My Interview With Sify.com : Why I called Arnab as Item Boy

 The man who out-shouted Arnab Goswami

- Bhama Devi Ravi 

Last week, Thirumurugan Gandhi was unexpectedly toasted as a hero on social networking sites for shouting out Times Now editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami on a TV debate.

The Chennai-based activist, a panelist on Goswami's electronic prime time durbar, ended up screaming at his host during a discussion on the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

In all the sound and fury, the real issue of Tamils, Lankan Tamils and the question of why Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated and who benefitted from the dastardly act are being lost, says Thirumurugan. 

The founder of the May 17 movement, Thirumurugan defends his screaming match with Arnab saying he was frustrated by the “north Indian” electronic media's bias towards the south.

He accuses both CNN IBN's Rajdeep Sardesai and Times Now's Arnab Goswami as being both   'uninformed'  and 'rude'.

“Rajdeep tried to drive an ethnic wedge into the debate, while Arnab is like an 'item boy' of television news,” says Thirumurugan.


Excerpts from a freewheeling chat:
 
Why do you call Arnab an 'item boy of TV news'?

I have nothing against Arnab Goswami. He is doing his job in the media business, a big ticket event with huge stakes. Such a scenario demands horses that can win the race.

Sadly, in the process of running such a race the media fails to question the policy level decisions whereby it can correct the imbalances in the system.

People like Arnab and Rajdeep do not delve deep into the fundamentals of any issue they take up for debate.

Our democracy hinges upon courts and politicians depend upon people. The bridge between the two is the media, which is in a position to formulate public opinion and present it from an unbiased platform.

Our politicians cannot ignore public opinion, and when that comes into public debate due to a crisis - as it happened when the Supreme Court commuted the death penalty of three convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case - the media should show the wisdom to recognize the grassroots level struggle, instead of towing  the establishment line.

There is a groundswell of opinion against the death penalty, and activists like me do not always get the platform in a debate.

Are you saying you did not get to air your views on primetime? What was your experience as a panelist on both Rajdeep's and Arnab's shows?

Rajdeep wanted to portray this as a terrorist case. We are all still saddened by what happened to Rajiv Gandhi, but we need to have an open debate on who killed Rajiv Gandhi and who benefitted from it.

These questions were never raised. Rajdeep asked if Tamil lives are more precious than Kashmiri lives, since the state government wants to release the three who have already spent over 23 years in prison.
How can Rajdeep project an ethnic divide on a national channel? That is simply atrocious.

If you already have preconceived ideas, why pretend to host a debate?

Also, Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa is not going win elections merely by releasing the three men, and the government is not going to make any money on this.

Having invited me as a panelist, Arnab did not come to me for over 30 minutes, although the other panelists were asked to air their views.

When finally he came to us, he gave me and my colleague Elangovan hardly a few seconds to state our point of view.

Even as we are speaking, the volume of the microphone is gradually reduced.  This is highly humiliating. Why call us and waste our time?

How does this make Arnab an 'item boy'?

An item song from a film triggers 'commercial' taste in the mind—the perverted side of our minds is presented in a polished manner.

Arnab is not questioning the perverted view of the understanding of the issue himself, but he promotes the business (of a news event).  He may have good taste, but why he is not articulating civil society's perspective on the death penalty?

We should not exploit anyone on their poor understanding. This is why I refer to him as an 'item boy.'

Are you saying Arnab does not understand the issue he is debating?

Look, he did not engage with me on the Jain Commission findings, or the Verma Commission's interim report.

When I said we should take an international perspective, he spoke of  the John F Kennedy assassination.

We have had four high profile political assassinations in the region: Indira Gandhi, Zia Ul Haq, Rajiv Gandhi and Premadasa were all killed. None of the anchors are looking at the geopolitical implications.

I came away feeling that Arnab was merely articulating Rahul Gandhi's views on the issue, and was endorsing it.


Is there a clear bias in the way north Indian TV channels and newsrooms cover Lanka? How does affect our perception of the Sri Lankan Tamils issue?

Yes, there is a very clear bias up there in understanding minorities, Dalits and many other issues.

The much misunderstood Sri Lankan Tamils issue is treated as nothing more than a problem of linguistic fanatics. They never invite the Tamil intelligentsia to their debates. UK and other European media have a better understanding of this issue.

