Saturday, May 5, 2012

Bofors Quattrocchi & Rajiv Assasination

S.O.S   e - Voice For Justice - e-news weekly
Spreading the light of humanity & freedom
Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.08..Issue.18........05/05/2012

 “There is a higher court than the court of justice and that is the court of conscience It supercedes all other courts. ”
- Mahatma Gandhi

Bofors case: BJP insists on judicial commission

Bofors on Thursday returned to rock Parliament after 25 years. 
The opposition, mainly the BJP, had a field day in both houses criticising the Congress and demanding a judicial inquiry into the Bofors scam. Both the BJP and the Left said the Bofors chapter was not closed and culprits should be brought to book.
Not to be left behind, the Congress retaliated by threatening a judicial inquiry into the Tehelka controversy that had led to the ouster of Bangaru Laxman as the BJP chief.
“There should be a limit to everything. The BJP found it difficult to come to terms with its 2004 defeat, and after its failure in 2009, it is finding it increasingly difficult to live with the UPA-II government,” Janardan Dwivedi, AICC general secretary and Congress chief spokesperson, said. “So, instead of accepting the final verdict of our Supreme Court, it wants to bank on the words of a retired police officer from an alien land.”
Dwivedi said no purpose would be served by digging up old graves. “No court has found any evidence against Rajiv Gandhi… what purpose will it serve to set up another judicial commission?”
When some Congress leaders wanted to know why the BJP had failed to get Quattrocchi extradited from Malaysia, Jaswant Singh (BJP) admitted to the party’s failure but said “it was time to set things right”.
Raising the matter in the Lok Sabha, Singh said: “Bofors ki aandhi thami nahin… In matters of corruption, there is no closure.” He said he was among the few who had said there was no problem with Bofors. “But the mode of procurement and payments was flawed,” he said.
After repeated interruptions from Pawan Bansal, parliamentary affairs minister, Singh asked: “Why did the government withdraw the red corner notice against Quattrocchi? Why was Amitabh Bachchan’s name dragged into the controversy? Why didn’t the CBI team meet Swedish authorities and identify those who had aided Quattrocchi’s escape from Delhi?”
Congress leaders, however, ruled out a new investigation because the Supreme Court had closed the matter. The treasury benches clamoured for an apology from the BJP and other parties for accusing former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi of being involved in the scam.
Sten Lindstrom, the former chief of the Sweden police who had blown the whistle on the Bofors scam, said in an interview on Tuesday that there was no evidence to show that Gandhi had received any bribe. “But he watched the massive cover-up in India and Sweden and did nothing,” Lindstrom said.
Arun Jaitley, leader of opposition in the Rajya Sabha, said the scam should be investigated to strengthen probity in public life. He said the Bofors case highlighted the need for transparency in defence procurement.
Congress spokesperson Dwivedi reminded Jaitley that the Delhi high court had given its judgement on Bofors when Jaitley was the law minister in the NDA government.
Mani Shankar Aiyar (Congress) said: “The reason why we could not unearth the truth is because the pursuit of truth began with a series of untruths.”

What the Bofors scandal is all about

Aiming to replace the old field guns and artillery in the hands of the Army, the Indian government in the mid 1980s decided to go ahead with the induction of bigger calibre 155 mm howitzers. The Haubits FH-77 gun manufactured by AB Bofors of Sweden, a company which was once owned by Alfred Nobel, was selected. A deal was signed on March 24, 1986, between New Delhi and the Swedish metals and armaments major, which said AB Bofors would supply the Indian Army with 410 155-mm howitzers. An option to license-produce 1000 more guns was also included in the deal.The amount was a significant $285 million (about Rs 1500 crore) for a pre-liberalisation India.
The first whiff about the scandal came on April 16, 1987 when a Swedish Radio broadcast claimed that AB Bofors had paid kickbacks to key Indian policy makers and top defence officials to secure the deal. News about this broadcast was carried in the Indian media and the Rajiv Gandhi government issued a prompt denial.
Sitting in her Geneva office, The Hindu's correspondent Chitra Subramaniam was in an advanced stage of pregnancy when she heard about the broadcast and the newspaper's then Editor N Ram asked her to follow it up. What followed thereafter remains unrivalled in the annals of Indian investigative journalism.

As Chitra started calling up the right people and asked them the right questions, hundreds and hundreds of damning documents piled up on her desk. The people of India were shocked to know that over Rs 64 crore was indeed paid to some very powerful people. At the centre of it all cropped up the name of Ottavio Quattrocchi, an Italian businessman who represented the Italian petrochemicals firm Snamprogetti and had reportedly rose to become a powerful broker between New Delhi and international businesses owing to his reported proximity to the Gandhi family.
Under immense pressure and as a face-saver, a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) was set up to probe the allegations on August 6, 1987. It submitted its report two years later.

The Bofors kickbacks became the key poll issue in the November parliamentary polls in 1989. The Rajiv Gandhi-led Congress was voted out of power and on December 26 of the same year, Prime Minister VP Singh's government barred AB Bofors from entering into any further defence contract with the Government of India. Incidentally VP Singh was the defence minister when the deal was signed.
On January 22, 1990, the CBI registered the first formal complaint in the case. However, Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by LTTE suicide bombers on May 21, 1991. This led to a general slackening of the investigative process which many observers say allowed Quattrocchi to leave India in the end of July, 1993.
After years of legal procedures and constant wrangling, on January 21, 1997, the Swiss authorities gave the Government of India secret documents which allegedly ran into over 500 pages. Barely a week later, a special investifative team was set up by the CBI to investigate the case. Later in the same year, the CBI filed formal charges against Rajiv Gandhi, Ottavio Quattrocchi, AB Bofors and its former chief Martin Ardbo, defence secretary SK Bhatnagar and AB Bofors agent Win Chadha. Letters were sent out to Malaysia and UAE seeking the arrest of Quattrocchi.
In the subsequent years, the name of the UK-based Hinduja brothers cropped up but in 2000, the Hindujas issued a statement saying the funds received by them from AB Bofors had nothing to do with the howitzer order.
Towards the end of 2000, the Malaysian authorities arrested Quattrocchi. But he secured bail but was asked to stay in the country.
In 2001, two of the accused, former defence secretary Bhatnagar and Win Chadha passed away. On February 4, 2004, Delhi High Court exonerated Rajiv Gandhi in the case and in 2005, the same court cleared the Hindujas of involvement.
The case lost steam thereafter though on February 6, 2007, Quattrocchi was detained in Argentina on an Interpol lookout notice. But the Indian Governbment seeking his extradition did not back up the extradition request with details of a key court order which was turned down by the Argentinian Supreme Court. Many observers feel that this was deliberately done.
On September 29, 2009, the Government of India informed Supreme Court about its decision to withdraw the case against Quattrocchi as he could not be extradited. Though in the beginning of 2011, an Income Tax tribunal ruled that a commission of over Rs 40 crore in violation of Indian laws was indeed paid to Quattrochi and Chadha in the gun deal. But on March 4, 2011, a Delhi court, realising the futility of the exercise, allowed the CBI to drop all charges against Quattrochhi and to close the case.
The Bofors case once again garnered top news spots on April 24, 2012 when Swedish police chief Sten Lindstrom revealed that he was the Deep Throat in the Bofors case and the key source that Chitra Subramaniam turned to. He added that the Swedish Police had no evidence of Rajiv Gandhi or Amitabh Bachchan receiving kickbacks in the Bofors scam.

