Commentary/T V R Shenoy
The St Kitts case is nothing less than a blueprint for an assault on
every Indian citizen
Rs 640 million stolen in the Bofors case. Rs 1.33 billion stolen in
the urea scam. Rs 9.5 billion stolen in the fodder scam.
Compared to these vast sums -- and I haven't even mentioned the
securities scam! -- some may wonder why an overworked Central Bureau of Investigation even bothers
to investigate the relatively small amounts involved in the JMM
bribery case or the St Kitts forgery case.
The answer is both cases throw up issues that is far greater
than the money involved. The JMM case may be easier to understand.
There is a general consensus that bribing MPs strikes at the roots
of representative democracy.
But St Kitts?
Unlike Bofors, or even the JMM, the St Kitts
case has received only sporadic attention from the media and the
public at large. I predict that there will be even less, now that
the charges against P V Narasimha Rao have been struck down.
This collective lack of attention is dangerous. Because the St
Kitts case is nothing less than a blueprint for an assault on
every Indian citizen. It was a naked abuse of State power to crush
an innocent individual. That, not the presence or absence of a
former prime minister in the dock, is what should concern us all.
Consider the facts. It was the State machinery that was abused
in the desperate hunt to find a true copy of V P Singh's son's
signature. It was the State machinery, in the form of the Enforcement
Directorate, that then went after Ajeya Singh. It was the State
machinery that authenticated forged documents (which claimed that
Ajeya Singh was guilty of violating FERA regulations).
Yes, there is every reason to believe that Chandra Swami, the all-powerful
'godman' of the Narasimha Rao era, was involved in the forgery
from beginning to end. And the court has, in fact, ruled that
there is enough prima facie evidence to frame charges against
him and his secretary, Kailashnath Agarwal aka Mamaji.
But it isn't a question of nailing a Mamaji today or a Chacha
tomorrow. Because Chandra Swami and his disciple, whatever else they claimed, did not embody the majesty of the State. Chandra Swami
may have dreamt up the crooked plan, but the hands that carried
out the project worked for the State.
Throughout the sad story of the St Kitts forgery the bureaucracy
at large seems to have played along with Rajiv Gandhi's desire
to hit out at V P Singh. At no point whatsoever did any civil
servant point out the blatant illegality of what they were doing.
So the external affairs ministry dug out Ajeya Singh's signature
from a passport application form in distant London, and then authenticated
a forgery in the New York consulate-general. The ED
swallowed the forgery wholesale, and sent sleuths charging across
the globe. And every section of the bureaucracy gave selective
leaks to the media.
All this was done in the utter confidence that nobody would be
blamed. After all, if the prime minister was saying so then it
had to be legal.
This, is essence, was the remarkable defence offered by R K Anand,
Narasimha Rao's able lawyer. Anand argued that Rao, then the external
affairs minister, had done nothing but act as Rajiv Gandhi commanded.
This seems to have been accepted by the special judge.
Justice Ajit Bharihoke said there was reason to believe that
Narasimha Rao initially refused to ask the Indian consul-general
in New York to authenticate the forgery. Rao did, however, play
along after getting a message from the Prime Minister's Office.
"Had Rao been a party to the conspiracy," the special
judge ruled, "there was no reason for him to refuse to assist
Chandra Swami for the attestation work." (I am afraid Justice
Bharihoke didn't give enough credit to Rao's intelligence and
sense of self-preservation here!)
In any case, it is immaterial whether Rao knew what
was going on from the very beginning, or whether he entered the
game at a later stage. The point is that he willingly collaborated
in framing an innocent man, as did all the others.
Rao and the rest may or may not be guilty of cooking up the
conspiracy. But they are definitely guilty of helping carry it through.
Yesterday, it was Ajeya Singh. Tomorrow, it could be any of us
who happen to anger a powerful man. (Or, as in Ajeya Singh's case,
it could even be an accident of relationship that puts us in the
path of the State machinery.) Does that mean we too shall
be hounded by the various agencies at the disposal of the State?
Ajeya Singh escaped the trap because a vigilant media exposed
the chinks in the hastily cooked-up charges against him. What
guarantee is there that the rest of us, those who lack famous
parents anyway, will be equally unscathed?
The assault on Martin Massey (the Delhi-based executive beaten by the
cops for accidentally straying on the prime minister's route)
has been justly condemned. The St Kitts forgery was an equally
great assault by the forces of the State on a harmless individual.
Massey and Ajeya Singh survived. The rest of us may not be so
lucky. It is time we started paying more attention to the issues
involved in the St Kitts case.
Tell us what you think of this column
|