It is the biggest shame for the Indian media that no Indian media is ready to air the Sri Lanka's Killing Fields video.  How can you be silent when there is proof of genocide?

A number of north Indian journalists were embedded as Army guests in Sri Lanka. Why can't they speak out? Where is the honesty of the media here?

Apart from the failure to correctly portray the plight of the ethnic Tamils, there has been no debate on India's foreign and defence policy from a southern perspective.

After Indira Gandhi, there has been no prime minister with an independent, well thought out foreign policy.

Because of their geography, Tamil Nadu and the north and eastern belts of Sri Lanka have a geo political position similar to Afghanistan in Central Asia. The Indian Ocean is a hub of economic activity, and Sri Lanka is allowing China and other countries a visible role in those waters.

The north Indian media is not looking at all these issues. You cannot ignore the geo political implications on your southern border, nor can you brush over the people's problem as a linguistic one.

What do you think should be the next step in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case?

The seven need to be released. Crime and punishment should reform a person and help them become a part of society once again.

One of the investigating officers (Thiagarajan) has stated that he recorded the confessions of the three on dubious interpretation. 

The Multi Disciplinary Monitoring Agency, set up in 1998 as a unit of CBI to probe the 1991 assassination of Rajiv Gandhi  is yet to file its report. 

The nation really needs to know who killed him and who benefitted from that act.

The late chairman of PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation) Yasser Arafat had warned of death threats to Rajiv Gandhi.

The government lost the Verma Commission report. If the culprits are still out there, then the threat still exists. Clearly, the Indian government has a reason to look at the assassination afresh. 

http://www.sify.com/news/interview-the-man-who-out-shouted-arnab-goswami-imagegallery-0-features-oc0rqBfjbae.html

"Mysteries of Rajiv Gandhi Assassination" - Introduction to Verma Commission & Jain Commission

Verma Commission’s Findings

1. Verma commission heavily criticized serious security lapses introduced by police & intelligence wings of state, central governments and also by Congress leaders

2. Ministerial committee which was instituted to review findings of Verma commission did not analyze any such aspects but quickly winded up after blaming four officers. Much to the demise of legal experts, the investigation against those officers was started long after they retired from service (when they enjoy impunity from any such investigation). The officers as if things have been pre-planned, did not panic. Instead they approached proper legal bodies and got the exceptions from enquiry

3. Credibility of M.K.Narayanan as IB director was questioned in length by Justice Verma for he,

§  a. Rejected to produce original video recordings of the bomb explosion

§  b. Rejected to agree in writing that he attended the meeting that discussed Rajiv’s security immediately following the announcement of Parliament elections

4. Karthikeyan, the head of SIT also exhibited a suspicious behavior

§  a. He too rejected to show the original video recordings of the bomb blast even in the last sitting of Verma commission

§  b. A version presented by him had the last few critical minutes being heavily tampered with making it very haze to arrive at any conclusion

§  c. He is also reported for having rejected the existence of such a video initially even to an enquiry commission

Jain commission’s Findings

1. Jain commission shared the shock and disbelief of the entire nation when it got a response from the Home Ministry that the file containing original documents related to Verma commission is MISSING

§  a. A similar disappearance of important documents happened with CBI officer Kumar losing his briefcase full of internationally collected documents in London’s Heathrow airport. He did nothing but file a complaint with London police and was put to no disciplinary action.

2. The obstacles put up by the Congress to the proper working of the Jain commission is multi pronged

§  a. Attorney General filed a suit that the Jain commission does not have any AUTHORITY to enquire anyone who has been enquired by SIT before

§  b. It cannot accuse anyone else apart from those accused by SIT as per his claim

§  c. Law ministry from its part delayed the process by taking a whole year to send a response to Jain’s request for clarification

§  d. It also tried its best to limit Jain commission’s fair trial process by supporting the claim made by Attorney General

3. But the best of moves from Congress was with the filing of a case in Delhi high court against the validity of the G.O which installed the Jain commission

§  a. This prompted the HC to bring an interim stay to any enquiry by the Jain commission

§  b. This only lead to a delay as the HC reassured the powers of Jain commission to operate with independence and anyone it finds fit shall be called for enquiry

§  c. The Congress in a knee jerk reaction escalated the case to Supreme Court of India. It was rightly caught with the SC questioning its interest in promoting a PIL filed by a so-called individual Delhi Lawyer Mustaq.