Bofors: How Rajiv Gandhi did everything to scuttle the probe

Congress spokespersons believe that trying to bring the Bofors payoff scandal back to life is like flogging a dead horse. But they have been quick to latch on to retired Swedish police chief Sten Lindstrom’s recent statement(read here) that there was no evidence to directly link Rajiv Gandhi to the payoffs.
But the main point that was missed is that Rajiv Gandhi moved heaven and earth to scuttle the investigations, and various Indian governments – even opposition-led ones like the NDA – failed to put in real efforts to get to the names, which would ultimately have led to Ottavio Quattrocchi, close friend of Sonia and Rajiv Gandhi. Thus the question is not whether Rajiv received any bribe for the Bofors deal, but why did he and his close ring of officials go out of the way to protect Quattrocchi – unless it was to protect the linkage to him and Sonia.
Firstpost sifted through some of the old papers relating to the Bofors case in the late 1980s, and what Rajiv Gandhi’s role was in scuttling efforts to get to the bottom of the scandal.  Here’s what we found (with some background included).
The Bofors deal was struck in 1986 and months later Swedish Radio reported that Bofors had paid commissions to middlemen for securing the Rs 1,600 crore deal in contravention of Indian laws. But for three years, the Rajiv Gandhi-led Congress government did not let the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) register an FIR in the case. The FIR happened only on 22 January 1990, when VP Singh ousted Rajiv Gandhi in the 1989 election.
The CBI’s old Bofors files bear out the statements of Sten Lindstrom. They did not find a payoff link to Rajiv Gandhi, but there is no doubt he held up the investigations for fairly obvious reasons: his family’s proximity with Ottavio Quattrocchi, who was a proven recipient of illegal money.
 have led to Quattrocchi. Reuters
The Bofors FIR begins with a note: “Subsequent to the Bofors contract, when allegations of bribery were repeatedly made by the media and in Parliament from April 1987 onwards, only ineffective and half-hearted steps were taken and no serious or purposeful effort was made by the concerned public servants of the government of India to get the true facts. On the other hand, whenever any occasion arose or specific suggestions were made of steps that could be taken to find out the truth, efforts were successfully made, as set out hereafter, to foil all attempts at it and to suppress the same.’’
Although the CBI’s own role appears shady during stints of Congress-led governments, it did not deter the organisation from documenting how the investigations were systematically delayed over the years. And Rajiv Gandhi’s role is quite evident in the CBI files.
In June 1987, when the entire country was concerned about the Bofors scandal, the then Minister of State for Defence Arun Singh prepared a note and got ratified it by the then Defence Minister KC Pant. The note was categorical that the Indian government should threaten to snap diplomatic ties with Sweden and cancel the Bofors gun deal if Bofors would not give names of middlemen.
“In my view we must be prepared to go to this extent of cancellation because our very credibility as a government is at stake and, what is worse, the credibility of the entire process of defence acquisitions is also at stake,’’ Arun Singh said in his ‘draft’ letter.
When the letter was sent to Rajiv Gandhi for final approval, he wrote back on 15 June 1987: “It is unfortunate that MOS/AS has put his personal prestige above the security of the nation before even evaluating all aspects. I appreciate his feelings as he had been dealing with defence almost completely on his own with my full support but that is not adequate reason to be ready to compromise the security of the nation.
“Has he evaluated the actual position vis-a-vis security? Has he evaluated the financial loss of a cancellation? Has he evaluated the degree of breach of contract by Bofors, if any? Has he evaluated the consequences for all future defence purchases if we cancel a contract unilaterally? Has he evaluated how rival manufacturers will behave in the future? Has he evaluated how GOI prestige will plummet if we unilaterally cancel a contract that has not been violated?
“To the best of my belief the Swedish Audit report upholds GOI position and does not contradict it. What we need to do is to get to the roots and find out what precisely has been happening and who all are involved. Knee-jerk reactions and stomach cramps will not serve any purpose. RRM (Arun Singh) has run the ministry fairly well but there is no reason to panic, specially if one’s conscience is clear.”
Clearly, Rajiv Gandhi played the national security card to stymie the probe. This note of Rajiv Gandhi set the tone for further investigations into Bofors. The first result was Arun Singh’s resignation three days later.
However, the efforts to get to the truth did not stop here. Even as Rajiv Gandhi was berating Arun Singh for not considering security interests while threatening Bofors with cancellation, the army saw no concerns with Arun Singh’s strategy.
CBI files show that the then Indian Army chief, General K Sundarji, wrote a note to then Defence Secretary SK Bhatnagar: “If India threatened to cancel the contract with Bofors, there was a 99.9 percent chance that Bofors would ‘cough up’ the information about the persons who had received the money and that in the event of actual cancellation of the contract, the delay caused in acquiring an alternate gun could be borne by India.”
In an interview to India Today, General Sundarji also disclosed that he had conveyed the same view to Gopi Arora, then Special Secretary in the Prime Minister’s Office.
General Sundarji’s note, however, was found awkward by the Rajiv Gandhi administration. And SK Bhatnagar did ask him to modify the note. When he refused to do so, Bhatnagar returned his note. “I recommended that in the interest of vindicating National Honour we apply full pressure on Bofors to part with the information needed for legal action against the culprits and accept the risk that this might, in the worst case, lead to a cancellation of the contract,’’ General Sundarji stated in the interview (which the CBI has quoted during the Bofors investigations).
So here was a situation when all the top brass of the Indian government were on the same page in June 1987. The country’s army chief asserted that cancellation of the Bofors deal would not affect security. The Attorney General for India too had given advice to the Ministry of Defence that the Bofors contract could be cancelled. Arun Singh and KC Pant had already spoken in favour of threatening Bofors with cancellation for getting names of the middlemen. Even SK Bhatnagar was for serving the ‘cancellation’ threat.
In his recent interview, Lindstrom notes that even without these threats, but fearing cancellation, Bofors actually “sent its top executives to India with the one-point task of giving out the names. Nobody of any consequence received them.”
How could this have happened without pressure from the highest in the land?
The pressure was evident from the fact that a month later, in July 1987, Bhatnagar did a volte face and expressed a totally different view opposing the threat of cancellation of the Bofors contract. “There are reasons to believe that SK Bhatnagar did so either on his own or was prevailed upon to do so,” the CBI FIR says.
Not only this. On 16 September 1987, the CBI files say, Swedish Chief Prosecutor Lars Ringberg made a request to India, through Interpol, for assistance in his enquiries from the government of India. “Are the Indian investigation authorities interested in exchange of information with the Swedish preliminary leaders?” asked Ringberg’s letter.
“Apart from referring the message of Lars Ringberg to JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee in India), no further action was taken on the message,’’ the CBI files say. In fact, Ringberg had to withdraw the inquiry inconclusively because of non-assistance of the Indian government.
“A judicial inquiry similar to our preliminary inquiry concerning possible bribery offences has not been commenced in India. Thus, neither written nor oral evidence has been obtained through the inquiry undertaken with regard to whom payments were made and the reasons for them. In view of this, and since it cannot be expected that information of decisive importance for the matter of prosecution could be obtained by continuing the inquiry, the preliminary inquiry is withdrawn,’’ remarked Ringberg in his statement recorded on 28 January 1988.
In 1989, Rajiv Gandhi was ousted and VP Singh replaced him. In May 1991, Rajiv Gandhi was killed in a terrorist attack in Chennai. The Bofors case literally crawled despite conclusive evidence of Quattrocchi receiving illegal money as middleman even after Rajiv Gandhi’s death.
On 20 October 1993, the CBI, for the first time, put up a proposal for issuing a letter rogatory to the Liechtenstein government for help in the Bofors probe, since the government was willing to help. But Prime Minister Narasimha Rao did not agree to the CBI’s request.
When Joginder Singh joined as CBI Director in 1996, only one witness, that is a retired under-secretary in the defence ministry, had been examined three times. “It was a hot case and nobody was willing to touch it, much less investigate it. Even I was advised that it would be in my interest not to wake the sleeping giants,” Joginder Singh said.
Despite a Bofors charge-sheet naming Rajiv Gandhi and dropping charges against him at the same time because he was dead, the truth has not come out so far. Despite recording consistent delays by the Rajiv Gandhi-led administration (in which Gopi Arora, Special Secretary to Rajiv Gandhi, and Sarla Grewal, Principal Secretary to Rajiv Gandhi, were prominently mentioned) in the Bofors probe, the CBI rather chose to close the case.

