute, intra-party problems, the rise of the BJP and the politics of the third front.
Among these, the Bofors scandal, widely debated in the late 1980s, stirred a major storm in Indian political circles. Caught in the midst of this storm, the Congress Party under Rajiv Gandhi suffered defeat in the 1989 general election. Based on publicly available data, this article attempts to summarise the key points from the Bofors case, which runs into thousands of pages, for the convenience of readers.
Gerald Bull’s Expertise
Gerald Bull, a Canadian weapons scientist and founder of the Space Research Corporation (SRC), lived a life as unpredictable as a character in an espionage novel. He designed weapons for several countries across the world. Notably, in the 1960s, a Swedish defence company developed the “Base Bleed” technology to improve the range and accuracy of artillery shells. This technology was later enhanced by Gerald Bull and used in various artillery systems.
In the late 1970s, Gerald Bull designed the 155 mm artillery gun known as the GC 45, which could reach far greater distances than conventional guns. The design rights for the GC 45 were acquired from Gerald Bull by Noricum, the weapons division of the Austrian company Voestalpine. Modifications were made to the GC 45 design, and the gun was renamed GHN 45.
Iraq Howitzer Deal and Its Cancellation
On 14 June 1980, Yahya El Mashad, an Egyptian scientist leading Saddam Hussein’s nuclear programme, was murdered by unidentified assailants in a hotel room in Paris. Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad was accused of carrying out the assassination.
From 22 September 1980 to 20 August 1988, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was engaged in war with Iran and required large quantities of arms. In the midst of this war, on 7 June 1981, the Israeli Air Force launched a surprise aerial attack under Operation Opera, destroying Iraq’s unfinished nuclear reactor. Given the strained Arab-Israel relations, Israel did not want Saddam Hussein to proceed with building a nuclear facility.
Following the death of Yahya El Mashad and the destruction of the nuclear reactor, Saddam Hussein sought out a weapons scientist, which led to his association with Gerald Bull. Under Bull’s guidance, a deal was signed with the Austrian company Voestalpine to manufacture GHN 45 howitzers for Iraq. These guns were easy to maintain and capable of delivering long-range precision strikes. As part of the deal, 160 howitzers were produced for Iraq.
The howitzer deal signed at the Voestalpine company level triggered serious concern for the Austrian Government. As a result, in 1979, Austrian President Bruno Kreisky, who was of Jewish origin, accused Iraq of violating Austria’s neutrality laws and took immediate steps to cancel the deal. Consequently, the 160 howitzers manufactured for Iraq were left unused and remained in storage.
Gerald Bull Assassination
Unfazed by Austria’s actions, Saddam Hussein remained firm and brought weapons engineer Gerald Bull to work inside Iraq. Following the Israeli airstrike in 1981, Saddam Hussein took steps to protect research facilities from future air raids. In 1988, he shifted nuclear weapons research laboratories underground. There, Gerald Bull engaged in the development of the world’s most advanced supergun, known as Project Babylon, and ballistic missile technology, as per Saddam Hussein’s request.
On 22 March 1990, Gerald Bull, who had maintained a close friendship with Saddam Hussein, was shot dead while entering his Brussels residence. He was shot three times in the back and twice in the head by an unidentified assailant and died on the spot. When the police arrived at the scene, they found the key still in the door and $20,000 in cash untouched in his briefcase. Therefore, the motive was not considered to be robbery. Instead, it was suspected that Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad assassinated Gerald Bull, believing that his weapons research for the Iraqi Government posed a serious threat.
Indira Gandhi’s Strategic Approach
During Indira Gandhi’s tenure as Prime Minister of India, the country’s international standing grew significantly. She played a key role in shaping India’s foreign policy and in establishing India’s presence on the global stage politically, economically and militarily.
Known for building cordial relations with world leaders, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, on the recommendation of Soviet Union leader Leonid Brezhnev, procured Sukhoi Su 7 fighter aircraft manufactured by the Soviet Union. It is notable that these Soviet fighter jets were one of the contributing factors to India’s victory in the 1971 India Pakistan war.
Indira Gandhi’s Plan to Procure Howitzers
In 1977, the United States sold advanced weapons to Pakistan, enough to surpass India’s defence stockpile. In response, after returning as Prime Minister in 1980, Indira Gandhi decided to procure advanced 155 mm howitzers for India. Against this backdrop, Austrian President Bruno Kreisky, a close friend of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, requested her to acquire the 160 howitzers that had been manufactured for Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Along with this, the Austrian Government also offered to provide India with artillery design technology.
Meanwhile, in 1983, Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme wrote a letter to Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, recommending that the opportunity to supply 155 mm howitzers to India be given to the company Bofors. From there, the Bofors chapter in India began.
Initial Artillery Evaluation and the Halted Negotiation
Lieutenant General Krishnaswamy Sundarji conducted a tour of foreign countries and submitted a detailed report in 1982 after studying the artillery systems of four nations. Additionally, under the leadership of Director of Weapons and Equipment, Lieutenant General Mayadas, the Government of India collected further technical details on artillery guns from France’s Sofma (TR F1), Sweden’s Bofors (FH 77 B), the United Kingdom’s International Military Services (FH 70), and Austria’s Voestalpine (GHN 45).
Eventually, in 1984, the companies from France and Austria, Sofma (TR F1) and Voestalpine (GHN 45), were shortlisted for further consideration. However, before India could finalise the artillery deal, Bruno Kreisky stepped down after failing to secure a majority in the 1983 Austrian parliamentary elections. Further, after the assassination of Indira Gandhi on 31 October 1984, the artillery negotiations came to a standstill.
Rajiv Gandhi and Olof Palme
After winning the 1984 Lok Sabha election, Rajiv Gandhi assumed office as Prime Minister on 31 December 1984. On 25 September 1985, he also took charge of the Ministry of Defence. Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, who shared a close friendship with Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, notably attended and delivered a speech at the Indira Gandhi memorial event held in Delhi on 16 January 1986.
In September 1985, ahead of the general election, Sweden’s Social Democratic Party (SSDP) led by Olof Palme was in urgent need of substantial funds. At the same time, Sweden was facing severe economic pressure. As a result, the Swedish arms industry suffered a significant decline. The Bofors company of Sweden had lost several major arms contracts and was facing financial difficulties. In this context, with India planning to procure artillery guns, Bofors decided to pursue the deal through diplomatic channels and move forward with selling the howitzers.
Rajiv Gandhi’s Plan to Procure Howitzers
After the untimely death of Indira Gandhi, who had intended to negotiate with France’s Sofma (TR F1) and Austria’s Voestalpine (GHN 45), a new phase began under Rajiv Gandhi’s leadership in India’s approach to procuring howitzers. This brought renewed interest from Sweden’s Bofors company in securing the artillery deal with India. Following this, Bofors appointed Vin Sethi, founder of Anatronic General Corporation, as its representative to liaise with the Government of India.