§  d. Congress ended up withdrawing the case showing everyone that it is the Congress that acted as the real hand behind the PIL file by Mustaq. Why would Congress try to stall a legally established enquiry commission?

4. The most successful move by Congress against the Jain commission was with the threat to withdraw the support to IK Gujral government if Jain commission was left to exist anymore.

§  a. The minority government forced by Congress pulled the plug off the only fair trial mechanism

§  b. Jain commission was forced to submit a final report in 7 days

§  c. A minister called up Jain and asked him to present only a high level report and asked him not to present any Action Taken Report (ATR). This would mean that the report is not presented in Parliament and sent to the Secretariat of the respective ministries instead

5. Jain commission withstood the enormous pressure exerted by Congress and presented a detailed 2000 page report explaining the clear links that Chandraswami had with the assassination and SubramanianSwamy’s links with the assassination

6. Justice Jain also wrote to Home ministry about the threat received from various parties and the way SIT tried to intimidate the works of Jain commission

7. Later it came to light that Narasimha Rao in order to save his close friend Chandraswami made the files to disappear

8. The one who performed all these activities on the behest of Narasimha Rao is none other the Home minister P. Chidambaram

The entire process leads to greater suspicions on the activities of the SIT. These questions do remain!

1. Why only sympathizers of Tamil cause alone were interrogated, accused and convicted?

§  a. All 26 of the accused were Tamils or sympathizers of Tamils, 13 from India and 13 from Srilanka. Yet Tamils who had an anti-Tamil affinity were excused.

§  b. All 4 of the accused who were condemned to death were Tamils and sympathizers of Tamil cause

§  c. For example, Perarivalan who was convicted to death was charged that he bought a 9v battery for the assassin. The only evidence was the cash bill (to be retained safely in his pocket when police arrested his months later!) that was supposed to have been given by a road side petty shop. Does any roadside shop in India give a receipt even now for a 5 Rs purchase? How about 20 years before (in 1991), before the invent of computerized billing? While Perarivalan who was watching movie at the time of Rajiv’s death was enquired and finally convicted, Marakatham Chandrasekar and her daughter who helped the assassin to approach Rajiv and were present at the site of assassination left to go free?

2. People who played definite roles were never convicted, accused or even interrogated

3. Apart from the vicious intention in the SIT’s approach, there are also serious human right violations in the way the enquiry was done. SIT’s officer Thiyagarajan infamously indicated by the Kerala HC for turning Sister Abaya’s rape and murder case in to a suicide case was heavily criticized for his credibility as an investigation officer.

§  a. It is shocking to believe that the Supreme Court’s verdict to hang the accused was based on the confessional statements obtained through brutal tortures by this tainted officer

§  b. There are lot of evidences to believe that the SIT has been heavily biased by those who were in power

§  c. This is strengthened by the way in which SIT tried to substantiate a charge against life convict Robert Pias only by quoting that he had intentions to murder Rajiv since IPKF killed his 13 days old child by smashing the infant to the wall. The fact remained that the harmless Pias was taking refuge in India in an attempt to save his other kid

- will come back with more information- Thank you for your time 

"Mysteries of Rajiv Gandhi Assassination" for Dummies

'Aathirai, one of the accused in the Rajiv case, moved a petition before the Madras High Court stating that she wanted to disclose more information about Sivarasan on 25 September 1992. Her petition reads as follows:

“When I was in Jaffna, I met one Sivarasan who had left the LTTE movement and was frequenting India. I sought his help to go to Germany from India. On arrival at Madras, Sivarasan told me he has been engaged by some Congress leader to do a certain job and offered a large amount and a job in a foreign country. He asked me to join him in the execution of the job. But I refused. He later confided that one Mr Kalyanaraman, manager at AICC headquarters, had entrusted him with the execution of the job and informed me that Rajiv would visit Madras on 21 May and would stay at Sriperumbudur. On 22 May, Sivarasan told me he had executed the job with Dhanu’s help. He told me to go to Delhi and said Kalyanaraman would help me get a passport to go to Germany.”

But nobody took notice of her petition and the CBI never verified whether her statements were true.'

In an interview to Tehelka by Mr.S DORAISAMY - Practising at the Madras High Court since 1970. He was defense counsel for Nalini, who was given death sentence, later commuted to life, in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. 