Editorial :  Legal  prosecution of cruel & inhuman STF police personnel 

During “catch forest brigand veerappan operation” , Special Task Force 
police personnel  , illegally arrested , detained , tortured &
murdered innocent tribal people of both tamil nadu & Karnataka states.
NHRC  has clearly noted the crimes of
 STF personnel & ordered both 
Karnataka & tamil nadu governments to pay compensation to victims of
police atrocities. However still some of these victims are not yet
paid compensation by these governments , why ? also , the government
instead of legally prosecuting guilty police officers on murder
charges , has given  awards & promotion to guilty inhuman police
officers. Is the government sending a message that 3rd degree torture
& murders in lock-up / fake encounters is acceptable & legal ? is it
equitable justice ? is there one set of law for police & another for
common people ?
Hereby , we do once again request your kindself , to dismiss guilty 
police officials from police service , to withhold their pension
benefits ,  to legally prosecute them on charges of murders of
innocent tribal people & on charges of attempt to murder innocent
tribal people by 3rd degree torture methods. Hereby , we also request
you to make public  JUSTICE A.J. SADA SHIVA COMMISSION’s findings
about atrocities by
 STF personnel.
To order the prison authorities to subject the four convicts, accomplices of Veerappan to Narco analysis & Bran mapping tests in a fair manner with unbiased questionnaire.

So that truth will come out about Ex-Minister Nagappa's Murder
case, Amount of Ransoms paid during all kidnap episodes including Movie star Raj Kumar's kidnap episode. Truth will come out about the Minister M.L.As. M.Ps. Police & Forest Officials who have stacked away riches by helping him. Truth will come about Granite quarry 
 owners who helped him. Truth will come out about traders, merchants who traded in goods , sandal wood , Ivory supplied by forest brigand Veerappan.

To order the Govt of Karnataka , to make public the Justice A J
Sadashiva's commission's final report & complete proceedings . Then the truth will come out, how the
 STF personnel, police tortured tribal people at a place called WORK SHOP IN M M HILLS how they gang raped tribal women repeatedly for days together, how they burnt their breasts, how they pushed sticks smeared with chilli sambar powder into their anus. How the police tied men folk upside down from the ceiling . How many died, unable to bear the shame & torture ? Are not these brutal inhuman STF police personnel fit to be hanged till death, along with four accomplices of Veerappan ?

To order the National Human Rights Commission to make public the findings of its independent enquiry conducted about the police torture on tribal people. Violations of human rights of tribal people in the forest brigand veerappan's Territory i.e.
 M M Hills.

Jai Hind. Vande Mataram.

Your’s Sincerely,

Veerappan's wife seeks CBI probe into STF atrocities

The wife of slain forest brigand Veerappan, V Muthulakshmi, has sought a detailed CBI probe into alleged atrocities committed on tribals and villagers in MM Hills by personnel of the Special Task Force constituted to nab her husband in the 1990s.
Muthulakshmi welcomed the recent Karnataka high court order striking down Shankar M Bidari's appointment as DG&IG. "But there is still need for a CBI probe into STF atrocities; he was a commandant of that force," she said on Friday.
She alleged Bidari and his team had tortured women, who had no connection with Veerappan, including her. "He administered electric shocks to parts of my body which I cannot even explain. Many women took their lives, orphaning their children," she said.
Muthulakshmi alleged that the film being made on her husband's life - 'Attahasa' (in Kannada) and 'Vamayudham' (Tamil version) - by filmmaker MR Ramesh, is full of lies. She has approached Madras high court seeking a stay on its making. "The film infringes on my right to privacy," she added.
'He was a good man'
"Avar Nallavar (He was a nice man)," Muthulakshmi said about her husband, brigand Veerappan, eight years after he was killed in police action.
"It is politicians and police who spoiled him. I know those netas but do not want to take their names," she told TOI. "I am not saying he was faultless. He had shot a few elephants for ivory and axed some sandalwood trees. But he also planted sandalwood saplings, saying the forest shouldn't be emptied," she said.

