The Bofors ghost rises again

The ghost of Bofors—which has become some sort of catchword to signify corruption and wrongdoing at high levels—is emerging once again from the past to haunt India's political landscape. Long thought to be dead and buried, especially after the courts finally dismissed all allegations against the Hinduja brothers last May, charges about another of the dramatis personae have resurfaced.

The man in the spotlight this time around is Ottavio Quattrochi, the Italian businessman whose name surfaced as the possible beneficiary of commissions from Bofors which had sold guns to the Indian army. The BJP is making much of the news that a senior legal official of the Indian government flew to London to tell the British government India had no objection if Quattrochi's accounts in Britain were unfrozen. These were the accounts, it is suggested, in which the commissions from the Swedish gun manufacturer were deposited. The BJP is also baying for the blood of law minister HR Bharadwaj for sending the official.

Behind this demand is the implicit suggestion that Bharadwaj took this step to help out "10, Janpath", the residence of Congress chief Sonia Gandhi, at whose door all conspiracies end. Her late husband Rajiv Gandhi's name was linked with the Bofors scandal for years, causing his political downfall and changing the course of Indian politics from the late 1980s onwards. Though he died in 1991 and has since been exonerated, such is the power of the Bofors ghost that any invocation immediately brings back memories of alleged skullduggery and malfeasance.

Yet, there is need to tread carefully here. Opposition parties tend to make allegations which, once picked up by the media, tend to take a life of their own. Every subsequent step is then viewed as one more proof of a conspiracy to cover tracks. All this without any hard evidence.

The CBI is said to be reviving its investigations into Quattrochi. This is a welcome step, if only to pursue the matter to its logical conclusion. If Bharadwaj is found to have gone beyond his brief, he should be held accountable. But, the use of the word "Bofors" cannot and should not immediately imply that there is dirty work afoot.

It was used to deadly effect at one time, even though there was no proof. This time round there is need to show a more responsible attitude.