Rajiv Gandhi Assassination - Unanswered questions & unresolved puzzles

At a time when a great nation of a billion people is lead to believe that it has laid its hand on Rajiv’s murderers, we, as dutiful citizens of this country are heavily disturbed by the sheer negligence shown by all sections of the society in trying to understand the highly biased nature and the consequential intricacies of the trial carried on by CBI’s Special Investigation Team (SIT).

Winding the clocks back a little to 1990s and starting our reasoning process from the key deliberations of the opposition arguments in this case that ran for over 50 days, we attempt to portray some of the most shocking and revealing facts that were carefully hidden from the public attention until this very day.

In the hearings starting from the year 1993, this case ran for 50 months with 288 witnesses, 3000 documents from the Public prosecutor and 1000 documents supporting the opposition were presented in the court. The opposition arguments were delivered with a heavy presence of the officers from the Special Investigation Team and the Public prosecutors while the Tamilnadu Police stood guard for the proceedings but all through the investigation a completely secrecy was maintained.

Many of the questions raised during the opposition’s arguments remained unanswered. The way in which the investigation was done by the SIT leads to a suspicion that the investigation has been carefully mended to appease those in power.

Rajiv’s death  is the clear symptom of the deeper plans from the international powers which try to dominate the polity of India. That is precisely why these shocking events and the shortcomings in the investigation are very important and need to be analyzed.

The opposition arguments in this case were initiated by senior lawyer Mr. Duraisamy. He, in his initial argument, reportedly blew up all the ‘cooked up stories’ of the SIT before an intently listening court room. In a similar fashion, Mr. Ramadass in his 11 day opposition argument, brought to light many of the ‘made up stories’ in the SIT’s investigation report.

However the climax of the opposition argument came from the harsh elicitations from Mr. Chandrasekar. He, with highly convincing evidences and with a fully emotional flow of statements, blamed the SIT for having cooked the report to fit their preconceived ideas and notions. He went on even to challenge the SIT that, “If the SIT can prove the evidences against my questions, all my accused party men will accept all the claims made against them”. Thus the 50 day opposition argument has raised so many questions, most of the unanswered till date.

For a better understanding of the shortcomings in this investigation, the various strange happenings around the time of Rajiv’s murder have been grouped under few major categories.

1. The unorthodox circumstances leading to Rajiv’s appearance in the Sriperumbudur meeting pops up naturally as the first question.

§  a. Rajiv started his propaganda from Delhi and reached Chennai through Orissa and Andhra Pradesh. Yet the question remains as to why Rajiv would agree to attend the Sriperumbudur meeting which was not at all in the agenda of Tamilnadu Congress Party?

§  b. While other Senior Leaders of Tamilnadu Congress like Vazhappadi Ramamurthy and G.K.Mooppanaar showed no interest in bringing Rajiv for propaganda in Sriperumbudur, what made Mrs.Maragadham Chandrasekar to travel to Delhi to invite him? Did she fall prey to a larger conspiracy, unknowingly?

2. The second was with a ‘no-show’ from Rajiv’s security guard at a time when there was a definite threat to Rajiv’s life and the so-called reporters who popped up from nowhere and disappeared to nowhere but have always kept themselves at a safe distance from Rajiv during his Sriperumbudur visit.

§  a. When Rajiv was making his propaganda rounds in Bhuvaneshwar and Vishakapattinam, it was his Security officer O.P.Sagar who stood guard. Why did not he turn up for Chennai?

§  b. Unidentified television reporters from Bulgaria accompanied Rajiv in his propaganda. Their primary job was to make video recordings of Rajiv’s propaganda. Though they participated in the initial propaganda rounds of Rajiv in Orissa and Andhra, they chose to skip all of his public meetings. Instead they stayed back in their luxury hotel with the pilot of their special flight in Vishakapattinam. What could be the purpose of their visit if they are not covering his public meetings, which is supposed to be their key job?

§  c. In Vizag, Rajiv had to turn back to his Circuit House due to a technical snag in his flight. Rajiv returned to the flight after receiving the news through the then Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Vijaya Baskara Reddy that the problem has been solved. In the midst of this mess, the two Bulgarian reporters reached the airport very late along with Rajiv’s Security Officer O.P.Sagar and consequentially missed the flight. Thus the security officer did not fly with Rajiv. What circumstances led an experienced officer like Sagar to miss the flight with Rajiv?