Shankar Bidari worse than Saddam Hussain, Gaddafi: HC

In a scathing verdict, Karnataka High Court today struck down appointment of Shankar Bidari as state DGP and IG, describing him as "worse than Saddam Hussain or Muammar Gaddafi" for alleged atrocities committed by the STF led by him during the hunt to nab forest brigand Veerappan.
Dismissing as "without merit and substance", petitions by the government and Bidari, challenging the CAT order, the division bench headed by Justice N Kumar held his empanelment by UPSC and consequent appointment as "void and illegal."
Upholding the verdict of Central Administrative Tribunal the court said "in the facts of the case, we cannot find any infirmity in the said decision. It is just".
It struck down Bidari's contentions "absolving himself of the responsibility" of atrocities by stating he was only Deputy Commander of the Joint Task Force of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu to nab Veerappan and not "omnipresent and omnipotent like Saddam Hussain or Muammar Gaddafi."
"Though he was not one of them, if what the two women (tribals) have said in their affidavit is true, he is worse than them" (Saddam Hussain and Muamar Gadaffi),the court said in its acerbic observations.
The court directed the government should relieve Bidari forthwith and appoint A R Infant in his place. "Otherwise they are answerable to the public of the state".
The court dismissed the memo filed by the government seeking a one week stay of the order. It observed "if the state government has any respect for the rule of law, womanhood, human rights, concern for the downtrodden, tribals, and socially backward communities of the state, they should relieve the third respondent (Bidari) forthwith and appoint the applicant (A R Infant) in that place."
On March 16, CAT had set aside Bidari's appointment as DGP and IG and ruled that Infant should be appointed ad hoc police chief till the government decides on the new appointment.
CAT said government should prepare a fresh list of senior IPS officers and send it to UPSC, which would suggest three names for the top post.
On the court verdict, Infant told PTI "I am lucky that my case was tried by judges with great conviction, both at CAT and High Court. I admire their courage of conviction".
Observing that Chief Minister should have used his discretion while exercising his absolute power in selecting Bidari for the post, the court stated "......but such discretionary power must be exercised with great caution.....the Chief Minister before exercising his power did not see the police records".
Quoting extracts from the National Human Rights Commission report, which was not placed before the Union Public Service Commission before empanelment as it was not considered "relevant", the court stated that NHRC concluded that one woman was a victim of rape and repeated torture, three women were subjected electric currents through different parts of their body, seven subjected to illegal detention and assault, three suffered permanent disability, 11 stripped naked and given electric shocks, 12 unlawfully detained, one was taken into custody but never returned and 60 were killed in encounters out of 36 were killed in "false encounters".
Referring to the affidavits filed by tribal women Erammal and Nagi before an NGO which was produced before the court and indicted Bidari, the court stated "Erammal was taken to Dimbam police camp, beaten with a lathi as a result of which she lost sight in her right eye, She was then taken Mahadeshwara camp where she was stripped naked, beaten and given electric shocks in different parts of her body in front of Bidari".
The court then cited the instance of Nagi who taken to the M M Hills camp, was blindfolded and interrogated by Bidari who passed currents through different parts of her body and then she was gang raped.
The court observed that though the then governments accepted the recommendations of the NHRC accorded compensation to the victims and then DG and IG (Achutha Rao) promised to initiate action against the perpetrators, no action was initiated. Probably they (the then CMs) lacked the "political will and courage" to direct action against these acts.
Taking a swipe at the present day politics, the court observed "people who are in opposition party preach values, criticise the acts of the ruling party. Gullible public believe them and they are voted to power, but when they come to power they realise it is very difficult to practice what they preach and when they are seated in super power (ruling party) all these values evaporate. They succumb to corruption. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Therefore it is immaterial, the court observed which party comes to power, what ideology they believe in, what principles they preach. Once they come to power, they become the ruling party. This is the democracy which is in practice.
It appears that the present day state government and Bidari after occupying the present position seems to have forgotten was was said 15 years back, the court observed. "By characterising this report as "one without jurisdiction, giving the impression that it was not a document of any importance.....government of the day and Bidari are afraid of truth....we are convinced that the report of the Sadashiv Panel, NHRC was deliberately kept back", the court obseved.
There is no disputing the fact, the court stated, that the record of Bidari during his tenure in STF of Karnataka and his bio-data which was prepared by himself wherein he stated the exemplary service that he rendered that won him the gallantry award and a cash prize of Rs 1.68 crore, was placed before the UPSC. "This is the positive side of the story that was placed before the UPSC".
What is clear from the report, the court observed is there were allegations against STF personnel of Karnataka that they committed atrocities on innocent villagers of 48 villages, committed murder, false encounters, rape and torture and 20 written complaints were filed before the NHRC.
On Bidari's contention that he was not personally indicted by NHRC, the court observed that the NHRC has categorically stated that it has not indicted any one as it has been unable to identify the perpetrators of the acts. "This only shows the fairness and application of judicial mind".
The court observed "from the report, it is clear that atrocities were committed by police on the instructions of R3 and while the state and the police assured of action against the culprits, no action has been till date.
What is to be considered, the court observed is whether such a person who has "no concern for women, her rights, her safety and that of the poor tribals, downtrodden and socially backward classes. A person with such a bent of mind can head the state police force to maintain law and order, whether their (public) interests are safe in such hands.
These are the facts which UPSC and the state Chief Minister should have considered while exercising the power conferred on him and it is these factual findings of the Sadashiva panel and the NHRC which the government should have placed before the UPSC. "In the absence of such material, the assessment by the UPSC and state government is vitiated", the court said.
Reflecting on the mindset of Bidari, who wants to absolve himself from the responsibility stating that he was only acting under the supervision and control of Walter Davaram, the commander of the STF, the court observed "even after 15 years, there is no remorse, he is not prepared to accept the responsibility........whatever may the provocation, we cannot tolerate for a second rape...... as a means of investigation by the police".
Finally, in an message to the Chief Minister, the court stated "it is not a legal issue but a moral issue. As a head of the state, what are the various concerns, what is the message he is sending has to be kept in mind. Even now it is not too late to keep the interests of the public in mind and assure that previous dispensation would not be repeated and appropriate action taken".

AI Index: ASA 20/002/2008 
Date: 18 January 2008

India: Many adivasi victims of Special Task Force (STF) operations yet 
to get justice and compensation in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu

Amnesty International is concerned that several adivasi (indigenous 
and marginalized communities) victims of the decade-long Special Task
Force (STF) operations against Veerappan, who was killed by the
after being outlawed for sandalwood smuggling, are yet to receive
justice and compensation for the human rights violations perpetrated
against them. Human rights violations perpetrated in the course of
operations against Veerappan included unlawful killings; arbitrary
detention; and torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment (ill-treatment), including sexual violence.
Amnesty International has learnt that, one year after an official 
panel of inquiry led by Justice A. J. Sadashiva ordering the
Government of Karnataka to pay compensation to 51 victims, 13 of them
have yet to receive it. The Government of Tamil Nadu has paid
compensation amounts to 38 victims as directed in the order. In
January 2007, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) had directed
the two governments to pay compensation to 89 victims as per the
recommendations of the panel of inquiry.
Notwithstanding the above order, during the past year, human rights 
organizations in the two states have been campaigning to ensure
justice for 104 other victims whose complaints of human rights
violations including arbitrary and indefinite detention, torture,
including to death, other ill-treatment and sexual assault were
reportedly ignored by the panel. The panel also failed to initiate
charges against any of the 39
 STF officials named as perpetrators by 
the victims during the proceedings, though it concluded that the
had perpetrated torture. However, Amnesty International has learnt
that a number of complaints against 39
 STF officials have nevertheless 
been filed by the victims in several police stations in Tamil Nadu and
In spite of the filed complaints, a number of STF personnel named as 
perpetrators in the victims' complaints were given awards and
promotions; furthermore, some of the officials named by the victims
were reportedly present in an official function held to distribute
compensation amounts in Karnataka in March 2007, leading to protests
from the victims.
As a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, India is obliged to "ensure that any person whose rights or
freedoms... are violated shall have an effective remedy"; to "ensure
that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto
determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative
authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the
legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of
judicial remedy"; and to "ensure that the competent authorities shall
enforce such remedies when granted."
Amnesty International, therefore, urges 
•     the Government of Karnataka to immediately distribute compensation
amounts to the 13 remaining victims as per the January 2007 order;
•     the authorities of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu to thoroughly
investigate the pending human rights complaints against the 39
officials and bring those suspected of perpetrating violations to
justice, in proceedings which meet international standards of fairness
and without the imposition of the death penalty;
•     immediately suspend the officials named in the complaints from
active duty pending completion of investigations;
•     the NHRC to participate in the above cases to help to ensure that
there is justice for the victims.
•     the NHRC to re-examine victims' complaints ignored by the official
In 1993, the Governments of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu had created the 
 to catch Veerappan and his associates who had remained outlawed 
for more than seven years. On 21 October 2004, Veerappan and two of
his associates were killed during the
 STF operations. In all, 36 
persons lost their lives during the
 STF operations.
In June 1999, the NHRC appointed the official panel, consisting of 
Justice Sadashiva and a former Director-General of India's premier
investigating agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The
panel submitted its recommendations in December 2003.

Covering up Late  PM Rajiv  Gandhi Assassination conspiracy &  BOFORS SCAM

The CBI & GOI is more interested in  favoring accused persons ,  Quattrochi  & closing BOFORS Case  than punishing the guilty.

The GOI  & investigating authorities have failed to punish the real master minds behind the Late Prime minister Shri . Rajiv Gandhi assassination case .
When  a responsible Indian citizen volunteered to appear before the supreme court of india as an amicus curie , to give certain information before the court relating to this assassination , he was not at all permitted. Instead he was threatened , attempts made to murder him , his news paper was closed , his jobs were illegally snatched away , police & investigating agencies repeatedly grilled him ,  THE PURPOSE IS TO SILENCE THAT PERSON . The Police failed to act upon his complaints. The Supreme Court of India Failed to admit his PIL Petitions. ALL TO COVER UP THE POWERS THAT BE .

who are covering-up late p.m. rajiv gandhi assassination case? who are those conspirators? who are trying to silence me?