With plans to acquire new howitzers, the Indian Government under Rajiv Gandhi accelerated the artillery selection process. The Ministry of Defence announced that it would not engage with agents and that no agents would be permitted to meet Government officials. In a procurement environment historically influenced by intermediaries, this bold policy to eliminate official agents from the process was widely appreciated.
In line with India’s defence procurement policy, the Ministry of Defence directed Bofors to remove its agent. In response, Bofors officially declared that it no longer had any agent in India.
Bofors Howitzer Deal
After receiving tender details from arms manufacturers, the Government of India formed an evaluation committee in 1985 under the leadership of Defence Secretary S.K.Bhatnagar to proceed with the howitzer procurement. The committee removed Austria’s Voestalpine (GHN 45) from the list and shortlisted France’s Sofma (TR F1) and Sweden’s Bofors (FH 77 B). Lieutenant General Krishnaswamy Sundarji, who had preferred the French company in 1984, later took charge as Army Chief in 1986. Amidst delays in the evaluation process, he recommended that the Indian Government choose Sweden’s Bofors on behalf of the Indian Army.
Based on the Army Chief’s recommendation, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, who was directly handling the Defence Ministry, along with Minister of State for Defence Arun Singh and Finance Minister V.P.Singh, approved the selection of Bofors. Subsequently, on 24 March 1986, the Government of India signed an agreement with Swedish arms manufacturer Bofors, supported by the Government of Sweden, to procure around 400 FH 77 B field howitzers for the Indian Army at a cost of Rs 1,437 crore.
On behalf of the Government of India, S.K.Bhatnagar signed the agreement, while Bofors Chairman Martin Ardbo and Nobel Industries Chairman Anders G.Carlberg signed on behalf of the Swedish side. At that time, this was the largest contract ever secured by Bofors and was considered one of the most significant diplomatic defence agreements entered into by India with a foreign company.
Scandal Broke Before the Guns Fired
As per the Bofors agreement, after receiving guarantees from the company, the Government of India paid Rs 296 crore as advance from the total deal amount. One year after the signing of the agreement, on 16 April 1987, Swedish Radio broadcast an allegation by an anonymous source claiming that Bofors had paid bribes to agents to secure the Indian contract, in violation of Swedish law. This anonymous allegation, reported through Swedish Radio, was portrayed as a matter pending in Swedish courts, creating a narrative that was seized upon by Indian media and opposition parties to accuse the Rajiv Gandhi Government.
The investigative articles by Chitra Subramaniam on the Bofors scandal began to shake the political landscape in India. Allegations soon emerged that Rs 64 crore in bribes had been paid by Bofors to various political leaders, top officials and company heads to facilitate the artillery deal. Those named included Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi, Anatronic General Corporation founder Win Chadha, Bofors chairman Martin Ardbo, SPIC chairman A.C.Muthiah, the Hinduja brothers in London, Defence Secretary S.K.Bhatnagar, Additional Secretary N.N.Vohra, Army Chief Krishnaswamy Sundarji, and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.
There were also charges that Bofors had manipulated the tender specifications mid-process. Further, it was alleged that shell companies such as A E Services for Quattrocchi, Svenska Inc for Win Chadha, and Moineao S A and McIntyre Corporation for the Hinduja brothers were used as intermediaries to receive the bribe payments. Following the surfacing of the Bofors scandal, India’s Central Bureau of Investigation sent teams to multiple countries to interrogate individuals and obtain bank records from foreign accounts.
Initially, the Indian Army had considered purchasing artillery guns from France’s Sofma or Austria’s Voestalpine. However, opposition parties in both Sweden and India alleged that Bofors secured the Indian contract by funding Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme’s Social Democratic Party (SSDP), exploiting his friendship with Rajiv Gandhi, and using Ottavio Quattrocchi as a key intermediary.
Media reports began to suggest that the coded names found in Bofors Chairman Martin Ardbo’s diary, such as Q, R, G, P, H, Nero, Gandhi Trustee Lawyer, could be linked to individuals involved in the artillery deal. Based on this, the press began speculating that Q referred to Quattrocchi and Nero referred to Arun Nehru, turning an ordinary personal diary into a subject of sensational reporting.
Martin Ardbo was also alleged to have met Rajiv Gandhi and was reported to be closely associated with godman Chandraswami and Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi. Further accusations claimed that corrupt plans were discussed during a flight journey involving Rajiv Gandhi and Olof Palme.
However, Rajiv Gandhi’s side categorically denied these claims, stating that the reports were entirely baseless and lacked any credible evidence.
Joint Parliamentary Committee
After the Bofors artillery deal corruption scandal erupted in Parliament, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi addressed the House on 20 April 1987 and stated that if anyone provided evidence regarding agents or bribes, the Government would take appropriate action. Responding to the opposition’s demand, and for the first time in Indian political history, Rajiv Gandhi constituted a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to investigate the Bofors scandal.
Accordingly, on 6 August 1987, based on a resolution moved in the House by Defence Minister Krishna Chandra Pant, a JPC was formed under the chairmanship of B.Shankaranand. The JPC conducted around 50 sittings and submitted its final report on 26 April 1988, concluding that no money was paid, received or demanded by Rajiv Gandhi or anyone else in connection with the Bofors deal.
Opposition parties rejected the report, alleging that the JPC was filled with Congress loyalists.
Meanwhile, JPC member Aladi Aruna, who represented the Janaki faction of AIADMK, disagreed with the committee’s findings and requested that her objections be included in the JPC report. Committee chairman B.Shankaranand dismissed this request as baseless interference. However, after being granted permission by Lok Sabha Speaker Balram Jakhar, Aladi Aruna released a separate and lengthy dissent report that sharply differed from the majority view of the JPC.
In 1989, a controversial report was released by Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) T.N.Chaturvedi, stating that the Rajiv Gandhi-led Government had committed irregularities in cost estimation and rushed through the Bofors contract with Sweden.
Following the allegations raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), 73 Members of Parliament from opposition parties resigned on 24 June 1989, demanding Rajiv Gandhi’s resignation and calling for a proper investigation. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Atal Bihari Vajpayee declared, “The 1989 Lok Sabha election campaign has begun, because we believe this is the last chance to bring out the truth.”
Without second-hand verified information, both Vajpayee and L.K.Advani began framing their own narratives about Rajiv Gandhi. BJP also started circulating claims that Sonia Gandhi, wife of Rajiv Gandhi, and Italian national Ottavio Quattrocchi were involved in the Bofors scandal.