§  d. Meanwhile Rajiv reached Chennai without his security officer. The security officer who takes charge in Chennai P.C.Gupta who was waiting to receive Rajiv could not receive the Pistol from O.P.Sagar as the later did not come in that flight. As a result, Gupta traveled along with Rajiv with out the pistol.

§  e. After Rajiv left the Chennai Meenabakkam airport in his motorcade two so-called women journalists boarded Rajiv’s car near Ramavaram. Whether their identity was ever verified by SIT is still a question. Why they were not subjected to any kind of investigation is a bigger question.

§  f. Where are the Bulgarians? Who are the two foreign journalists and where did they go after the incident?

3. How Pirabaharan and LTTE were linked to this case without any acceptable evidence?

§  a. Except for the fact that Dhanu, Subha and Sivarasan all hail from Yalpanam(Jaffna), what made the SIT believe that they acted only on the behest of LTTE. Why they couldn’t have been hired by any other foreign power for this assassination? Why the SIT investigation around them was concluded only by linking them with LTTE and excluding any other possibility?

§  b. The SIT’s claim for having overheard a radio conversation between PottuAmman and Sivarasan seems to be an imaginary story built to sustain their stand. What is the proof for this claim?

§  c. There are many facts that can be derived by comparing Rajiv’s murder with that of Padhmanaba. While the latter’s murder was investigated by the Tamilnadu Q branch police, the SIT investigated Rajiv’s murder. Both the teams point the place of origin of the conspiracy to Yalpanam(Jaffna). While Sivarasan was a prime accused in both the cases, Pirabaharan was not an accused at all in Padhmanaba’s murder. It only leads us to a conclusion that the inclusion of Pirabahran’s name in Rajiv’s murder is not a consequence of any findings of investigation rather it seems to be truly politically motivated. The inclusion was done only with a cruel intention to add ‘life’ to this case.

§  d. India and especially Tamilnadu are well known vocal supporters and sympathizers of the liberation struggle of Tamils. Given this obvious fact, it will be a historical blunder to kill Rajiv in Tamilnadu and get themselves kicked out of India and face a legal ban, if ever they had such an intention. Will Pirabaharan, the leader of a liberation struggle of its stature be stupid enough to take such a decision?

§  e. How come an old photograph where Pirabaharan posed alongside Sivarasan is the only solid evidence to prove that Pirabaharan had a hand in this murder?

§  f. Even if Dhanu, Subha and Sivarasan had been with the LTTE earlier. What proves that they were associated with the LTTE at the time of assassination? Why they can’t have moved out of LTTE and acted as paid-assassins for any other Western, European or Indian mafia?

4. The most important question is with the strangest circumstances under which Congress leaders and their family members cleared all the security hurdles and lead the assassins and their aides gain such a close proximity with a former Prime Minister and the running Prime Ministerial candidate Rajiv. (In fact Dhanu was only at arm’s reach when the bomb exploded). This won’t have been possible even for long time Congress workers. This is accompanied by the unnatural silence maintained by Congress leaders about the questions lingering around the strange circumstances of the murder.

§  a. The two so-called women foreign journalists interviewed Rajiv in the car, but Mrs.Marakatham Chandrasekar (Senior Congress Leader of TamilNadu Congress Committee )  who accompanied Rajiv in his car declined to comment stating that she did not know anything about the discussion. Why this strange behavior was not put to any investigation?

§  b. Mrs.Maragadham Chandrasekar came to the venue of the Sriperumbudur Public meeting. Her daughter Latha Priyakumar came from Arakkonam along with her husband Lawyer Magendiran. Her son Lalith Chandrasekar came to the venue with his wife Vinothini. But they never revealed where they started from. Given the fact that Vinothini is the very daughter of Julius Jayewardene, why she was never interrogated? When the entire family was at the venue, why no one was ever interrogated?

§  c. Sivarasan’s mother and Vinothini’s father are Sinhalese. Both of them were at the murder site, why they can’t have acted on the behest of Srilankan Supremo Premadasa who has an apparent apprehension against Rajiv for having sent the IPKF to Srilanka.

§  d. Rajiv was intercepted on his way to the podium was interrupted for a while by Latha Kannan who read out a poem. It this timeframe, that was utilized by the assassin Dhanu to trigger the bomb. Why she was never included in the list of accused? Dhanu entered the security ring and got so close to Rajiv only using Latha Kannan. If Haribabu could be accused, why not Latha Kannan? Why should the SIT show such a blatantly kind attitude towards people who had a Congress connection?