My sufferings began hand in hand with my crusade. I have raised various issues of social concern from time to time at the appropriate levels, one of those is LATE P.M. RAJIV GANDHI ASASSINATION CASE. where-in only the tools of the conspirator's were punished where as the conspirators are roaming free. i have raised this topic of inequity , travesty of justice and sought a fair, proper enquiry& trial , at various forums. but to no avail.
the conspirators were disturbed by this and tried to silence me by threatening me, physically assaulting me and even made attempts to murder me. they prevented me from appearing before the JAIN COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY. they even manipulated the recruitment systems to deny me the appointments in R.B.I.CURRENCY NOTE PRESS MYSORE, P.E.S. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING MANDYA, N.I.E MYSORE , District Court Mysore & Illegally snatched away my job in RPG Cables  Ltd , Mysore . they even tried to silence me by forcibly closing down my newspaper publications THE TESTUDO & VOICE OF CRUSADER.
my appeals for justice resulted only in police enquiries. the central intelligence bureau(I.B.) state intelligence & state police personnel enquired me exhaustively number of times, but they never did enquire the powers that be. any way these people don't have practical powers to enquire such people. the highest constitutional functionaries who can order a proper enquiry, trial are keeping mum inspite of repeated appeals. probably they are acting under the directions of conspirators. thereby they are not only covering up the crime, they are actively sponsoring terrorism , but are also violating my fundamental/human rights & obstructing me from performing my fundamental duties as a citizen of india.

hereby , i do request you to protect my fundamental & human rights and to facilitate me to perform my FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES as a citizen of india.also, i do request you to give me information about following cases ,it's final reports& it's action taken report.
1.the roost resort scandal involving karnataka high court judges.
2.the scam of gem cutting & polishing units in mysore set-up under VISHWA self-employment scheme.
3.the murder of under-trial,TADA detenue mr.arjunan(forest brigand veerappan's brother).
4.the murder of journalist mr.satyanarayan near mysore.
5.the murder of ex-minister mr.nagappa near mysore.
6.the amount of ransom paid by state governments of karnataka,tamilnadu & the union govrnment and the general public to forest brigand veerappan during all kidnap episodes (including movie star rajkumar's).the role played by facilitators.the contents of all cassettes sent by veerappan to governments & vice versa.
7.the final report of justice a.j. sadashivas's committee which enquired into atrocities & human rights violations committed by police,special task force(S.T.F.) on the innocent tribal people of M.M.HILLS.
8.the report of past district magistrate of mysore mr.T.M.vijayabhaskar about the land scam in & around mysore.
9.even in developed countrise like U.S.A. & U.K. mal-handling of radio-active materials takes place now & then, which in itself constitute nuclear disasters on small scale.refer the DECCAN HERALD (12/10/03 to18/10/03).in india how many cases of mal-handling of radio-active materials have taken place? no public the back drop of corrupt,negligent,hush-hush,buck passing work culture in most of the government service in india, i do want to know how safe are we the mysoreans from the processing & storage of radio-active materials at M/S RARE EARTH MATERIALS PLANT,yelwal,mysore? in the past there were media reports about damages caused to the human beings ,the environment by the same organisation M/S R.E.M.P. & it's sister concern M/S URANIUM CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED(U.C.I.L.) at kerala state & at jadaguda ,orissa state respectively.even some of the insurance companies like M/ india insurance co.,don't cover the risk of health damages ,death due to nuclear such an event who will bear the cost of compensation?how the quantum of compensation is calculated?give me information about the safety measures taken by M/S. R,E,M.P.mysore & the compensation pay sructure and the safety measures being followed by all agencies dealing with radio-active materials.

** LTTE-Sonia link ?  , , , , ,



An LTTE-Sonia family link?

S. Gurumurthy,Newindpress
April 29 2008

The LTTE suicide squad did plan and eliminate Rajiv Gandhi. But, why did the LTTE do it? Was there a larger conspiracy that extended beyond the LTTE as the strike force?
Was the LTTE the author of the crime or the mercenary for some one else or for some purpose that yielded some benefit to it? These questions persisted even after the actual assassins were brought to book.
The Narasimha Rao government appointed the Jain Commission to go into the conspiracy angle to the murder.In its interim report the commission did exceedingly good work to bring on record evidence about the political forces involved in promoting the LTTE in Tamil Nadu that made the crime possible.
Yet it made a mockery of its main work, the conspiracy angle. It floated dubious and wild theories, involving Mossad! CIA! Besides adding confusion, it ended up trivialising a very serious exercise. This also robbed the commission of its credibility.
As the commission’s final report proved a flop, the Vajpayee government appointed a Multi- Disciplinary Monitoring Agency (MDMA) in 1998 to unearth the conspiracy angle.
But the person who first demanded, but, ultimately made, investigation into the conspiracy to murder Rajiv Gandhi irrelevant was none other than his widow Sonia Gandhi.
Her attitude to the investigation and suspected actors in the murder dramatically changed. Her conduct in 1997 when she was working to enter active politics was a stark contrast to her attitude after taking over the congress leadership on the Jain Commission issue.
In 1997, she demanded that the DMK which, the Jain commission had said, was part of the conspiracy, be sacked as a partner of the UF alliance and pulled down the government when the demand was not met. Her party insisted the entire facts about the conspiracy be investigated and revealed.
Addressing a meeting at Amethi, Sonia hinted that the DMK was a fan of the LTTE and charged that those who doubted the Jain commission report were diverting the attention from the investigation into the conspiracy to murder Rajiv and demanded that the probe be completed expeditiously (Indian Express 2.2.1998).

But, once she took over the party leadership, she not only ceased to evince any interest in pursuing the Rajiv Gandhi murder conspiracy, but also began allying with the alleged conspirators themselves.
The developments, put together, reveal a shocking picture.The year after taking over the Congress, Sonia Gandhi makes a secret move.
In the year 1999, she told then President Dr K R Narayanan privately that ‘neither she nor her son and daughter wanted any of the four convicts’ sentenced to death for Rajiv’s assassination ‘to be hanged’, and pleaded that no child should be orphaned by an act of the State.
Noted the Indian Express (Nov 20, 1999) that before her plea for mercy to the Rajiv killers the Congress party was the leading opponent of mercy to them. This silenced the party once and for all.
What transpired at her private meeting with the President was revealed not by Sonia, but by Mohini Giri (the former chairperson of the National Women’s Commission) and on that basis Nalini’s death sentence was commuted to life. (Frontline Nov 5-18, 2005).
Then, in February 2004, there were reports, editorially commented by the Island newspaper in Colombo on Feb 20, 2004, that Eduardo Faleiro, her emissary, had a secret meeting with the LTTE chief Prabhakaran at Killinochi. Island had also referred to reports that Sonia’s mother Ms Paula Maino had met Anton Balasingham, LTTE’s point man in London, in connection with the electoral alliance between the DMK and the Congress. While Eduardo Faleiro at least made a feeble attempt to deny the meeting, Paulo Maino would not even deny that.Third, the Paulo Maino meeting preceded, and the Faleiro meeting succeeded, the unbelievable U-turn of Sonia Gandhi to forge alliance with the DMK which was accused by her own party in 1997 of being part of the conspiracy to murder her husband. The DMK-Congress alliance seems to have been agreed upon sometime in December 2003. In January 2004, Sonia met the DMK chief and concretised the alliance.
The coming together of one of the alleged conspirators and the victim of the conspiracy made a mockery of any further investigation into Rajiv Gandhi murder.
For the last four years there is not a single word spoken by Sonia on pursuing the Rajiv Gandhi murderers and on unearthing the conspiracy or for the extradition of Prabhakaran or Pottu Amman.
This is despite the fact that, when, on April 10, 2002, Prabhakaran met the press at Killinochi, he did not even deny that LTTE was involved in Rajiv assassination.
Fourth, the LTTE too responded favourably to signals from Sonia that she was not against LTTE.
On January 27, 2006, Anton Balasingham, told an Indian TV news channel that the Rajiv killing was ‘monumental tragedy’ and asked the people of India to be ‘magnanimous to put the past behind’ and deal with the LTTE.
Fifth, Sonia did not object to the inclusion of the DMK woman MP in whose house Sivarasan the main killer of Rajiv Gandhi had stayed for which she was detained under the TADA, as a minister in the UPA government.
Sixth, the MDMA which was appointed by the NDA government after Sonia rejected the Action Taken Report on the Jain Commission, has virtually become defunct under the UPA regime.
Since 2004, she has not uttered a single word asking what the MDMA is doing.
And finally now in March 2008, Priyanka Vadra, Sonia’s daughter makes a secret visit to Vellore jail and meets the first accused in the murder of Rajiv, for over an hour.
Media reports say that they sat by each other’s side, cried and professed goodwill towards each other! No one knows what transpired between them. The meeting clearly illegal, looks almost a conspiracy, would have remained a secret had the media not exposed it.
Priyanka said that neither Sonia nor Rahul or Priyanka believe in hate or anger, and that the visit was her way of coming to terms with the Rajiv Gandhi murder.
Moral high ground seems to be a cover for undisclosed political strategies. But where was this high moral ground when Sonia angrily pulled down the UF government on the ground that DMK, a suspected co-conspirator with LTTE, was part of the alliance?
Is Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination a personal affair between the Sonia Gandhi family and the LTTE for the former to punish or pardon the latter?
LTTE has neither confessed nor regretted its action for the Gandhis to pardon. The LTTE is even today unrepenting.
The prosecution case is that the LTTE supremo decided to avenge Rajiv Gandhi for sending IPKF to Sri Lanka and betraying the LTTE. But that was no personal decision of Rajiv Gandhi. The assassination was an act against the state of India.
This is how it should be seen and pursued. Neither Sonia nor Priyanka nor the Congress has the right to pardon the criminals who have challenged the sovereignty of India.
QED: Sonia Gandhi family and the LTTE connection is mysterious. Is the maverick Dr Subramanian Swamy right after all in his theory that LTTE and the Maino family have had links before?  

