Bofors case: 5 questions the Congress needs to answer

Sten Lindstrom, the Chief Investigator in the Bofors case in Sweden, has made claims that shake the very foundations of the narrative that has been woven by the Congress for decades now. 

Over three decades after the scam was covered up, Republic TV's editorial advisor Chitra Subramaniam, who first brought out the Bofors documents in public view, spoke to the person who was heading the National Investigation Department of Sweden, the country where Bofors was based. Sten Lindstrom, now 71, who has never appeared on a TV interview, is the chief investigator who knows all about the case.

R. Hack: Bofors scandal explained 

However, questions over the Congress' involvement in the deal still remain. Here are some of them:

---

If Congress believed Rajiv was innocent, why didn’t they contact Lindstorm at all? Is that suspicious that even if it were to clear Rajiv’s name — why didn’t they approach the chief investigating officer? 

---

Rajiv Gandhi represented all of India as PM and the allegation is that he was the one who proposed kickbacks in the Bofors deal, according to the chief investigating officer. Can the Congress brush this aside as political vendetta? Aren’t they answerable with counter proof? 

---

The boxes were lying in India since 1997… We haven’t heard of the boxes at all. We just know that the case gave a clean chit to Rajiv in 2004… What happened to the boxes and why hasn’t any govt spoken about them? Isn’t it time to open them up and get the CBI back into investigating? 

---

Sten claims that the dying Martin Ardbo told him he was present on a flight wherein Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi “discussed payments” and “wanted Mr. Olof to receive funds for purpose of his own”. Now the name involved was not only a sitting PM who belonged to the Congress but was Rahul Gandhi’s father. How can the Gandhis skim the surface on this one? 

---

Isn’t the Congress answerable to the country on the dirty details of the Bofors deal especially when Rajiv Gandhi in 1987 had himself assured the Lok Sabha no middlemen were involved and no kickbacks were paid and today we have a counter narrative saying he was the one proposing the kickback to Palme even before the deal was signed? 

---