COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

The Rediff Interview/K Madhavan

'The Bofors case was transferred from me for political reasons'

These days even for a small crime, politicians all over the country clamour for a CBI enquiry. Do you feel this puts a lot of pressure on the CBI?

Yes. It shows two things. It shows the CBI is overworked. It also shows the confidence people have developed for the CBI despite all the criticism. People still feel the CBI, by Indian standards, is a good organisation.

Yes, the CBI is understaffed. Then, you can't go by numbers. You can't say the CBI has got 500 investigating officers and it can take up a lot of cases. Out of the 500, only 40 or 50 can handle tough investigations. It is like journalism. There are correspondents and correspondents, but only a few can handle subjects well. Others are sent on trivial beats. Within the CBI also, for important cases, good officers are selected. When more important cases come up, there is a dearth of good officers.

Did you ever feel frustrated when you were a CBI officer?

No. Except towards the end when I took voluntary retirement. I would say I did it more in disgust than frustration. Frustration has a sense of pessimism attached to it. Disgust has a sense of anger.

I used to be bold. I used to put up the notes the way I liked and if my boss differed from me, I used to discuss it with him. But I developed one habit. That is, if my boss passes a written order over-ruling me, I will comply with it immediately. After that I have no right to question him. But if he wants to shoot over my shoulder and without a written order, if he is asking me to do a wrong thing, I wouldn't do that. I was known for that.

How did you deal with politicians? You must have encountered political interference in your career too.

I dealt with politicians with respect, but firmness. I used to show respect which they deserved, but firmly make them understand that I was not the person who would do wrong things for them, whoever he may be.

You said you resigned in disgust. What made you feel disgusted?

For twenty years, I had been handling sensitive cases. It is only in the later part of my service that my name became known to the media. Even earlier I used to do a lot of big cases. In many of them, I faced a lot of interference. But I didn't succumb even on one occasion.

After twenty years, I felt it is enough. I thought if that was the manner in which everything is working, a single man crusade would not do any purpose. I was making myself a nuisance to others also.

What really made you angry?

I was not allowed to speak at that time. That was why I couldn't talk then. What made me angry was two things. One, the manner in which the Bofors case was transferred from me for political reasons. But at that time, I could not object because it was the director's privilege to assign any case to anyone. None has the right to say 'Only I can do this case, not others.' It would be very impetuous on somebody's part to say that 'Only I can do this.'

Under whose instructions was the case transferred from you?

Obviously, there were some political instructions.

From whom?

Obviously from the party in power, the Congress. I don't know which person. But I didn't like it. Still I continued. Then came the securities scam case. I wanted to follow a line of investigation. We wanted to trace some funds in foreign countries. Initially my director, S K Dutta agreed. A week later, he said, 'We have decided not to do that'. I said, 'Sir, that means you are arresting some bank officers and brokers. We will not be able to go after politicians'.

He said, 'Look here, Madhavan. I am under instructions not to follow this line'. Then I said, 'Sir, in that case, you transfer the case from me. I can't keep quiet on this'. He said, 'You have become too famous and I can't transfer you. We faced a lot of criticism when you were transferred from Bofors case. We do not want to do it again'. I said, 'Then Sir, you are leaving me with no alternative except to seek retirement'. He thought I was bluffing. He said, 'That's your privilege. Rules allow that'.

A week later, I gave my notice for voluntary retirement. Then he got shocked. He asked, 'what's this?' I said, 'Sir, you asked me to give it'. He said, 'No, no take it back. I won't accept it'. I said, 'You have no other option and I can't work under these circumstances. For the last twenty years, I was facing such tensions. I have done my bit for the organisation and the country. It is time for me to call it a day and get off. I have an alternative source of livelihood. Let me try my love as a lawyer also'. That is how I came out.

Were you disappointed that you were not allowed to complete the Bofors case?

No. In the sense that I shocked the bureaucracy and I shocked the politicians by what I did. So, to that extent, I taught them a lesson: that there are people who are not bothered about their jobs, who would rather quit than do wrong things.

Yes, I was quite interested in completing the Bofors case. But it has nothing to do with Bofors alone. I was quite interested in doing my job and seeing that it reaches its logical conclusion, like any other job by any other professional. Even a barber who starts cutting your hair would like to complete it. He would not like to stop it midway.

'The CBI has to be kept in check'

The Rediff Interview