V.P.Singh’s Exit
From 31 December 1984 to 23 January 1987, V.P.Singh served as India’s Finance Minister. During his tenure, he worked on simplifying trade regulations, prosecuting tax evaders, and reducing gold duty to curb gold smuggling. He also carried out surprise raids on high-profile individuals such as Dhirubhai Ambani and Amitabh Bachchan in connection with suspected tax violations.
With the support of investigative reports from The Indian Express, the Finance Ministry under V.P.Singh intensified probes against Dhirubhai Ambani. In 1986, in order to investigate alleged violations of foreign exchange regulations by Dhirubhai Ambani and several wealthy Indian businessmen, V.P.Singh, in consultation with Enforcement Directorate chief Bhure Lal and Revenue Secretary Vinod Pande, brought in Michael Hershman, known for investigating the Watergate scandal in the United States and heading the Fairfax Group.
Supporters of Dhirubhai Ambani accused V.P.Singh, Bhure Lal, Vinod Pande, Nusli Wadia (a business rival of Ambani), The Indian Express founder Ramnath Goenka, and their associate S.Gurumurthy of acting in coordination to target Ambani.
Subsequently, following a cabinet reshuffle, V.P.Singh was removed from the Finance Ministry and reassigned as Defence Minister.
On 24 January 1987, Rajiv Gandhi handed over the Defence Ministry portfolio to V.P.Singh. During his tenure as Defence Minister, from 24 January 1987 to 12 April 1987, both the HDW submarine deal and the Bofors matter began gaining media attention. Showing renewed interest in defence matters after leaving the Finance Ministry, V.P.Singh ordered an inquiry into whether bribes had been paid to agents in the HDW submarine deal.
Speculation arose about whether V.P.Singh’s actions were aimed at investigating the contract or at building a case against the Rajiv Gandhi Government itself. Soon after, citing differences with the Government, V.P.Singh resigned from the Cabinet. On 13 April 1987, Krishna Chandra Pant was appointed as the new Defence Minister in his place.
In 1987, after resigning from all his positions as minister, Rajya Sabha member and Congress member, V.P.Singh contested the Allahabad Lok Sabha by-election in 1988, vacated by the resignation of Amitabh Bachchan and entered Parliament as a Jan Morcha candidate after winning the seat.
Later, Michael Hershman, whom V.P.Singh had engaged earlier, alleged that bribe money related to the Bofors deal had been deposited in Swiss bank accounts. Despite having served as Finance Minister at the time when the defence budget was allocated for the Bofors deal, V.P.Singh began campaigning against the Rajiv Gandhi Government, accusing it of corruption in the agreement.
Amitabh Bachchan’s Resignation
In 1984, Amitabh Bachchan retired from acting and entered politics to support his long-time family friend Rajiv Gandhi. In the same year, he contested the Lok Sabha election from the Allahabad constituency against H.N.Bahuguna, former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and a candidate from the Lok Dal party. Amitabh Bachchan won the seat with 68.20 percent of the vote, securing a victory margin of 1,87,795 votes. His record for the highest victory margin in the Allahabad Lok Sabha constituency remains unbroken.
In 1987, The Indian Express reported that Amitabh Bachchan’s brother and businessman Ajitabh Bachchan had purchased a large apartment complex in Switzerland. Following this, opposition parties including the BJP began alleging that Amitabh Bachchan, a close friend of Rajiv Gandhi, could be linked to the Bofors scandal.
After Swedish Radio reports exposed the Bofors scandal, Amitabh Bachchan resigned from his position as a Member of Parliament in July 1987 and withdrew from politics.
In 1990, Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter published a report claiming that Ajitabh Bachchan had received money in connection with the Bofors deal. Ajitabh Bachchan immediately filed a defamation suit against Dagens Nyheter in a London court. The newspaper, which claimed to have received the information from Indian intelligence sources, later issued a public apology to Ajitabh Bachchan. As a result, Ajitabh Bachchan won the defamation case.
Arun Nehru and Ayodhya
A petition was filed by lawyer Umesh Chandra Pandey demanding that the locks on the Babri Masjid be opened to allow Hindus to perform darshan. Following this, in 1986, the Faizabad (now Ayodhya) district court ordered the opening of the locks and permitted public access for darshan. The Congress Government, without filing an appeal against the court order, allowed the Babri Masjid to be opened for worship.
Allegations emerged that this decision was made on the orders of Arun Nehru, then Minister of State for Home Affairs and a close associate of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, without consulting the Prime Minister. It was claimed that Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Vir Bahadur Singh acted on Arun Nehru’s directive in opening the Masjid for darshan.
It is noteworthy that Rajiv Gandhi reportedly told Prime Minister’s Office official Wajahat Habibullah that he became aware of the order only after it had been issued and implemented without his consultation. Amid ongoing controversy over whether Arun Nehru ordered the opening of the locks to politically weaken Rajiv Gandhi, the Prime Minister eventually removed Arun Nehru from the Cabinet a few months later.
In summary, the doors that had been locked during the rule of Rajiv Gandhi’s grandfather Jawaharlal Nehru were reopened during Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure, marking a major turning point in the Ayodhya dispute. During this politically fragile period, when Rajiv Gandhi was facing internal dissent within the Congress, organisations affiliated with the Sangh Parivar began gaining momentum.
Political Chess Game
Arun Singh, who served as Minister of State for Defence from 25 September 1985 to 18 July 1987, resigned from his post citing undisclosed personal reasons. At the same time, he stated that his resignation had nothing to do with the Defence Ministry. It is notable that Army Chief Krishnaswamy Sundarji, who gave inconsistent statements about the Bofors issue, was considered close to Arun Singh. Later, during the Kargil War, Arun Singh was appointed as Defence Advisor to the BJP-led Government.
Arun Nehru, a key advisor to Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and his relative, became embroiled in controversy due to his roles in both the Bofors deal and the Ayodhya episode, which led to political setbacks for Rajiv Gandhi. Arun Nehru, who was Minister of State for Home Affairs in Rajiv Gandhi’s Cabinet, was removed during a Cabinet reshuffle in October 1986.
In 1985, following the Shah Bano verdict and a year-long debate, Rajiv Gandhi’s Government passed the controversial Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act in 1986. Arif Mohammad Khan, who was serving as Minister of State for Energy, resigned in protest against the bill and openly criticised Rajiv Gandhi’s policies.
V.C.Shukla, who had expressed dissatisfaction with Rajiv Gandhi’s leadership, was accused by Congress loyalists of attempting to divide the party by fielding Zail Singh for a second term in the 1987 presidential election against Rajiv Gandhi’s candidate R.Venkataraman.
At a time when several Congress MPs were seen as attempting to organise a revolt against Rajiv Gandhi, on 14 July 1987, he expelled Arun Nehru, Arif Mohammad Khan and V.C.Shukla from the Congress, citing anti-party activities.
Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, who served as Tourism Minister in Rajiv Gandhi’s Cabinet, resigned from both his ministerial post and Congress membership in 1987 due to dissatisfaction with the Rajiv-Farooq accord, which aimed to stabilise Jammu and Kashmir. Along with him, Satyapal Malik also left the Congress in protest against the Bofors scandal.
The expulsion of dissenting members became a defining political action and posed a serious threat to Rajiv Gandhi’s political stability. During the period when the Bofors scandal erupted, some leaders resigned from the Congress while others were expelled, yet all of them continued their political journeys.
Arun Nehru, Arif Mohammad Khan, V.C.Shukla, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed and Satyapal Malik, all of whom had broken ties with the Congress, joined together under the leadership of V.P.Singh to launch the Jan Morcha party in 1987. Later, in 1988, Janata Party, Lok Dal and Jan Morcha were merged to form the Janata Dal under V.P.Singh’s leadership.
Bofors Changed the 1989 Election Outcome
Despite the lack of conclusive evidence proving Rajiv Gandhi’s involvement in corruption related to the Bofors deal, opposition parties including the BJP consistently campaigned against him. These campaigns shook public trust in the Congress Government and tarnished Rajiv Gandhi’s image as “Mr.Clean.” Allegations of bribes in the howitzer procurement triggered a political storm in India, with the Bofors scandal becoming a defining issue.
It altered the outcome of the 1989 Lok Sabha election and reshaped the course of Indian political history for decades. The Bofors scandal and the aggressive campaigning around it by the opposition played a major role in the Congress Party’s defeat in the 1989 general election.
Formation of the National Front Government
In October 1988, in Chennai, leaders from parties including Janata Dal, Telugu Desam Party, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Asom Gana Parishad, and Indian Congress (Socialist) came together to form the National Front. V.P.Singh, Devi Lal, N.T.Rama Rao, and Kalaignar were among the key leaders behind this coalition. N.T.Rama Rao of the Telugu Desam Party became the president of the National Front, P.Upendra was appointed general secretary, and Janata Dal leader V.P.Singh served as its convenor.
One of the coalition’s primary agendas was the implementation of the Mandal Commission's recommendations for social justice through reservation policies. Kalaignar, leader of DMK, played a significant role in the political operations of the National Front. After winning the Tamil Nadu Assembly election in January 1989, the DMK celebrated the victory as a triumph for the National Front.
In the November 1989 Lok Sabha elections, no single party secured a clear majority. With external support from the BJP, V.P.Singh assumed office as Prime Minister on behalf of the third front, the National Front. Although the DMK alliance lost in Tamil Nadu during the Lok Sabha elections, DMK Rajya Sabha member Murasoli Maran joined the V.P.Singh Cabinet as Minister for Urban Development.
The way the Bofors scandal was addressed, and its political consequences, played a crucial role in V.P.Singh becoming Prime Minister. His Government issued a directive that India would not enter into any future agreements with the Bofors company. On 22 January 1990, the CBI officially filed an FIR in the Bofors case. Additionally, Arun Jaitley, who was appointed as Additional Solicitor General by the V.P.Singh Government, handled the legal aspects of the Bofors case. However, he did not produce any concrete evidence against Rajiv Gandhi or other officials.
During this time, despite intelligence reports suggesting threats to the life of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the V.P.Singh Government revoked his SPG protection, stating that former Prime Ministers were not entitled to it, a move that drew widespread attention.
On 7 August 1990, Prime Minister V.P.Singh issued an order to implement 27 percent reservation in public employment as the first phase based on the Mandal Commission report. The V.P.Singh Government also honoured legal scholar Ambedkar by awarding him the Bharat Ratna and commemorated his birth centenary. It would not be an exaggeration to say that during V.P.Singh’s rule, which celebrated both Ambedkar and Periyar, the Dalit movement gained renewed momentum.
Meanwhile, opposing the reservation policy announced by Prime Minister V.P.Singh, BJP leader and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha L.K.Advani launched the Ram Rath Yatra, calling for the construction of a Ram temple at the site of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. With the backing of Prime Minister V.P.Singh, Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav stopped the yatra and arrested L.K.Advani in Samastipur on 23 October 1990. Following this, the BJP withdrew its support to the V.P.Singh Government. On 7 November 1990, the V.P.Singh Government was defeated in a vote of confidence in Parliament.
Although V.P.Singh had entered politics opposing Rajiv Gandhi and came to power with BJP’s support, he lost that same support after implementing the Mandal Commission. Following the fall of his Government, V.P.Singh pointedly asked BJP MPs, “What kind of country do you want?”, a moment of lasting historical significance.
Just two days before V.P.Singh’s Government collapsed, Chandra Shekhar, who was eyeing the Prime Minister’s post, split from Janata Dal on 5 November 1990 and launched the Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya). On 10 November 1990, with the support of the Congress, Chandra Shekhar became Prime Minister. Later, the Chandra Shekhar Government accused Rajiv Gandhi of surveillance, prompting the Congress to withdraw its support. As a result, fresh parliamentary elections were announced in 1991. Rajiv Gandhi then launched a nationwide election campaign.
Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi
While India was engaged in negotiations with foreign countries including Austria to procure artillery guns, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated on 31 October 1984 before any deal could be finalised. After assuming office in 1984, Rajiv Gandhi signed a contract with Sweden worth Rs 1,437 crore to procure howitzers. Swedish and Indian officials made significant efforts to finalise the artillery deal. Amid allegations that Indian politicians, officials and agents had received Rs 64 crore in bribes to secure the contract with Sweden, Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme was assassinated on 28 February 1986, just weeks before the Bofors deal was signed.
After the assassination of Eelam People's Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF) leader Padmanabha, who had entered Chennai secretly from Odisha despite opposition from the DMK Government, the activities of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) intensified in Tamil Nadu. Following pressure from Subramanian Swamy and Jayalalithaa, who claimed that law and order had collapsed, Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar dismissed the DMK Government on 30 January 1991.
At that time, the SPG protection withdrawn earlier by the V.P.Singh Government had not been reinstated by the Chandra Shekhar Government. In this context, Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated in a human bomb attack at Sriperumbudur on 21 May 1991. It is worth noting that during Padmanabha’s assassination, Kalaignar was in Delhi, and during Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, the DMK was not in power, Tamil Nadu was under President’s Rule.
Investigation Angle
The Jain Commission report confirmed that Rajiv Gandhi had faced a coordinated threat from various domestic and international groups, including the Kashmir liberation movement, Sikh separatists, Assam insurgents, Eelam militants and the Nepalese monarchy. While the involvement of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination continued to be widely debated, the LTTE, which often accepted responsibility for many of its operations, denied involvement in his death and called it a tragic incident with no connection to them.
