... PM admitted that Raja had told him that he was only following the policy laid down previously — virtually approving the fraud. It needs no seer to say that to say the loot was no secret affair. It was daylight robbery; as transparent as the PM had wanted it to be. Not just Raja, the PM also must be questioned on why he objected first; why he fell into silence later; why he acquiesced subsequently and why he defended it finally...
... there were demands that Raja resign, he retorted, “why should I resign? I had done everything in consultation with the PM”.The PM did not deny that statement. But, months later, on May 24, 2010, the PM said that Raja had “discussed” the issue with him. Any difference between Raja asserting that he had “consulted” the PM and the PM admitting that Raja “discussed” with him? ...
... There is no other way PM’s November objection could become a meek non-objection in January. Who except Sonia Gandhi could turn the PM’s strong objection into a meek non-objection? And who else could make the PM defend Raja in May 2010...
... The loot is too huge for Raja. The main beneficiaries are obviously hiding behind him. Raja could never have defied the PM on the strength of the DMK alone. The DMK could never have ditched the UPA on this issue. The fear that the DMK would walk out of UPA could not be the reason for the PM to acquiesce. The fraudulent venture must have had the backing of someone more powerful than the PM. That only explains Raja’s defiance of the PM; and the PM acquiescence first and finally his defence of the deal itself...
If looks-like-Mr.Clean is like this, think of people who are not so "clean". Oh! that includes the citizens too!!!
--------------------------------