Do you know Sonia : Subramanian Swamy @ http://www.saveindi dynamic/
Sonia Cong’s blitzkrieg evangelisation thru RBI: V. Sundaram @  


The French Intelligence Agencies as per a regular routine Intelligence Drill, keep under heavily Intelligence Surveillance all the activities of all the Foreigners in all the Five Star has learnt from highly placed sources that, “In the course of the routine surveillance the Intelligence Agencies of France have in their possession On Camera Footage of a now Highly Classified Recording of a Secret Meeting at a Paris Five Star Hotel in 1991.”The L.T.T.E was fighting through the use of Terrorism for the separation of the Tamil portion of the country from Sri Lanka. Rajiv Gandhi as Prime Minister had sent the Indian Army to Sri Lanka to assist the Government forces there to fight and destroy the L.T.T.E. The Indian Army was finally withdrawn from Sri Lanka without achieving success. Rajiv thus became an enemy of the L.T.T.E.Rajiv lost power in 1989 Lok Sabha Elections.In 1991, Rajiv Gandhi was the Congress President, Chandrashekar was the Prime Minister.The Lok Sabha Elections were announced after Rajiv withdrew the Congress support to the Chandrashekar Government.The L.T.T.E. Chief had sent two L.T.T.E delegations to New Delhi in 1991, to meet and discuss with Rajiv Gandhi, to understand his attitude towards the L.T.T.E. After these meetings the L.T.T.E. Chief was not convinced that Rajiv would be soft on the L.T.T.E. In fact Prabhakaran expected Rajiv to be hostile to the L.T.T.E.In the 1991 Elections Rajiv was not expected to come back to power. However the L.T.T.E. did not want the risk of allowing Rajiv to come to power.Rajiv Gandhi and his Congress won a massive victory in 1984 because of the nationwide sympathy generated by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s Assassination by her Sikh Bodyguards. Rajiv’s Congress won 414 Lok Sabha MPs. Rajiv looked like being Prime Minister forever.However, Rajiv got in to a serious Credibility Problem when the HDW Submarine Deal Broke. Rajiv threw out the then Defence Minister V.P.Singh from the Party. Rajiv’s Coterie made a loyal V.P.Singh an enemy of Rajiv.Thereafter the Bofors Gun Deal Scam tumbled out of the Swedish Closet. Rajiv handled the Bofors Scam horribly. Rajiv’s former aides manipulated to destroy Rajiv and Rajiv’s Politics. Rajiv lost complete credibility. Rajiv’s Congress won 195 MPs but lost the Lok Sabha Elections and the Central Government in 1989. The V.P.Singh Government came to power and demonstrated quickness in getting the Bofors Pay Offs in Foreign Bank Accounts Sealed.The Bofors Money Trail led directly to the Italian Wheeler-Dealer Ottavio Quattrocchi.Quattrocchi realized that India’s Opposition Politicians and Anti-Congress Governments in their passion to expose Rajiv would chase the Bofors Scam and all its beneficiaries. However, in that process the involvement of Quattrocchi would be completely exposed. Quatrocchi believed that Rajiv and his Congress were not winning the 1991 Elections. The Third Front Government of V.P.Singh was expected to win. The V.P. Singh Government would accelerate investigation in to the Bofors Scam. Quattrocchi’s role in the Bofors Scam would be completely exposed thus leading to the jailing of Quattrocchi.Quattrocchi panicked. There was only one way for Quattrocchi to survive. The Bofors scam must be buried. The Bofors Enquiry cannot be stopped if Rajiv was Alive. If Rajiv was not there then the Political System would lose interest in the Bofors Scam. So to bury the Bofors Scam Burying Rajiv was a necessity for Quattrocchi. Only then could Quattrocchi happily survive and enjoy the millions looted from India’s Public Exchequer.Anton Balasingham was the Principal Adviser, Most Trusted Lieutenant, Globe Trotting Apex Negotiator, Vital Deal Maker, Super Strategist, Spokesman and Personal Friend of the Chief of the L.T.T.E. Velupillai Prabhakaran.Sources say that, “Quattrocchi got in touch with the L.T.T.E. The meeting with the L.T.T.E. was fixed in a Five Star Hotel in Paris.Ottavio Quattrocchi and Anton Balasingham met. Quattrocchi convinced Balasingham that Rajiv’s death was vital to both. If Rajiv were dead then the Bofors Scam would die. If Rajiv was dead then the L.T.T.E. could be confident that the Indian Army will not go to Sri Lanka to destroy the L.T.T.E. Quattrocchi handed over Bags of Dollars to Balasingham as payment for Rajiv’s Assassination.The entire meeting and conversation between Ottavio Quattrocchi and Anton Balasingham was Recorded by the French Intelligence Agencies.”On the day of his Assassination Rajiv Gandhi was in Vishakapatnam. Rajiv was campaigning for his fond candidate Uma Gajapati Raju. Rajiv was enjoying the campaigning. Rajiv was in no mood to leave Vishakapatnam, on that evening.A Trio of Congress Busybodies including P.V.Narasimha Rao made frantic Phone Calls from New Delhi urging Rajiv to leave Vishakapatnam and fly to Chennai. Rajiv keen on spending the night at Vishakapatnam, tried avoiding to go to Chennai. Rajiv made an excuse that his aircraft was not in perfect order. The Congress Busybodies of Delhi got the Aircraft speedily checked, repaired and told Rajiv that it was ready. The Congress Busybodies forced a reluctant-to-leave-Vishakapatnam Rajiv, to fly from Vishakapatnam to Chennai enroute to Sriperumbudur in Tamilnadu.Rajiv flew to Chennai and went by road to Sriperumbudur. As soon as the cavalcade of cars of Rajiv and the Tamilnadu State leaders accompanying Rajiv reached Sriperumbudur, Rajiv got out of the car and walked through the crowd to the Dias.When any national leader visits any part of the country then the moment the leader gets down from the Aircraft, the entire State Leadership of his Party surrounds him. The State Leaders stick to him through out the Visit until he gets back in to the Airport. If a Photograph is taken at any given minute of the visit, the Photo will contain the National Leader and the Top State Leaders. Whether it is Vajpayee, Advani, Rajnath Singh, Sonia or any national leader the scenario is the same. Every Photo Frame will consist of the National leader being surrounded by State Leaders.When Rajiv alighted at Sriperumbudur all the state Leaders were there. However, each of the Tamilnadu State Leaders suddenly decided to keep away from Rajiv. From the car, Rajiv walked through the crowd unaccompanied by any State Leader.So, when the Human Bomb Exploded, Rajiv was Blown to pieces, but not a single Tamilnadu State Leader Died with him. G.K.Moopanar, P.Chidambaram, Maragatham Chandrashekar and several Other Tamilnadu state Leaders did not walk with Rajiv. Strange and Impossible. But the Tamilnadu State leaders allowed Rajiv to walk the Death-Walk Alone.In the Final Photo Frame of Rajiv Gandhi, no Tamilnadu State leader was present with Rajiv. Were all these State Leaders aware that Rajiv would be killed and hence kept away from Rajiv to save their lives?The Investigation in to the Rajiv Assassination has not interrogated or put on the Lie Detector Test and the Narco-Analysis Test the Congress Bigwigs who insisted that Rajiv must leave Vishakapatnam and go to Tamilnadu, that Assassination night. Why?Similarly the Investgation did not interrogate and subject to a Lie Detector and a Narco Analysis Test the Tamilnadu Congress State Leaders who deserted Rajiv immediately after he got out of the car at Sriperumbudur. Why?Intelligence Agencies Sources say that the International Arms Dealer Adnan Kashogi provided the Bomb Belt worn by the L.T.T.E.’s suicide Human Bomb to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi. India’s Investigation never pursued this lead. Why?Later P.V.Narasimha Rao’s son Prabhakar Rao and Adnan Kashogi’s Son were involved in a UREA SCAM. The Government of India in Dollars issued 125 crores even before the Urea arrived in India. Till today the Urea has not arrived. The 125 Crores has not been recovered from Narasimha Rao’s Son. Now the Manmohan Singh Government has allowed the Crores of Rupees in the Swiss Banks to be defreezed. Narasimha Rao deserved to be in jail for corruption but Manmohan calls him a Saint.India’s Investigation in to the Rajiv Assassination has not investigated P.V.Narasimha Rao and Adnan Kashoggi’s Family to ascertain the facts and complicity, if any, in the Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. Why?Ottavio Quattrocchi was the Mastermind in the Conspiracy to Assassinate Rajiv Gandhi. But Quattrocchi was never investigated. Why?The Intelligence Agencies of France, Israel and the United States of America have Highly Classified Secret Data pertaining to all the details of the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination.Israel, France and US are all Democracies. All three nations are closely involved with India in the International war against terrorism. It is their responsibility to provide India with every bit of evidence and information that they and their Intelligence agencies possess about the Assassination of R ajiv Gandhi.So far these Nations have not given India any information because the government of India has not requested them. The moment India requests these countries then they will give to India, all the information they Requests the Parliament of India to ensure that the Government of India obtains all the information pertaining to the Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi available with the Intelligence Agencies of France, Israel and the US and discloses all the information to India’s Requests the Parliament of India to ensure that an investigation is ordered in to the Role of Ottavio Quattrocchi in the Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.Quattrocchi must be arrested, brought to India put on a Lie Detector Test and a Narco-Analysis Test and Questioned about his Role in the Conspiracy to Assassinate Rajiv expects India’s Parliament to do justice to one of its Assassinated Member of Parliament Rajiv Gandhi.President of India Kalam is now in France. The Government of India must request President Kalam to request the French President to make available to India the Tapes of the Secret Meeting in the Paris Hotel and all other information involving the Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.The People of India must know the truth about the Assassination of Rajiv and the Conspirators must be arrested, prosecuted and given the Death Sentence.
Sorse of the story hear By :-

