Chitra Subramaniam, India’s foremost investigative journalist, shares personal history behind the Bofors arms deal and her first major investigative report which shook the Rajiv Gandhi-led Congress Government at the Centre.
By Sujata Rajpal
Not many would go beyond the call of duty and dare to dive into murky waters, but Chitra Subramaniam is made from a different mould. She is renowned as the journalist whose ground-breaking exposé of the Bofors scandal rocked the nation and helped topple a Government.
Chitra was recently in Mysuru to speak about her newly released book ‘Bofors Gate: A Journalist’s Pursuit of Truth’ at the Mysuru Literature Festival. On behalf of Star of Mysore, Sujata Rajpal caught up with her for a conversation on the Bofors story and much more.
Chitra also shares a special connection with Mysuru. Her great-grandfather, Rajasevasakta V. Subramanya Iyer, served as the Registrar of the University of Mysore from 1919 to 1927.
He was appointed as a Reader to His Excellency Nalwadi Krishnaraja Wadiyar, the then Maharaja of Mysore. Among his many contributions, one of the most notable was founding the Mysore Study Circle alongside the Swamis of Sri Ramakrishna Mission — a milestone in Mysore’s intellectual and spiritual history.
Star of Mysore (SOM): You are best known for investigating the Bofors scandal. What drew you to that story?
Chitra Subramaniam: In March 1987, Swedish Radio reported that the Swedish arms company Bofors AB had paid large kickbacks to Indians to secure a contract for 155 mm howitzer guns. At the time, I lived in Geneva.
It was just a story on the radio, without any mention of the Indian Prime Minister’s involvement. Still, the moment the story hit the wires, Rajiv Gandhi, the then PM, publicly stated, “Neither I nor my family is involved in Bofors.” That immediately raised a red flag; I knew there was something worth digging into. It took a long time to find my sources, but eventually, I met an arms dealer who became a key source.
While the radio had reported a 3 percent commission in bribes, he told me it was closer to 12 percent on a deal worth 1.4 billion dollars. I was pregnant and had to travel a lot in search of the truth. What I didn’t expect was that it would take ten years. Eventually, one of my sources handed me over hard evidence of 300 documents, which confirmed that I was right.
SOM: Did you have any inclination that it could bring down the government?
Chitra Subramaniam: Absolutely not. I was just investigating and then at some point, I thought I was touching something big. I’ve always been a patriotic person. I saw Rajiv Gandhi as a wave of change — young, dynamic and full of promise. He had pledged to clean up the country and I believed in that vision. I was young, too, ambitious and driven.
I wanted to do something meaningful for India, but I felt betrayed when his involvement became clearer. Though he didn’t receive the money directly, he was protecting someone who received it.
SOM: This is the kind of stuff we watch in movies. Were you scared?
Chitra Subramaniam: I got really scared when I was offered a bribe, when my car’s brakes were slashed and when the windows of the car were smashed. The more these things happened, the more I felt I must be doing something right. There were phone calls threatening my family, but my husband was my rock.
He encouraged me to go on after the truth. When I was scared, I would recite the Hanuman Chalisa, which I still do. I didn’t know what I was getting into. I knew I was doing this for India. During those exhausting times, many people stood by me — Coomi Kapoor, Tavleen Singh and Madhu Trehan believed in me. You don’t need a crowd to support you. Sometimes, just one or two people who believe in you are enough.
SOM: Beyond the threats, what were the other major challenges you faced for this investigation?
Chitra Subramaniam: In the pre-digital era, getting access to information was a monumental task. I would spend hours at the Commerce Registry in Geneva, sitting on the floor, going through thick files as I was pregnant and couldn’t stand for long.
Everything took time — phone calls, faxes, waiting outside offices and meeting people quietly. Also, there was constant misinformation being floated. A story claimed that Amitabh Bachchan was involved and I was protecting him, which was false. I wasn’t protecting him; I was protecting the integrity of the story. It was heart-breaking because I knew he was innocent, and it’s difficult to prove one’s innocence.
SOM: In today’s world of fake news and misinformation, how does an ordinary reader separate fact from narrative?
Chitra Subramaniam: Five years ago, fake news felt like an overwhelming tsunami, but now people are smarter than we give them credit for. They have access to multiple sources and tools. If they’re unsure about something, they can check it out for themselves, look up facts, compare stories and cross-reference. And for those who want to tell a story, there is no need to rush. Take your time. Build credibility and don’t be afraid to take a stand.
SOM: Do you think freedom of expression is being misused and people are becoming more intolerant in the process?
Chitra Subramaniam: People confuse freedom of expression with the licence to be nasty. Equally true for journalists who have been given the privilege to shape narratives. Being nasty or sensational is not journalism. On the other side, readers have also become increasingly intolerant.
What I find truly missing today is respect for others’ opinions, for age, experience or even basic decency. That kind of criticism is just noise. It needs to be called out, not with aggression but with facts.
Journalism is a noble profession. It’s tough and there are no short-cuts. Don’t be romantic about it. It’s not about fame or breaking news every day. Journalists must speak the truth and protect the public interest. That is the role of a journalist and it’s a role worth fighting for.
This post was published on July 11, 2025 6:10 pm