Further, allegations were made against LTTE leader Prabhakaran, M.K.Narayanan (who was suspected of tampering with video evidence), internationally influential godman Chandraswami (known to be close to Prime Minister Narasimha Rao after Rajiv Gandhi’s death), Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, R.K.Raghavan (who was in charge of security at Sriperumbudur), and Subramanian Swamy (alleged to have politically sidelined Rajiv Gandhi). However, no formal investigation was conducted against these individuals.
It is worth noting that Special Investigation Team officer K.Raghothaman stated that the investigation did not go beyond the LTTE angle, and another officer, Thiagarajan, pointed out that the testimony of convict Perarivalan was not properly recorded.
Unanswered Questions in the Assassinations
The assassination of Indira Gandhi is still used to suppress the Khalistan movement, and the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi is used similarly to weaken the Tamil Eelam cause. However, given that the killings of both Indira and Rajiv Gandhi did not yield any political gain for the Khalistan or Tamil Eelam movements, it cannot be concluded with certainty that these militant groups were solely responsible for the assassinations.
It is possible that without the backing of militant organisations, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by two Sikh bodyguards, Satwant Singh and Beant Singh, and Rajiv Gandhi was killed by Dhanu, a Sri Lankan Tamil woman, on behalf of “an unknown entity.” Political analysts have also pointed out that international arms trade, global power conspiracies and Hindutva-driven political interests are intersecting elements behind these assassinations.
The possible connection between the assassinations of Rajiv Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and their close associate Olof Palme, and the global arms trade, has not been investigated. The inquiry into Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, which may have been carried out for political gain, remains subject to further scrutiny and deeper investigation. As a result, the question of whether the investigation panel successfully revealed the truth or failed to do so remains a matter of ongoing debate.
Chitra Subramaniam
Chitra Subramaniam, who comes from a prominent Brahmin family, is the grand-niece of Nobel Laureate C V Raman and the granddaughter of Rice Ramaswamy. Her great-grandfather V Subramaniam served as a royal advisor to Krishnaraja Wadiyar IV. Trained in Hindustani music and Bharatanatyam, Chitra Subramaniam began her journalism career in 1979 as a reporter with India Today. In 1983, she moved to Switzerland and worked as the United Nations correspondent in Geneva, writing for The Hindu and other publications.
On 16 April 1987, an anonymous source alleged on Swedish Radio that Bofors had secured the artillery deal with India by paying bribes to Indian officials. Even before this explosive report reached the ears of the Indian public, it had already reached the ears of Chitra Subramaniam, an Indian journalist based in Europe. She established contact with the anonymous source and began collecting documents related to the Bofors howitzer deal.
On 9 October 1989, Chitra Subramaniam, in collaboration with editor N Ram, published the first report alleging corruption in the Bofors deal in The Hindu. Following this, other media outlets also began focusing attention on the Bofors story.
Journalist Chitra Subramaniam initially collaborated with The Hindu editor N.Ram to investigate the Bofors case. Together, they published the first part of a three-part investigative series. However, the second part of the report was not permitted for publication by The Hindu’s founder G.Kasturi. Following this, N.Ram publicly criticised G.Kasturi for acting unilaterally and undermining journalistic ethics. N.Ram filed a legal case against G.Kasturi, but the outcome was not in his favour.
Meanwhile, Chitra Subramaniam accused The Hindu’s “head office” in Delhi of leaking the identity of the anonymous source from Swedish Radio who had revealed details of the Bofors deal. After The Hindu ceased publishing on Bofors, Chitra, with N.Ram’s approval, began writing for The Indian Express and The Statesman. With the support of The Indian Express owner Ramnath Goenka, prominent voices like economist Arun Shourie, lawyer Ram Jethmalani, and auditor S.Gurumurthy joined the criticism of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi over the Bofors scandal.
During the 26/11 attacks, live broadcasts by news channels were criticised for unintentionally aiding terrorists by providing real-time updates. Similarly, Chitra Subramaniam’s media reports on Bofors were criticised for undermining the investigation process. She was accused of using phrases such as “it is said,” “it is being whispered,” and “possibly” to create a media trial aimed more at shaping public perception than uncovering facts. Critics claimed she used Bofors coverage as a means to stabilise her journalism career.
Her articles were heavily cited by the BJP and other opposition parties during the 1989 Lok Sabha election campaign against the Congress. If Chitra Subramaniam’s real intent had been to expose the actual recipients of Bofors money, she could have continued her investigation after Rajiv Gandhi lost the election. Instead, she appeared more invested in removing Rajiv Gandhi from power, and gradually reduced her focus on the Bofors probe once he was defeated.
Chitra Subramaniam’s coverage of Bofors focused heavily on Congress-linked angles while showing little interest in scrutinising the BJP. Notably, she supported the BJP’s controversial Rafale deal in later years. Her selective approach has raised concerns about her journalistic integrity, particularly given her known proximity to right-wing circles and her perceived support for the RSS.
Although Chitra Subramaniam’s articles on the Bofors scandal did not yield concrete outcomes for the investigation, they brought her significant public attention. In 2014, she became a co-founder of the digital news platform The News Minute, launched by journalists Vignesh Vellore and Dhanya Rajendran. She is also a member of the editorial board of Republic TV, which is managed by right-wing journalist Arnab Goswami.
Sten Lindstrom and the Swedish Angle
Sten Lindstrom, the former director of the Swedish police who investigated the Bofors case that caused major political uproar, was revealed in 2012 to have been in contact with Chitra Subramaniam and to be the anonymous source who had spoken on Swedish Radio.
In 1990, when Indian intelligence officials visited Sweden on a formal courtesy call, Sten Lindstrom stated that they handed him a list of individuals to be questioned, including Amitabh Bachchan. He later said that Indian investigators had falsely linked the Bachchan family to the Bofors scandal in Dagens Nyheter, a Swedish newspaper. Lindstrom further clarified in 2012 that Rajiv Gandhi had done nothing wrong and that the Bachchan family had no involvement in the scandal. On the contrary, he accused the Swedish Government of misusing development funds by diverting them toward the arms deal, in violation of regulations. He also stated that the Indian investigation was undermined by its own intelligence agencies, and that both officials and journalists had misrepresented the facts.
Meanwhile, supporters of Olof Palme alleged that Swedish politicians and officials had spread false accusations related to the Bofors deal in an attempt to remove Palme from office. At the same time, opposition parties in Sweden accused Prime Minister Olof Palme of colluding with Bofors in breaching regulations and facilitating corrupt arms sales during a time of financial crisis.