DMK helped LTTE assassinate Rajiv Gandhi.
dmk.jpg (13660 bytes)

Munnetra Kazhagam, DMK Leader

India’s Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party (DMK) and its leader Karunanidhi who is the chief minister of Tamil Nadu came in for strong criticism in the interim report of a retired judge who probed the circumstances leading to the killing in 1991 by an LTTE female suicide bomber. Indian officials blamed the killing on Sri Lankan Tamil Tiger terrorists, who the judge said had received support in the past from the DMK.
In 1976, Gandhi's federal government dismissed Karunanidhi's government, which was accused of corruption. A year later, MGR won local elections and sent Karunanidhi into political wilderness until MGR's death in 1987.
After a year of direct rule by the federal government, the DMK party regained power in Tamil Nadu in 1989. Two years later the federal government dismissed Karunanidhi for a second time, accusing him of not doing enough to crack down on the Tamil Tigers in his state.
Further, the Commission said, the LTTE was getting its supplies, including arms, ammunition, explosives, fuel and other essential items from Tamil Nadu to continue its fight against the IPKF that too with the support of the DMK Government, State Administration and connivance of the law enforcement agencies.
The report said that soon after the DMK Government took over the reins of power in Tamil Nadu, "the LTTE slowly began to consolidate itself in the State and their clandestine activities, heretofore dormant, became more and more pronounced. All the activities of the LTTE at this stage towards resource mobilisation, propaganda and treatment of their wounded cadres, had taken an anti-national dimension.''
The Commission noted the visit of the then DMK MP, Mr. V. Gopalaswamy, MP (DMK) to Northern Sri Lanka and his reported meeting with Prabhakaran between February 8, 1989, and March 3, 1989.
"This visit by Mr. V. Gopalaswamy, and the manner in which this entire episode was dealt with by the DMK party sent clear signals to the pro-LTTE anti-IPKF elements in the State as well as LTTE itself that the newly-elected Government would not resort to any drastic action against such elements; on the other hand, the impression that the entire episode created was that pro-LTTE gestures, even if they were illegal, would be tolerated by the Government.''
The Commission's report said the then Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, was keen that "some satisfactory solution be arrived at with the LTTE so that the Indo-Sri Lankan Accord could be implemented in letter and spirit. He discussed this concern with Mr. Karunanidhi and sought his assistance.'' After Mr. V. P. Singh became the Prime Minister on December 2, 1989, it was spelt out that if no solution came, India would no longer give any military or monetary help to any of the groups, nor allow its mainland to be used for militant activities. "The LTTE remained adamant during their parleys with Mr. Karunanidhi, and continued to demand the formation of Eelam,'' the report noted.
The interim report said that credible reports existed of "active connivance of some DMK leaders with the LTTE. The LTTE was in continuous interaction with Mr. Karunanidhi, primarily to ensure that their activities continue unhindered even after the Padmanabha killing.'' The ATR "noted'' the observation of the Commission that there was a nexus between the LTTE and the ULFA and their combined endeavours in Tamil Nadu had also been confirmed.
The Commission's report ponders over questions of aid to the LTTE in the killing of Rajiv Gandhi. "Were there other forces behind the LTTE involved in the conspiracy for the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi? These are questions requiring a deep and anxious probe,'' the report said referring to conspiratorial aspects which were yet to be dealt with by the one-man probe panel.
Soon after the DMK Government took over the reins of power in Tamil Nadu, the LTTE slowly began to consolidate itself in the State. During 1990, a growing nexus between the LTTE and DMK and its repercussions on the local law enforcement machinery were discernible. The assassination of EPRLF leader K. Padmanabha and others at Madras on 19th June 1990 was a shocking reminder of the impunity with which the LTTE could operate in India.
The case assumes significance due to the fact that striking similarities were found in the Padmanabha assassination and the case relating to the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi. It can, therefore, be safely concluded that the growing connivance of the DMK Government with the LTTE having been brought to the knowledge of the National Front Government, effective steps were not taken by the Central government to check it, whatever may be the reasons.
From the evaluation of the material, the conclusion is irresistible that there was tacit support to the LTTE by Shri M. Karunanidhi and his Government and law enforcement agencies.
The charges, put together as long quotations from the report, include: that the DMK provided a safe sanctuary for the LTTE cadres and activists, it gave advice, active assistance, finance and security cover to LTTE operations, and that the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi would not have been possible the way it happened without the nexus between the LTTE and the DMK, a nexus which started a chain of events which led to the survival and growth of the LTTE in Tamil Nadu long after the Government of India's attitude had changed towards the LTTE and hostilities had broken out between the Indian Peace Keeping Force and the LTTE in Sri Lanka, and finally that the DMK leader and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Mr. M. Karunanidhi, had "himself been instrumental in ensuring that things went smoothly for LTTE'' and that the cadres of the LTTE had little fear of the security agencies in India "thanks to the patronage of the DMK Government''.

