MR. CHAIRMAN: Please try to conclude now. I have been very accommodative.

... (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your leader is speaking and you are interrupting your own leader.

... (Interruptions)

x ɴɱ : ɦ{i V, ɱ ɽ `E E inx E +vEɮ ʨɱx SʽB*

... (ɴvx)

=xE inx nx E +vEɮ Ux Mɪ * ... ɽ E Eɽ *

... (ɴvx)

(ɴvx)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nothing is to be recorded except Shri Joshi's speech.

(Interruptions) *

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Mohan Rawale, will you please take your seat?

... (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Joshi, may I request you to please conclude? I have given you more than double the time allotted.

... (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is very unfortunate. You are interrupting your own leader from speaking.

... (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, may I request you to take your seats? Otherwise, I will call the next hon. Member, if you interrupt him like this.

... (Interruptions)

x V : ɦ{i ɽn, ɽ c +xɪ E i < <ʱB M E Mֺ *

... (ɴvx)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Joshi, you have already made your point.

SHRI MANOHAR JOSHI: Sir, I have not completed my point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do not make any comment on any Constitutional Authority.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Not Recorded.

x V : < n inx E +vEɮ Mɱɺ E i * < n inx E +vEɮ Mhb E i * ɽ SxE + Ei * n>n <ʽ E +vEɮ i , +h Mɴɱ E +vEɮ i *

... (ɴvx)

ʽxni E |Sɮ E <ʱB E E +vEɮ xɽ ʨɱM i ɽ i Mɱi *

... (ɴvx)

ɽ E E Mɱn V M +i , =xE inx E +vEɮ i *

... (ɴvx)

< nx E vɨ +{ɺ M EM E ɱ ɽ `E E inx nx E +vEɮ i֮i nx SʽB, ɽ ɮ M * Sɽi E Mɽ j V < {ɮ vx n + ɱ ɽ `E E inx nx E +vEɮ i֮i {ɺ nɪ*

... (ɴvx)

<ix M EE +{x ɹh ɨ{i Ei *

.......(Interruptions)

... (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you please take your seat? I have called Shri Manishankar Aiyar.

... (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nothing will be recorded now.

(Interruptions) *

MR. CHAIRMAN: You know that the debate has to conclude today. Please sit down.

... (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: He has already spoken. Please take your seat. Your leader has already made the point.

... (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nothing will be recorded except Shri Aiyar's speech.

(Interruptions) *

... (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN : Nothing is being recorded.

(Interruptions) *

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Manohar Joshi's speech has been recorded and nothing else will be recorded.

(Interruptions) *

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have not given you permission. Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar has not yielded.

... (ɴvx)

Eƴɮ ɴǮV ʺƽ (+ƴɱ) : ɽ c MƦҮ ɨɱ E VɺE V x SʽB

... (ɴvx)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nothing will be recorded.

(Interruptions) *

----------------------------------------------------------------

* Not Recorded.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nothing has been recorded.

(Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is not being recorded. Why do you not take your seats?

... (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you please take your seats? Please take your seat. You may please take your seat.

... (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are not fair to your leader.

... (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nothing will be recorded.

(Interruptions) *

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please take your seat. I have not called anybody. I have not given you permission.

... (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have not given you permission.

... (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you please take your seats?

... (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Why do you not take your seat? Your leader has spoken. He has spoken very effectively. Why are you getting upset by others? Will you please take your seats?

V ɤɮ (+Mɮ) : xxҪ n E i E ɪn ɨZx <xE Mɱiɡ *

... (ɴvx)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Babbar, please take your seat. I have not given you permission. Shri Aiyar, you may start your speech.

... (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am requesting you for the last time to take your seats. It will not be recorded.

(Interruptions) *

+xi MMɮɨ Mi : ɦ{i ɽn, < nx E n E +ɮ{ Ex nx E +{ɨx *

... (ɴvx)

MR. CHAIRMAN: We shall look into this. Nothing has been recorded.

... (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: We shall look into that.

... (Interruptions)

ֱɪɨ ʺƽ n (ɨɱ) : ɦ{i ɽn, Ҩ ɽ Vx E <VVi i nVB*

... (ɴvx)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nothing is being recorded.

(Interruptions) *

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Rawale, nothing is being recorded. Why are you doing like this? Shri Raj Babbar, please take your seat. I did not allow anybody. Nothing has been recorded.

... (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: He has made his point. He has made the same point. Why are you getting upset? He is not deciding anything.

... (Interruptions)

... (ɴvx)

x ɴɱ : Ex ɮ xi E +xn EM

... (ɴvx)

ֱɪɨ ʺƽ V, +{E +n Ei *

... (ɴvx)

MR. CHAIRMAN : I am requesting you for the last time.

... (Interruptions)

ֱɪɨ ʺƽ n : ɦ{i V, E< ɴɱ xɽ l* ɴɱ ɽ E +ɮ{ Sxɴ +ɪM x Mɪ, ɽ E* j V {ɮ E< +ɮ{ xɽ + +{x x xɽ * <ix v xi E +{ {ɮ <ix +ɮ{ , <ix +ɮ{ * E Z E +nɱi x +ɮ{ `ɪ ?