Bofors Corporation and Swedish Politics
With the support of Swedish political leaders, Bofors Corporation and its subsidiary Nobel Kemi allegedly conducted arms sales by bypassing Government regulations, triggering major outrage in Sweden during the late 1980s. Notably, Ingvar Brat, an engineer at Bofors, played a key role in exposing the scandal by handing over secret documents related to Bofors illegal arms sales in the Gulf to the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society.
Investigations revealed that illegal arms sales had occurred in violation of rules to countries including Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Burma, Oman, Bahrain, Dubai, Thailand, India, Taiwan and East Germany. However, only two individuals, an arms sales manager and an arms dealer, were formally charged. These scandals rocked Swedish politics and led to stricter arms export controls. Additionally, public agitation over arms corruption contributed to the Green Party, an anti nuclear movement, securing parliamentary representation in Swedens 1988 elections.
The Swedish Government was accused of avoiding investigation into complaints related to Indian officials in order to spare Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi from political embarrassment. Still, Rajiv Gandhi was not named in the Swedish investigation, and allegations against Indian officials were never proven with criminal evidence in court. In summary, although corruption took place within Sweden, it was exported into Indias political narrative, allowing the BJP to leverage the Bofors scandal as a political opportunity to grow its influence.
The Bofors scandal in Sweden predated its eruption in India and was entangled with suspicions regarding Olof Palme’s assassination, arms trade connections, and the development of Swedish research institutions. Meanwhile, investigations into arms sales involving Bofors and Nobel Kemi attracted the attention of the CIA. A copy of a CIA report titled “Swedens Bofors Arms Scandal” was included in their documentation.
After the Bofors Scandal
Even though the Bofors corruption charges were never proven in court, many politicians gained political mileage by accusing Rajiv Gandhi. During the Bofors fallout, leaders such as V.P.Singh, Arun Nehru, V.C.Shukla and K.Sundarji shared conflicting accounts. While V.P.Singh is credited for his commitment to social justice, Congress insiders criticised him for taking actions without consulting Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, which they said damaged party unity.
The relentless Bofors campaign by the BJP and opposition parties significantly contributed to the Congress party’s defeat in the 1989 general elections, marking a turning point in Indian politics. After Rajiv Gandhis death, Congress remained in power for only 15 of the following 33 years. Notably, no member of the Nehru Gandhi family held the post of Prime Minister after Rajiv. From 1989 onward, national politics necessitated alliances with regional parties, ushering India into a coalition era.
Narasimha Rao, who had earlier distanced himself from active politics despite a long career that included serving as MLA, Andhra Chief Minister, MP, and Union Minister for Defence, External Affairs and Home, returned to frontline politics and became Prime Minister in 1991.
During Narasimha Raos tenure, India moved beyond socialism and entered a liberal economic era. These reforms strengthened the middle class and lifted millions out of poverty. It is worth noting that Rajiv Gandhi, who had envisioned liberalising the economy for Indias future, might have introduced these reforms even earlier if the political turmoil from the Bofors scandal had not disrupted his career.
As a result of the Bofors fallout, India saw two Prime Ministers between 1989 and 1991, and after Rajiv Gandhis assassination, five Prime Ministers between 1991 and 1999. This sequence of events illustrates how the Bofors scandal deeply influenced the political landscape of 1990s India.
Vajpayee’s Political Phase
In the 1984 general elections, the BJP won only 2 seats. However, leveraging an unsubstantiated campaign against the Bofors scandal, the Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L.K.Advani duo functioned like a double-barrelled shotgun and propelled the party to victory in 85 constituencies during the 1989 general elections. Using the anti Congress narrative around Bofors as a strategic political tool, the BJP continued to grow and secured 120 seats in the 1991 general elections, improving upon its previous tally.
As the BJP slowly established itself in electoral politics, affiliated Hindutva organisations executed a carefully planned act on 6 December 1992, the memorial day of social justice icon Ambedkar, by demolishing the Babri Masjid and revealing their true extremist face. It was through controversies like Bofors and Ayodhya that Vajpayee rose politically, ultimately serving as the Prime Minister of India from 1999 to 2004 on behalf of the BJP.
During Vajpayee’s tenure, the first chargesheet related to Bofors was filed on 22 October 1999.
The Comptroller and Auditor General T.N.Chaturvedi, who accused the Rajiv Gandhi Government of being responsible for the Bofors scandal, joined the BJP in 1991 at Vajpayee’s invitation. Following this, he was elected to the Rajya Sabha twice with BJP support in 1992 and 1998, and was later appointed as the Governor of Karnataka during Vajpayee’s tenure from 2002 to 2007. Krishna Chandra Pant, who served as Defence Minister in Rajiv Gandhi’s cabinet from 18 April 1987 to 3 December 1989, was appointed as the 23rd Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission. Arun Jaitley, who served as Government counsel for the Bofors investigation during V.P.Singh’s administration, steadily rose within the BJP and went on to hold key cabinet portfolios such as Information, Commerce, Industry, and Law during Vajpayee’s prime ministership. Vinod Pande, a college friend of V.P.Singh who served as Revenue Secretary and Cabinet Secretary under Singh, was appointed Governor of Bihar, Jharkhand, and Arunachal Pradesh across various years by Vajpayee’s BJP Government.
Vajpayee repeatedly made unsubstantiated allegations across the country that Rajiv Gandhi had accepted bribes in the Bofors deal. Yet he selectively avoided targeting the Hinduja brothers, who were also embroiled in the Bofors scandal, exposing his double standards. In this context, after conducting the nuclear tests named Operation Shakti or Pokhran II in May 1998, Vajpayee’s Principal Secretary and National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra met the British Prime Minister in June 1998 along with the Hinduja brothers. This meeting triggered controversy and revealed the close links between Vajpayee and the Hinduja business empire.
The Tehelka scandal of the BJP
The Operation West End sting conducted by the Indian magazine Tehelka exposed corruption in defence contracts under the BJP Government led by Vajpayee. Tehelka set up a fake manufacturing company named West End International, based in London. This fictitious company approached defence officials and BJP leaders to lobby for the sale of handheld spy cameras to the Government of India. As part of this operation, BJP national president Bangaru Laxman was secretly filmed on video accepting a bribe of one lakh rupees from the fake company.
In the Tehelka scandal case, Bangaru Laxman was convicted in 2012 and sentenced to four years in prison. After being released on bail, he died in 2014 due to health complications.
The Rafale scandal of the BJP
In 2007, the Indian Ministry of Defence issued tenders for the procurement of fighter jets. In 2008, under the Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) programme, the ministry allocated Rs 55,000 crore for the purchase of fighter jets. This became the largest defence deal in India's history. In 2012, a deal was finalised with the French company Dassault Aviation to procure 126 Rafale fighter jets. Of these, 108 Rafale jets were to be manufactured in India with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), a Government-owned company, as the local partner. In 2014, an agreement was signed between HAL and Dassault Aviation for 108 locally made and 18 directly supplied Rafale fighter jets.