The Bofors whistle-blower speaks out

Sten Lindström, the former head of the Swedish police who led the investigations into the Bofors-India howitzer deal, has disclosed that he was the one who fed the journalistic investigation that was published on the pages of The Hindu in 1988-89. The identity of the source has been a detail that The Hinduhas steadfastly held on to for a quarter century. The “tell-all” interview that Mr. Lindström has now given Chitra Subramaniam-Duella, who was one of the journalists who had worked on the story while with The Hindu, from Europe, was published online on April 24 in ‘The Hoot.'
The latest development in the Bofors scandal comes a quarter century after Swedish state radio got it all going on April 16, 1987.
The one part of Mr. Lindström's interview that is likely to generate political heat is his comment on Rajiv Gandhi and Ottavio Quattrocchi, the Italian businessman who is accused of being a middleman in the deal: “There was no evidence that [Rajiv Gandhi] had received any bribe. But he watched the massive cover-up in India and Sweden and did nothing. Many Indian institutions were tarred, innocent people were punished while the guilty got away. The evidence against Ottavio Quattrocchi was conclusive. Through a front company called A.E. Services, bribes paid by Bofors landed in Quattrocchi's account which he subsequently cleaned out because India said there was no evidence linking him to the Bofors deal. Nobody in Sweden or Switzerland was allowed to interrogate him.”
Mr. Lindström is described in the interview as the one who leaked some 350 documents, which included payment instructions to banks, contracts, handwritten notes, minutes of meetings and Bofors Managing Director Martin Ardbo's diary that carried a lot of sensitive information.
Many of the documents, painstakingly verified and studied by The Hindu, were printed in facsimile form on its pages in 1988-1989.
Asked by The Hindu for his comments on the interview, N. Ram, who led the journalistic investigation behind the coverage of l'affaire Bofors in the newspaper at the time and who later became its Editor-in-Chief, said: “I'm old-fashioned enough to be very protective of highly sensitive, privileged sources. I'm not going to confirm or deny who the source was. What I can confirm is that I met the source on more than one occasion, along with Chitra Subramaniam, and also was in touch [with the source] on the phone.”
In ‘The Hoot' interview Mr. Lindström recalls the occasion when Mr. Ram went to his office and he handed over the documents, proceeding to say that The Hindu's role was that of a “medium of communication.” He speaks also of a sense of disappointment over the process as, “they published the documents as and when they wanted without any respect for the risks other people were taking to get the facts out.”
The former police chief added: “The most explosive documents that involved the political payments were Ardbo's notes and diary. The Hindu published them several months after they had them. In the meantime, there was a serious difficulty... There were consequences for me and my family. The Hindu seemed unconcerned.”
Mr. Ram, who stepped down as The Hindu's Editor-in-Chief earlier this year, had this to say on these points: “The privileged source was not willing to give the entire documentation in possession to us. So it was a process of negotiating over a period of about one and a half years with the source. The source was, for whatever reason, not willing to part with the document cache in one go, and would only give it in phased-out instalments over this long period.”
Mr. Ram added: “There was no question of the newspaper publishing the documents and other information arbitrarily, as and when we pleased. We were not fools to hold back material without due cause and incur the risk of letting others run away with our story! In a story with such big stakes, involving a great newspaper's credibility and people's reputations, there was a need for due diligence, for devil's advocacy, for making connections and drawing inferences, for being fair and just. We needed to translate — accurately — some of the material from Swedish. As for the Ardbo diary — which the police had seized and returned to him, preserving only photocopies — it presented a real challenge. Some of the handwritten diary entries made explosive suggestions but they were semi-coded, using initials and sometimes misspelling key names.”
Possibly for the first time, Mr. Lindström reveals how the Indian angle came into focus: “It was an accident. We were conducting several search-and-seize operations in the premises of Bofors and their executives. I have some experience in this area, so I asked my team to take everything they could find. In the pile were one set of documents to Swiss banks with instructions that the name of the recipient should be blocked out. An accountant doing his job asked why anonymity was necessary since the payments were legal. Bofors was unable to explain and then we found more and more documents leading to India.”
Mr. Ram said: “There were various inputs that were key to our investigation. For example, there was specific information made available through Malini Parthasarathy by a member of the JPC [the Joint Parliamentary Committee that went into the Bofors affair] that enabled the investigation to make a connection and draw a crucial inference from the documentation. On the cover-up aspect, we learnt a lot from confidential meetings I had, at their request, with Defence Minister K.C. Pant and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.”
In the interview, Mr. Lindström aired his thoughts on the media's role in such contexts. He said: “There needs to be a free and fair discussion in the media about itself. The media is the watchdog of our society – but who is watching the media? Most whistle-blowers around the world leak information to the media because they feel they owe it to their country, their job or the position they are elected to. Genuine whistle-blowers also expect the media to be responsible and according to me this means that the media has to understand the motives of whistle-blowers. Not everyone is driven by the same motive. This is where investigative journalism comes in. Every role has its limits. I cannot become a journalist, a journalist cannot become a judge and a judge cannot become a politician. Who controls the media, what are their interests? What happens if a reporter is also part of the management? Do journalistic ethics compete with business and political interests of the media organisation? Can an ombudsman be the answer? If not, let us all work together globally to find a solution we all respect and understand.”
Speaking on his chosen role as whistle-blower in the affair, Mr. Lindström does say this: “My only option was to leak the documents to someone we could trust.” He adds: “The role of the whistle-blower is a part of democracy. When all official channels are clogged, you have to take a decision. We have a culture here that it is okay to blow the whistle. I have met other whistle-blowers. I knew what I was doing when I leaked the documents to you. I could not count on my government or Bofors or the government of India to get to the bottom of this.”
Then, in a cathartic finale, Mr. Lindström says: “False closures of corruption bleed the system. Every day has to matter. When something like the scale and violence of Bofors happens, you begin to question your own faith as a professional and a human being. When you start losing faith, you begin to lose hope. When hope is lost, everything is lost. We cannot afford to let that happen. Maybe we will get nowhere, but silence cannot be the answer.”

Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ #LIG-2 / 761,HUDCO FIRST STAGE ,OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSORE - 570017INDIA… cell :09341820313 

Contact  : ,   

No comments: