The Ambassadors Evidence

The book (The Ambassadors Evidence) tells us what is obvious but stops at the point where it might be interesting. For example, it goes to great length to prove that there were middlemen in the deal but it takes us no further on who the ultimate beneficiaries were. The fact that there were agents or brokers is only startling news to the naive bureaucrats of the government. Had they cared to ask any ordinary businessmen, they could have discovered that a transaction of this kind could never have been undertaken without the active involvement of middlemen; indeed they are in absolute necessity in business with or without pay-offs. No one has ever done international business without involving agents or brokers.

 

The real absurdity of the Bofors deal was the decision of the government of India that there would be no middlemen. Once you start from a ludicrous point, remorseless argumentation lands you into bedlam. That is precisely what has happened both to Oza and the entire enquiry on Bofors. Oza tells us that the Government of India was in injured party. If Bofors were found guilty, Government of India was likely to be compensated for the loss due to pay-off.

Now this statement characterises the sloppy thinking of the enquirers. If they had begun their investigation by recognising (a) that in one way or the other Bofors could not have done this transaction without paying their agents, and (b) the decision of the government of India to ban middlemen was totally bizarre and simply displayed the naivet