§  e. Vazhappadi Ramamurthy, who accompanied Rajiv to the stage in the two street-corner meetings just preceding the Sriperumudur meeting, was too far from Rajiv in this meeting alone. Why is that?

§  f. Many innocent civilians and security personnel died alongside Rajiv but it is too strange to observe that not even a single Congress worker died or even had a minor injury in this incident?

§  g. It was considered that Latha Priyakumar brought Dhanu, Subha and Sivarasan to Sriperumbudur. More importantly Latha Priyakumar(Daughter of Maragadham Chandrasekar) brought them to the Women’s section and asked Latha Kannan to help them. Why she was never interrogated as to the purpose of letting them have access to former PM?

§  h. Renganathan testified that he rented the house out to Sivarasan only at the instance of Margaret Alwa. How was she related to Sivarasan? Was the validity of this claim ever verified by SIT?

5. Based on various statements by notable leaders, evidences and prevalent circumstances there are many possible conspirators. It is very strange that the Congress who should have had the biggest interest in uncovering this conspiracy never questioned the SIT for not considering those more probable alternatives?

§  a. Chandraswamy, Subramania Swamy (both accused by the Jain commission) and arms dealer Kasoki were all possible candidates for interrogation. Was any investigation done considering them?

§  b. During the Gulf war, India under leadership of Mr.Chandrasekar supplied fuel to the American fighter crafts. Rajiv heavily criticized this and there is every reason for America to be angry at Rajiv. Why there is no investigation done considering the possibility of a CIA hand behind the assassination?

§  c. Before being killed, Rajiv told that the CIA is responsible for the assassination of then Pakistani Prime Minister Zia-Ul-Huq. What forced him make such a statement? Did he suspect a similar attempt at his life as well by CIA?

§  d. In the aftermath during July 1991 the then Home Minister S.P.Chavan opined that there are other foreign groups and powers which are behind Rajiv’s assassination. Was any investigation done to assess the reason behind the Home Minister’s statement?

§  e. CIA, notorious for its interest in the departures of many of the third world leaders was never considered a possible conspirator. Why was that?

§  f. The leader of Palestinian liberation struggle Mr. Yasar Arafat warned the then PM Mr.Chandrasekar that there is a threat to Rajiv’s life. What was the source of this warning? Was there any investigation done in that direction? Considering the fact that the possibility of Mr.Yasar Arafat receiving any intelligence is possible only if the conspiracy was hatched in the Middle East or the Western Europe, did the SIT investigate such a possibility?

§  g. If there is one thing that the Srilankan government would share with the LTTE, it is the hatred towards Rajiv for messing up their lives in Srilanka by sending the IPKF. Considering this fact, the opposition lawyer Chandrasekar challenged the SIT that his party would accept all the claims against them if the SIT could prove that Vinothini and her family are innocent and they did not have anything to do in the murder. The SIT safely chose to skip this very important challenge from opposition and hence no one from that family was ever interrogated

§  h. The Srilankan government would have obviously been threatened by Rajiv’s statement that IPKF will make another visit to Srilanka if he came back to power. Why the possibility that they had an interest in his death, was never considered?

§  i. Premadasa was popularly blamed for the assassination of many of the political leaders of his time including Kamini Thissanayaka, Adhulath Mudhali and Vikrama Singhe. Why there was no investigation done considering this possibility?

§  j. Politicians with vested interest or even his party leaders who may find him as a hurdle in their political career could have used assassins to execute Rajiv out of political enmity. Why this angle was never considered?

§  k. Rajiv as a Prime Minister had close links with so many international weapon dealers. Why they couldn’t have had a hand in this assassination?

We don’t need reputed agencies like the CBI or SIT to conduct the investigation if the end result is only to file a report blaming a few individuals without considering any of the obvious possibilities.

Though we all agree that “not every question turns out to be a fact” But if these strong suspicious circumstances are not investigated there is every chance that the real conspirators protected by powerful groups get away easily. Those real culprits who go uncaught will turn out to be a true threat to the safety of the leaders of this nation.

‘I’ve Evidence To Prove That Rajiv Gandhi’s Murder Was An Inside Job’ 

Interview with Mr.S DORAISAMY 

http://www.tehelka.com/ive-evidence-to-prove-that-rajiv-gandhis-murder-was-an-inside-job/