November 09, 2000

Why punters don’t bet on the CBI
The slippery Hindujas

Proving that the Hindujas were involved in the Bofors pay-off could be even harder than providing evidence of the allegations against Alec Stewart

I suppose it is possible, given the advances in aviation technology, to travel from India to the United States without stopping anywhere. But why on earth would anyone want to do so? My own personal preference is to stop over in London to break both the monotony and the jet-lag — which is precisely what I did when flying over to watch the American presidential polls from Ground Zero. (I admit I am an election buff, and this promised to be one for the record-books; the icing on the cake was watching American democracy in action on the anniversary of the Russian revolution).

But, whatever my own personal interests, does it make a difference to India whether a president Gore or a President Bush takes the oath come January? ‘‘England does not have permanent friends or enemies,’’ Lord Palmerston explained to disapproving Tories in the nineteenth century, ‘‘She has permanent interests.’’ That is just as true today — American interests, whether strategic or economic, shall dictate the course of the relationship with India. Party politics really has very little to do with diplomacy. (It is a lesson, one of many, that the confused Congress (I) boss would do well to learn.)

This attitude did not go down well with my British interlocutors. If the Chinese root for Gore, was the attitude, should not Indians take some interest too? The general feeling was that India is so engrossed in her own affairs that she has little time to see what others are doing. Britain, the unstated implication went, was not so self-centred.

I did not argue — though I might have pointed out that India’s problems are so continental in scale that they seem to dwarf all else. The fact is that my friends were at least half-right; they were taking an interest in other nations. The presidential polls, obviously, took centre-stage, but rather to my surprise quite a few people wanted to discuss India too.

The focus was on the Central Bureau of Investigation in general, and two cases specifically: cricket and Bofors. I am not sure, however, that this was quite as much of an example of British interest in other countries as some would have me believe. After all, three British citizens’ reputations are involved, all three of them being prominent men.

The CBI has stated that the former English Test captain Alec Stewart had met a couple of bookies. I am not sure if this is really sufficient to smear him. The same problem surfaces again when the agency accuses S.P. Hinduja and G.P. Hinduja of complicity in the seemingly never-ending saga of the Bofors pay-off case. Making a charge-sheet is one thing, but is there enough evidence against them to stand scrutiny in a court of law?

To start with cricket, the performance of the English side borders on the abominable. (Take a look at reports of their match against South Africa in the ICC knock-out last month, and you will see what I mean.) But can you blame Stewart for that? If anything, he has been one of the better performers in the English side, and I do not mean that as a backhanded compliment.

That said, there is a fair amount of respect for Indian investigators these days; everybody remembers the first dramatic days of Cronje-gate and how the South African captain denied his guilt. That memory means nobody is willing to come out and be as voluble as they were back in April. But nobody really believes that Alec Stewart is guilty of anything other than poor judgement at worst.

The case against the Hindujas is on a different footing. The CBI has charge-sheeted them, which indicates that there is some hard proof of their complicity in the Bofors pay-off. (Or, at any rate, that the investigators think so; whether or not the judiciary agrees will be known in a couple of weeks from today around November 20.)

The Hindujas have tremendous clout, both in India and Britain, with links extending to politicians in both nations. Prime ministers have been guests at their receptions, as have various Opposition members. Does India’s premier investigative agency truly posses enough proof to nail them?

Those in the know concede, without any quibbling, that there probably were — still are — some links between the Swedish armament giant and the Hindujas. It might even be possible that money from Bofors found its way into Swiss accounts operated by some of the Hinduja clan. But is that enough?
The Hinduja family operates in several nations. It is quite possible, even probable, that the money paid by Bofors was in connection with some other deal, in a country other than India. I have heard some talk that the Hindujas could, if pressed, present a certificate to this effect. (The document would, I understand, bear the signature of one of the most respected chartered accountant firms.) They say that this report is now with the Swiss authorities.

The Hindujas may spring a surprise when the case is taken up. Quite frankly, proving that the Hindujas were involved in the Bofors pay-off could be even harder than providing evidence of the allegations against Alec Stewart.
The British have reason to be sceptical. A while ago, a section of the media published some allegations against the Hindujas. The family promptly challenged this in the courts, and proceeded to win prompt apologies. I admit that the CBI cannot be brushed away quite as easily as the English media, but that is irrelevant. The question is: where is the proof?

There is no dearth of rumours about cricketers. There is an actual chargesheet against members of the Hinduja family. But if you ask me the people who are truly on trial are the investigators in the CBI.

I venture to predict that the media — in London if not in Delhi — will turn on the investigative agency when the day comes to prove its case in court. The English press has already been burned by taking on the Hindujas, and is sceptical that the Indian outfit shall fare any better. It might have been a close race in the United States, but punters are refusing to put their money on the Central Bureau of Investigation.

 

Other columnists:

Other articles by the columnist Judge, judge thyself The law as prize chump Flying high, J class Before the midnight hour Off with the kid gloves Mutual respect and esteem The liability factor