... (ɴvx)

+{ ` ʽ, < iɮ xɽ Sɱ Ei* +{ `*

... (ɴvx)

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have given your views. Your leader has very effectively expressed his views and your party's views.

... (Interruptions)

+xi MMɮɨ Mi : x +{E Jɱɡ +ɮ{ xɽ Mɪ, x ɽ E ... (ɴvx)

ֱɪɨ ʺƽ n : +{E i Sxɴ +ɪM x +ɮ{ x ʱɪ * E +nɱi x E +ɮ{ x ? +{ ɤ i Ei * ɽ i <xE ɮEɮ , ɮ ɮEɮ i i +V `E ɽ E V i*

... (ɴvx)

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can speak when your turn comes.

... (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nothing else has been recorded.

(Interruptions) *

AN HON. MEMBER: Sir, thank you.

... (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: You do not have to thank me.

... (Interruptions)

------------------------------------------------------------------

* Not Recorded.

SHRI MANI SHANKAR AIYAR (MAYILADUTURAI): Sir, I would like to begin by joining those who spoke before me in thanking our respected Rashtrapatiji for his Address to the Joint Session of both the Houses. In particular, I would like to welcome paragraph 41 of the Address where the Government has stated that the cancer of corruption is eating into every institution of our nation and that the Government is determined to ensure probity in public life. It is a matter of the highest importance that corruption be fought. I would have wanted to stand here and say that I believe that this Government is going to fight corruption. While sitting here and listening to the hon. Member who moved this Motion, I was impressed and moved by his remark

ɹ]Sɮ E< ɨZi xɽ E VɪM*

But then when it came to a description of what is corruption,

VɺE l E< ɨZi xɽ E VɪM

there was only one matter that was raised by the hon. Member who moved the Motion. It was the issue of Bofors. There was no reference to the large number of other matters which had agitated this House on the front of corruption and which would continue to agitate this House on the front of corruption. There was no reference to the import of sugar from Pakistan when we were in the middle of a war with them; there was no reference to the import of wheat when our godowns were full; there was no reference to the telecom policy being changed by an unrepresentative Government at a time when there was no House to be responsible to; and there was no reference to the case that has been pending for years relating to the destruction of the Babri Masjid. The only point that was raised by the mover of this Motion, in order to establish that their Government is committed to the fight against corruption of which the President spoke was the Bofors case. What did he say? He said:

"Z +ɶSɪ +, Vɤ vɴ ɴ ʺvɪ il nںɮ +x M x ɽ E E <ɨ VҴ Mv E xɨ <ʱB xEɱ n Vɪ, EE |vx j *" x i +{x ɽ E, x x ɽ E*

None of us has ever pleaded that Rajiv Gandhi's name should be removed from the Bofors chargesheet because he was the Prime Minister. I would like to remind the House what Shri Madhavrao Scindia has said in this House. He said that we are objecting to Rajiv's name being dragged into this case `without a shred of evidence'.

It is the lack of evidence. It is the fact that since he has passed away, he is a person who has no opportunity now to defend himself or represent himself. It is on those grounds that we asked for the deletion of Shri Rajiv Gandhi's name from the chargesheet.

As far as I myself was concerned, after I was eventually given the opportunity of saying a few words in this matter, I said - it is very very unethical of me to quote myself but it is necessary, Sir, in the interest of setting the record right in the light of what the mover of the motion said and I said:

"We demand of the Government the deletion from Column 2 of the name of Shri Rajiv Gandhi since no ground has been established which would warrant or justify the inclusion of his name."

I went on to say:

"There is nothing in the Recitation of the chargesheet which establishes anything other than that Shri Rajiv Gandhi was in no way a beneficiary in any manner to whatever payments that might have been made."

Since the Government does not seem capable of understanding what the issue is, I am left, Sir, with no alternative but to concentrate on this issue in the context of Paragraph 41 of the hon. President's Address.

In doing so, I would first like to take up the remarks made on behalf of the Government by the Minister who was designated by it to speak. He said:

"If anybody is aggrieved, the remedy is that he goes to Court. He challenges it before the Court. He takes appropriate legal steps before the Court."

Sir, Shri Rajiv Gandhi's name has been included in Column 2 of the chargesheet. Column 2 is the list of accused who are not going to be sent up for trial. Since Shri Rajiv Gandhi is not being sent up for trial, there is no question of Shri Rajiv Gandhi being summoned to the Court to represent himself. He will neither be present nor will there be a lawyer present on his behalf, nor will he has the opportunity of calling his own witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses that the public prosecutor will be presenting on behalf of the State, examining any of the documents - I am told there are 213 documents which the Government will be placing before the Court - or answering any one of the 83 witnesses that they propose to call. Here is a man who has been named in the chargesheet with the `express' purpose of having him put down as an accused but not affording him an opportunity of defending himself. Is this fair? Is this just?