In this context, on 28 March 2015, Anil Ambani's Reliance Group, which had no prior experience in defence manufacturing, launched a company named Reliance Defence Limited (DRL). Soon after, on 10 April 2015, Prime Minister Modi announced in Paris that the previous deal made by the Congress Government would be altered, and 36 Rafale jets would be manufactured in France. Instead of HAL, Anil Ambani's DRL was selected as Dassault Aviation's local partner. Subsequently, Dassault Aviation and DRL formed a joint venture named Dassault Reliance Aerospace Limited (DRAL) with a 51:49 shareholding.
In this backdrop, on 13 April 2015, EUR 143.7 million out of the EUR 151 million tax dues owed by Anil Ambani’s Reliance company in France was waived, and the French Government settled the account by collecting only EUR 7.3 million. The Modi Government, which removed the public sector HAL and selected Anil Ambani-owned private firm DRL as the partner, bought 36 Rafale fighter jets for Rs 60,000 crore, nearly double the earlier cost of Rs 24,170 crore based on a per aircraft base price of Rs 670 crore. Though the Modi Government offered several explanations, opposition parties like Congress alleged that the “hidden reason” was to give Rs 30,000 crore to save Anil Ambani from bankruptcy and to waive off his tax dues.
In 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions related to the Rafale scandal and emphasised that under Article 32, the court has only limited power to review defence deals. While both the French and Indian Governments denied allegations in the Rafale case, it is notable that the Rafale case remains pending in French courts. In Indian politics, where the Bofors case, lacking evidence and with no convictions, has become a political proverb, it is a shocking reality that both the proven Tehelka scandal and the pending Rafale scandal have failed to become major political talking points. Furthermore, during Congress rule, the BJP demanded a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) probe into the Bofors and 2G scams, and the Congress Government agreed to set up a JPC. But now, the ruling BJP has rejected Congress's demand for a JPC to investigate the Rafale deal, exposing the true nature of its political stance. It is also worth noting that during Operation Sindoor in May 2025, Pakistan reportedly used its Chinese made PL-15 air to air missile, deployed through the J-10C fighter jet system, to shoot down India’s French made Rafale fighter jets. This serves as a stark reminder that controversies surrounding the BJP’s defence procurement through are not just matters of political debate but can have serious consequences on the battlefield.
Unproven Bofors Allegation
While opposition parties accused Rajiv Gandhi’s camp of receiving Rs 64 crore in bribes to finalise the arms deal with Bofors, on 4 February 2004, the Delhi High Court ruled that no charges could be proved against Rajiv Gandhi. Further, on 4 March 2011, when the CBI filed a petition to withdraw the case against Quattrocchi citing lack of merit, the Delhi High Court discharged Quattrocchi from the Bofors case. The court also noted that it was not feasible to spend additional funds on the case that had already cost Rs 250 crore. Meanwhile, in October 2017, citing an interview of Michael Hershman aired by the right-wing Republic TV, the CBI filed a special leave petition seeking a review of the Bofors case. However, on 2 November 2018, the Supreme Court rejected it, stating that the explanation for the delay was not acceptable.
Overall, even non-Congress Governments, particularly the BJP, failed to convict anyone in the Bofors scandal or prove any wrongdoing. This clearly indicates that no charges have been substantiated.
In the political sphere, it is not uncommon for politicians to make allegations based on suspicion. However, it is the responsibility of the accuser to substantiate those allegations with proper evidence in a court of law. Allegations that are not proved in court cannot be accepted as truth based on mere political campaigns. Convincing the public of guilt without judicial evidence undermines the very foundations of the legal system.
Overall, no one in Rajiv Gandhi’s Government committed any wrongdoing in the Bofors deal, and the so-called Bofors scandal remains an unproven narrative constructed by the BJP, other opposition parties, and sections of the media to tarnish Rajiv Gandhi’s Mr.Clean image. The politics surrounding the yet-to-be-proven Bofors scandal can be viewed from two fundamental angles. Notably, the BJP’s official website, under the section titled ‘History and Development of BJP,’ highlights the impact the party made through the Bofors case. This reveals how the Bofors controversy contributed significantly to the BJP’s political rise.
// Summary from BJP website //👇
In the 1989 Lok Sabha elections, the BJP’s campaign against the Bofors deal played a crucial role. The results were in line with expectations. From winning just 2 seats in 1984, the BJP’s tally rose to 85 in 1989, and the Rajiv Gandhi Government fell. This election also marked L.K.Advani’s first entry into the Lok Sabha.
Conclusion
Without evidence, the opposition exaggerated the Bofors corruption allegations, which led to the defeat of the Congress led by Rajiv Gandhi in the 1989 Lok Sabha elections. The corruption charge, amplified by the BJP and sections of the media, was never proven in court. Since the 1980s, BJP has steadily gained political ground by spreading unverified corruption stories around Congress leadership.
For example, the 2G spectrum case was used by BJP and media houses as a political weapon against Congress and DMK, creating significant influence in electoral politics. Ultimately, the accused were acquitted by the court due to lack of sufficient evidence. This raises serious questions about the ethical standards of the BJP and the role of the media in Indian politics. Overall, BJP’s rise through politically motivated, unproven allegations, magnified by the media, explains the current state of India’s political climate.
Backdrop
The Bofors deal worth Rs 1437 crore was signed between the Congress-led Indian Government and Sweden’s Bofors company. Allegations arose that Rajiv Gandhi’s associates received Rs 64 crore in kickbacks from the Bofors company. In the case filed based on the claim that Rs 64 crore (4.5 percent) was received as bribe on the total contract amount, investigations cost the exchequer around Rs 250 crore (17.5 percent of the deal value). However, in what was projected as one of the biggest corruption cases in Indian political history, CBI failed to prove the allegations with proper evidence. As a result, no one was convicted, as reflected in the court verdicts. The key points of four major judgments in the case are outlined below.
Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning AB vs State through CBI (2004)
Government officials are acquitted of the charges that they conspired with Bofors company to defraud the Indian Government. Additionally, the allegations related to bribery and abuse of power connected to the Bofors deal are dismissed. However, since agents were excluded from the negotiation process, it is alleged that the Indian Government was misled into believing that the Bofors guns were of superior quality and lower cost, thereby causing financial loss. Based on this, CBI is required to thoroughly investigate and submit evidence under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), Section 420 (cheating), and Section 465 (forgery) regarding false documents submitted to the Government by the Hinduja brothers and in relation to the Bofors case.
Furthermore, former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi is excluded from the Bofors conspiracy charges due to lack of sufficient evidence directly linking him to the alleged deal. The case is now transferred to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for further investigation with directions for expedited action.
