Follow Us:
Saturday, July 21, 2018

Questions from Congress

“An intriguing aspect of the Bofors discussion today is that the name of Sonia Gandhi,who brought (Ottavio) Quattrocchi into the Gandhi family,is not being mentioned at all

Written by Swaraj Thapa | Published: May 3, 2012 3:36:42 am


Seeking to bring Congress president Sonia Gandhi directly into the line of fire on the Bofors case,the RSS says in its latest editorial in the Organiser that the recent debate on it,after Swedish police chief Sten Lindstrom’s interview,avoids any reference to her.

“An intriguing aspect of the Bofors discussion today is that the name of Sonia Gandhi,who brought (Ottavio) Quattrocchi into the Gandhi family,is not being mentioned at all. Like the character in J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series,it appears she is the one who must not be named. Rajiv Gandhi is discussed,Arun Nehru gets dragged in. But not her,” it says.

The editorial is critical of past non-Congress governments,suggesting that they didn’t seriously pursue the case. “Successive governments… knew who the culprits were and yet chose to look the other way… curiously,the government agency supplied a list of names to be ‘planted’ as suspects in the Bofors kickback scandal”.

The Panchjanya too does not spare the ruling establishment over Bofors,saying that Lindstrom’s revelations put the Congress in the dock. It took note of Lindstrom’s contention that,while Rajiv may have not taken a bribe,he allegedly tried to slow down the CBI probe so that a cover-up could be conducted. It alleges that Lindstrom’s comments indicate that after Rajiv,it is Sonia that shielded Quattrocchi. “Why does the Congress not want to take the Bofors case to its logical conclusion? Why does it not want all the facts relating to the case come out? On whose directions did the CBI seek closure of the case citing lack of evidence?” it asks.


The senior RSS ideologue M.G. Vaidya,in an article in the Organiser,has questioned the recent Supreme Court judgment on the Right to Education Act,which upheld the government’s decision to make it obligatory for private educational institutions to reserve 25 per cent seats for economically backward students,but exempted minority-run institutions from this requirement.

Vaidya says: “It is difficult to understand why the SC is obsessed with the duality of educational institutions. Private educational institutions… do not receive any government aid. One can understand the votebank compulsions of political parties. But should (the) SC be constrained to stoop to that level? I would like to congratulate the dissenting judge (who)… has pointed out this discrepancy in his minority judgement,” he says.

He maintains that such a move is not in the spirit of Article 30 of the Constitution. “I am a Marathi speaking person. In Delhi,I belong to a linguistic minority. I,as of my right conferred on me by Article 30,start a Marathi school in Delhi… But,suppose,in my school,I admit even those students whose mother tongue is not Marathi,and their number is tremendously larger than that of the Marathi-speaking students,should it be called a minority educational institution? And if so,on what basis?”

He gave another example of his own experience of working at the Hislop College in Nappur. “I served in that college for 17 long years. It is founded by… a missionary outfit. But,90 per cent of the students admitted in the college were and even now are non-Christians. It also receives government grant. Should it be called a minority educational institution and free from obligatory provisions of the government regulations?”

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App

More From Swaraj Thapa