When this question was raised, the same hon. Minister on behalf of this hon. Government sneered and said that, `if Dhanu's name - the assassin of Shri Rajiv Gandhi - can be included in Column 2 of the chargesheet on the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi and if Shri Beant Singh's - the assassin of Shrimati Indira Gandhi - name can be included in the chargesheet on the assassination of Shrimati Indira Gandhi, then what is the great problem of including the name of Shri Rajiv Gandhi in Column 2. I am not going to concentrate in my intervention on the utter indelicacy of attempting in this manner to equate Shri Rajiv Gandhi who was a martyr with his own assassin Dhanu and with the assassin of his mother, Shri Beant Singh. Both Shri Beant Singh and Dhanu were self-proclaimed assassins. They were proud of the assassinations they undertook. They were ready to pay the price of their crime. There was never any doubt in their minds that they were once the culpable for the assassination of the two Prime Ministers I had mentioned.

Nobody has suggested that they were not. The chargesheet that has been filed in both cases recited, in absolute detail, the circumstances which established indubitably that both these people -- Dhanu and Beant Singh -- were culpable and there was no question whatsoever of their not culpable. Had there been any such question, they would have been proud of saying that in this particular case they are culpable. How can this be compared to the Bofors chargesheet in which, grounds have not been established for indubitably naming a person who is not in a position to defend himself as an accused?

Sir, this is a criminal trial. There is no way in which a civilian-I or Shri Madhavrao Scindia or anyone else can intervene in the case. We cannot go to the court; we cannot put up the argument which perhaps late Rajiv Gandhi would have put up had he been alive among us. After he ceased to be the Prime Minister, late Rajiv Gandhi was among us, was alive, functioned as the Leader of the Opposition for close on 18 months. During those 18 months period an FIR was filed. In the filing of the FIR, there was no reference whatsoever, to late Rajiv Gandhi. All it said was: "other public servants". If in fact, the CBI believed that late Rajiv Gandhi was one of the other public servants, they had all 18 months before he was martyred to go to him, interrogate him and find out the grounds on which they could proceed further against him. During those 18 months of his life after the filing of the FIR no attempt whatsoever was made to interrogate him or establish any grounds from his own mouth for the State to proceed against him.

Sir, I have with me a book written by the former Director of the CBI, Shri Joginder Singh in which there is a full chapter of 20 pages starting at page 83 and continuing up to page 103 in which he deals extensively and in very great detail with the Bofors case. This is a book called Inside CBI by Joginder Singh. It is amazing how much the language of the chargesheet follows the language of this chapter in this book. But in one very very important particular what Shri Joginder Singh had to say after having investigated this case as Director of the CBI is not on all fours with the chargesheet which they have filed. In Joginder Singh's book, there is nowhere that he suggests that late Rajiv Gandhi was an accused or should be regarded as an accused. We know that it was Director, CBI, Shri Joginder Singh who collected those documents which formed the basis of indicting Mr. Quattrocchi, Mr. Win Chadha, and Mr. Martin Ardbo as accused in this case in Column I which would enable them to come to the court and defend themselves. It was Shri Joginder Singh who had stated publicly that he had completed the investigation of the case on the basis of the Swiss documents received in January, 1997. We know that in the month of May, 1997 -- inferentially from this book -- that investigation had been completed, the draft chargesheet was ready and late Rajiv Gandhi's name was not there in the chargesheet. But what happened next?

Sir, I have with me documents which indicate, if not establish, that after Shri Joginder Singh ceased to be the Director and the predecessor Government of the present one -- as Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav recently reminded us -- it is virtually the same composition as the Government that is presently sitting here and came into office. I am referring to their assuming the reigns of office in March, 1998.

I would like to tell you what, Dr. T.N. Mishra who was the then head of the CBI, had said. Here, I have a newspaper clipping which says:

"In July-August, 1998, in an internal note, the senior officers including the former CBI Director, Dr. T.N. Mishra had said that the agency should not file chargesheets in the Bofors case or press for sanction for prosecution till there is more evidence to show bribery and the involvement of public servants."

So, this was the first advise tendered to the in-coming new Government of Atal Behari Vajpayee. I am referring to his second Government. The Director of the CBI himself, in an internal note, says that they have not got the evidence. This happened one year after the CBI had finished its processing of the documents received from Switzerland. He says that they have not got the evidence to establish it and he asks not to proceed further in the matter and get more evidence so as to have a water-tight case.

Thereafter comes the next step. The Senior Legal Advisor to the CBI was sacked. Why? I again quote from a newspaper report dated 6th May, 1999:

"The CBI Senior Legal Advisor handling the case had contended that the evidence collected was not enough to file chargesheets."

He had therefore been shunted out of the team handling the case. The Legal Advisor was of the opinion that the evidence did not make a sound case either for fraud or criminal misconduct under the Indian Penal Code or under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This is the advice of their Senior Legal Advisor. They received this advice and what did they do? They sacked him. Having sacked him, the Team still remains and the Team says, "Let us examine what is happening." I have another newspaper report dated 21st May, 1999 saying:


[NEXT PAGE]