Sonia’s connection with India is always found with all wrong reasons. A rational analysis of what India gained vs. what India lost reveals a shocking picture.
Foreign Agency initiated marriage to Rajiv
The circumstance under which Rajiv hastily married Sonia in a Church in Orbassano is controversial but that was his personal matter that has no public significance. But what is of public significance is that Indira Gandhi who was initially dead set against the marriage for reasons known to her, relented to hold a registry marriage with Hindu ceremonial trappings in New Delhi only after the pro-Soviet T.N. Kaul prevailed upon her to accept the marriage in “the larger interest of cementing Indo-Soviet Friendship”. Kaul would not have intervened unless the Soviet Union had asked him to.
Such has been the extensive patronage from the beginning extended to Sonia Gandhi from the Soviets. When a Prime Minister of India’s son dates a girl in London, the KGB which valued Indo-Soviet relations, obviously would investigate her and find out that she was the daughter of Stefano, their old reliable Italian contact. Thus, Sonia with Rajiv meant deeper access to the household of the Indian Prime Minister. Hence cementing the Rajiv-Sonia relations was in the Soviet national interest and they went to work on it. And they did through their then existing moles in the Indira Gandhi camp.
After her marriage to Rajiv, the Soviet connection with the Mainos was fortified and nurtured by generous financial help through commissions and kickbacks on every Indo, Soviet trade deal and defense purchases. According to the respected Swiss magazine, Schweitzer Illustrate [November 1991 issue], Rajiv Gandhi had about $ 2 billion in numbered Swiss bank accounts, which Sonia inherited upon his assassination. Dr. Yevgenia Albats, PhD [Harvard], is a noted Russian scholar and journalist, and was a member of the KGB Commission set up by President Yeltsin in August 1991. She was privy to the Soviet intelligence files that documented these deals and KGB facilitation of the same. In her book, The State within a State, The KGB in Soviet Union, she even gives the file numbers of such intelligence files, which can now be accessed by any Indian government through a formal request to the Kremlin.
The Russian Government in 1992 was confronted by the Albats’ disclosure; they confirmed it through their official spokesperson to the press [which was published in Hindu in 1992], defending such financial payments as necessary in “Soviet ideological interest”.
When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, things changed for Ms. Sonia Gandhi. Her patrons evaporated. The rump that became Russia was in a financial mess and disorder. So Ms. Sonia Gandhi became a supporter of another communist country to the annoyance of the Russians.
The national security ramification of this ‘annoyance’ is now significant: The President of Russia today is Putin, a former dyed-in-the-wool KGB officer. Upon Dr. Manmohan Singh’s government taking office, Russia called back it’s career diplomat Ambassador in New Delhi and immediately posted as the new Ambassador a person who was the KGB station chief in New Delhi during the 1970s. In view of Dr. Albats confirmed revelation, it stands to reason that the new Ambassador would have known first hand about Sonia’s connections with the KGB. He may have in fact been her “controller”. The new Indian government which is defacto Sonia’s, cannot afford to annoy him or even disregard Russian demands coming from him? They will obviously placate him so as not to risk exposure. Is this not a major national security risk and a delicate matter for the nation?
Of course, all Indians would like good normal and healthy relations with Russia. Who can forget their assistance to us in times of need? Today’s Russia is the residual legatee of that Soviet Union which helped India. But just because of that, should we tolerate those in our government set up having clandestine links with a foreign spy agency? In the United States, the government did not tolerate an American spying for Israel even though the two countries are as close as any two countries can be. National security and friendship are as different as chalk and cheese.