Srichand P.Hinduja vs CBI (2005)
In the judicial review of the investigation, it was found that the prosecution failed to produce original documents or establish the charges of fraud against the Hinduja brothers and Bofors company. As a result, the allegations under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) and Section 420 (cheating) against the Hinduja brothers, and under Section 465 (forgery) against Bofors company, could not be substantiated. Therefore, due to procedural lapses in the investigation and lack of sufficient evidence, all charges against the Hinduja brothers and Bofors company were dismissed, and they were discharged from the case.
In this case, public funds amounting to Rs.250 crore were wasted during the 14-year-long investigation. Despite a major disinformation campaign spread through the media, the court ruled that the allegations were false. As a result, those accused suffered mental distress and professional harm. These developments were strongly condemned.
CBI vs Ottavio Quattrocchi (2011)
With 19 years having passed since the case was registered, many of the co-accused have either died or had their cases quashed. Furthermore, attempts to extradite Ottavio Quattrocchi from Malaysia and Argentina failed. In this context, the CBI’s special prosecutor recommended that the case against Ottavio Quattrocchi be withdrawn.
In relation to the investigation under judicial review, it is understood that the courts in Malaysia and Argentina rejected India’s extradition request, stating that the Bofors case appeared politically motivated. Additionally, due to the absence of any legally admissible evidence and in consideration of public interest, the court accepted the CBI’s recommendation and discharged Ottavio Quattrocchi from the case.
CBI vs Srichand P. Hinduja (2018)
The reasons given by the petitioner for a delay of 4,522 days in filing the Special Leave Petition were found to be unsatisfactory. Noting that the CBI was already a party in a separate appeal filed by advocate Ajay Agrawal, the Supreme Court decided that there was no need to examine this individual petition. Accordingly, the applications related to the Special Leave Petition were dismissed.
Note: On 08 May 2019, the Delhi court stated that the CBI had the liberty to pursue further investigation into the case if required, without needing prior court approval. In line with this, on 16 May 2019, the CBI withdrew its pending application in the Delhi court, stating that it would not proceed with further investigation under Section 173(8). It is also notable that advocate Ajay Agrawal withdrew his appeal seeking reinvestigation in the Bofors case.
Summary of the Story
Gerald Bull designed advanced 155 mm artillery for Iraq under Austria’s Voestalpine company for Saddam Hussein. However, the Austrian Government later halted the sale to Iraq and instead urged Indira Gandhi to consider purchasing the artillery. Indira Gandhi, who had decided to acquire high-grade weapons, was close to finalising a deal with either France or Austria. But before the agreement could be concluded, she was assassinated. Following this, Rajiv Gandhi took charge as Prime Minister and signed a deal worth Rs 1,437 crore with Sweden’s Bofors company.
Information broadcast on Swedish radio claimed that Indian Government officials had received Rs 64 crore in bribes through middlemen to secure the Bofors deal. Journalist Chitra Subramaniam wrote and circulated articles on the Bofors scandal. In the meantime, V.P.Singh and other leaders quit the Congress and formed the National Front, which won the 1989 Lok Sabha elections. During 1987 to 1990, the BJP under Atal Bihari Vajpayee gradually expanded its political influence by campaigning on the Bofors corruption issue.
Although several individuals were investigated and cases were filed during the probe, no charges were proven in court. As a result, Rajiv Gandhi and all others were acquitted. Nevertheless, since its fabrication in 1987, the Congress continues to carry the political scar of the Bofors scandal even after 37 years. It is undeniable that the BJP grew in strength through the Bofors narrative, media ran biased campaigns, and those who exited Congress gained political mileage from the controversy.
Brief Notes
• After the Bruno Kreisky administration, Austria’s Voestalpine company manufactured and supplied GHN-45 howitzers to both Iran and Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war in 1984 and 1985. The Noricum scandal linked to this deal is a separate story in itself.
• Due to the major political controversy triggered by the Bofors scandal in India, the Indian Government halted all new agreements with Bofors. However, the Bofors howitzers already procured played a decisive role in India’s victory over Pakistan in the 1999 Kargil War.
• During a 1989 Lok Sabha election campaign in Patna, V.P.Singh held up a piece of paper and claimed to possess Rajiv Gandhi’s Swiss bank account number, stating that he would release the list of Bofors beneficiaries within 15 days if he came to power. But after becoming Prime Minister, V.P.Singh neither disclosed any such list nor initiated any related action. It ended as a mere campaign tale.
• The allegation made by some Congress members against Rajiv Gandhi in the Bofors scandal before they left the party is similar to the baseless accusation made by MGR against Kalaignar in 1972. Like a drum that gets louder when played by many, the BJP skilfully capitalised on the Bofors case for long-term political gain. In contrast, those who exited the Congress only managed to gain short-term political benefits.
• In total, in line with the Tamil saying “what is seen with the eyes and heard with the ears may be false, only a thorough probe reveals the truth,” a careful investigation suggests that the Bofors case is more like an inflated balloon than a grounded scandal.
References
Indira Gandhi Visits Austria to Stimulate the Economic Co-operation
Bofors Scandal: Delhi High Court Gives Clean Chit to Rajiv Gandhi
Tehelka Sting Case: Former BJP Chief Bangaru Laxman Convicted
Indira Gandhi Negotiates with France for 150 Mirage Warplanes
Questions raised about Government's decision to buy Bofors Gun
Seven party National Front Formally Launched in Madras
BJP using Bofors Case for Political Gains - Ajay Aggarwal
Chitra Subramaniam's Supportive View of the Rafale Deal
The Army is being made scapegoats in the Bofors Drama
V.P.Singh's Empty Promises and Unfulfilled Revelation
BJP Using Bofors Issue to Hide its Failures: Congress
Delhi HC Clean Chit to Rajiv Gandhi in Bofors Case
Sten Lindstrom about Amitabh Bachchan Clearance
Indira Gandhi Memorial Speech by Olof Palme
Vajpayee about Amitabh Bachchan and Rekha
Gandhi Expels 3 Former Ministers from Party
Bofors Gun was Not the Army's First Choice
Sweden's Bofors Arms Scandal - CIA Report
Gerald Bull Behind Iraq's Super Gun
Chitra Subramaniam's View on RSS
The Bofors Scandal Case Summary
The Rafale Scandal Case Summary
History and Development of BJP
National Front Comes to Power
Amitabh Bachchan on Bofors
The Guns of Saddam Hussein
Who Got the Bofors Money?
JPC Report about Bofors
G.Kasturi vs N.Ram Case
Bofors Scandal Story
Bofors Ghost
Sri Lankan History
Don't Compare Rafale and Bofors Case - P.Chidambaram (In Tamil)
Thanks for reading my blog.
