At her rally in Bangalore on January 15, Sonia Gandhi achieved the impossible: a national consensus on Bofors. Sonia's reasons for a speedy inquiry -- the exoneration of her late husband Rajiv Gandhi -- may be personal; her call for a sense of urgency is not. After all, it has been a decade since the bribery charges in the purchase of Bofors' guns were first made. True, the Rs 64 crore swindle may have been dwarfed by many subsequent ones. Nevertheless, Bofors is something of a touchstone for political morality in this country. A prime minister was charged with personal corruption -- and a general election became a virtual referendum on the issue. The people of India have a stake in the truth, a stake beyond mere currency notes. The legacy of Rajiv can never be truly assessed until the Bofors saga reaches a definite conclusion.

Yet, Sonia's moral indignation comes couched in selective amnesia. She speaks of "five opposition governments" since 1989 not accelerating the Bofors probe. That three of these were dependent on the Congress for survival is left unstated. The first such regime was led by Chandra Shekhar, a prime minister who deemed Bofors fit only for a police inspector's attention. The Congress did not disagree. Nor was it any tardy progress on the Bofors front that prompted Sitaram Kesri to withdraw support to the United Front. Also, the Congress has ruled the country for five of the post-Bofors years (1991-96). In 1992, its foreign minister was forced to resign after it was established that he had given his Swiss counterpart a letter seeking to scuttle the probe. If Sonia is keen to put all this behind her, she should tell the Congress to make a time-bound Bofors inquiry part of its election manifesto. She should also help the authorities in any way she can. For a start, the lady could ask Ottavio Quattrocchi -- the business agent with whom she shares a native country and an abiding affection for Rajiv -- how a part of the alleged bribes came to reach his Swiss bank account.

Lean and Lethal
The Army's desire to cut numbers and enhance capability needs political support

The Defence Ministry's statement that the Union Cabinet has taken no decision to downsize the Army is intriguing. At one level it is a confession of the Government's failure to do its own work. It also highlights one of the lesser secrets of the land: that the relationship between the armed forces and IAS officers who man the Ministry of Defence remains dysfunctional. For the past year or so, clearance for several important measures to modernise the Army -- and, separately, evolve a policy to harness the country's private and public sectors in aiding naval ship and submarine construction -- has been pending with the Union Cabinet. The services are now being told that the decisions cannot be taken because of the elections. Considering the alacrity with which I.K. Gujral's Government has acted on other, more contentious issues, this is amazing. It seems merely an excuse to hide the fact that the Cabinet could not be bothered with matters of national security, matters which it simply refuses to understand.

Which political party or politician will question the need to make the Army leaner and meaner -- or a policy measure that enhances the Navy at no cost to the exchequer? Cutting numbers to enhance productivity is something that ought to have been an article of faith with the bloated Government itself. In fact the Army should be congratulated for suggesting a method by which it can, without an increased budget, enhance combat efficiency. Essentially, the proposal seeks to reduce the administrative "tail" to the benefit of the "teeth" and use the money thus saved to modernise. Burdened as it is by the task of policing the border and fighting a slew of insurgencies, the army brass' efforts to keep the force focused on its principal task of deterring foreign adversaries deserve to be applauded. Sadly, it is being snubbed by short-sighted politicians and bureaucrats.

INDIA VOTES

© Living Media India Ltd