"Jain should apologise to the country and Tamil people"

Who are these godfathers?I know a little of the inside story of how people are appointed to such commissions. After the Fairfax debate in Parliament, Rajiv called a few senior ministers late at night and they went through a list of judges. One minister read out the names and another minister made the comment either `useless’ or `utilised’ against their names. Finally when they came to Justice Natarajan, they agreed that it was a good choice. Justice Thakkar who was doing something else was first labelled `utilised’ but obviously he later became available. A few days after this meeting, the names of these very two names to head the Fairfax commission were announced by the Supreme Court.

After that the story is known to everyone. They indicted me without giving notice under 8B where a person has a reasonable opportunity to be heard and produce evidence in his defence. In the Jain Commission, I was given an 8B notice, but others like Chandra Shekhar, P. Chidambaram, Vinod Pande and all the intelligence officers were not served the 8B notice.

What is the validity of the Jain Commission’s findings?

Who is giving them any credence? It’s like an empty football without any air being kicked around.

Some feel that the report has jeopardised national interest by including confidential material in the report.

There are various aspects of the Jain report which are very disturbing. National interest has been jeopardised. What with the judge painting the whole of Tamil Nadu as responsible for the assassination. It reflects on his judicial judgment. Mr Jain should apologise to the country and to all Tamil people.

The report also exposes the foreign policy of our government and shows us up as a country that interfered militarily in another country.

There must be some rational guidelines of who can be interrogated by a commission, some terms of reference laid down. The work of RAW, for example, is a very sensitive area. Some of the highest national interest is involved. How will RAW officials ever function if they are put to the cross examination of a court?

Then the report has made public confidential details of security of the Prime Minister and 10 Janpath, even the type of weapons deployed by our security.

Were you aware of the secret details of India’s policy towards Sri Lanka which are contained in the report?

Much of what was said to the commission was known to me. After all, I was finance minister and defence minister in Rajiv’s cabinet. But even though politically Rajiv and I were in the most intense battle I did not open my lips. I could have hit out. But, it was not a question of the Congress or Rajiv it was a question of the country. We were helping the LTTE to the hilt but I did not open my mouth.

In your testimony before the commission you talk of Rajiv Gandhi’s `dual policy’ in Sri Lanka.

Duality is required at times in statecraft. But there is a subtle difference between duality and duplicity. Many times, the foreign office says one thing and intelligence agencies something else. But the proof of a policy is, did it promote national interest or complicate national interest? Something got fouled up here, the Government of India lost the confidence of both Sri Lanka and Prabhakaran.

While the IPKF was in Sri Lanka fighting the LTTE, what was happening at home? Jain says that from 1989, the LTTE militancy took a turn for the worse, he meant to imply when Karunanidhi became chief minister. But who was prime minister then? Not V.P. Singh but Rajiv Gandhi. Why did the Centre not ban the LTTE, which was the logical step? When a war is being fought our borders are manned by central forces as in Kashmir or Bangladesh. But the Central Government never gave orders asking the Coast Guards and Navy to seal Tamil Nadu’s borders.

When the PM tell Karunanidhi to open a line with Prabhakaran what political and and administrative signals are we sending?

The release of 157 LTTE militants detained under NSA who were flown from Tamil Nadu to Sri Lanka in 1988 is again very curious. The detainees were under the jurisdiction of the court.

Can any government take them outside the jurisdiction of the court, especially when their crime concerns the security of the country?

Considering the revelations in the Jain Commission are embarrassing for the Rajiv Gandhi government, why on earth did the Congress want the report to be tabled in Parliament?

The Congress is ruled by a coterie. The courtiers take over and they live in their own world. The objective in any mission is to find points to exploit against their political opponents regardless of the consequences. Now the whole thing has recoiled on them.

Justice Jain in the report has insinuated you had animus towards Rajiv.

At one stage of the report, Jain exonerates me stating I had no animus and there was no connivance of the V.P. Singh government in withdrawing the SPG. If so, then what are you indicting me for? Saying things like it is very difficult to read V.P. Singh’s mind. Jain starts with a question and ends with more questions. Why? Because if you have no concrete proof leave it in limbo. Generate more rumours.

Why did the UF government cooperate with the Congress in agreeing that there would be no debate on the report in Parliament.

There was no deal. Perhaps there was a deadlock with the withdrawal of Congress support and the consensus of the parties was, now we want to go to the polls.