At the BJP’s target for reversing the Centre’s position on whether Ishrat Jahan, killed allegedly in a fake encounter, was a terrorist, former Home Minister P Chidambaram not only owned up the two positions but accused the Bharatiya Janata Party of playing politics with terrorism. In a freewheeling interview to BusinessLine , Chidambaram talked about the economy, RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan and why the Home Ministry needed to clarify that intelligence input was not proof of Ishrat being a terrorist nor did it amount to a justification of the Gujarat police’s action. Excerpts:

Between August and September 2009, the Centre changed its position on Ishrat Jahan. You seem to have signed both the affidavits. Why the change?

This affidavit controversy is to divert attention from the real issue in the Ishrat Jahan case. The real issue is whether there was a fake encounter and whether four people already in custody were killed in that fake encounter.

Now, coming to the affidavits, the Home Minister does not sign affidavits. It is signed by an Under-Secretary.

Although I don’t have any recollection of seeing the first affidavit, let us presume that I did. Then came the report of Magistrate SP Tamang.

This report caused an uproar and there was a demand mainly from Gujarat that the Centre should clarify or should dispel the misinterpretation being placed on the first affidavit.

This is why a second affidavit was filed. And please remember that the second affidavit did not withdraw the first affidavit. It simply said a further affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent, the Central Government.

The only relevant paragraph is para 5 (reads): “I respectfully submit that the Central Government in the said affidavit (i.e. the first affidavit) did not address any issue relating to the merits or otherwise of the police action… I say that it should be clear to all that such inputs do not constitute conclusive proof and it is for the state government and the state police to act on such inputs. The Central Government is in no way concerned with such action nor does it condone or endorse unjustified or excessive action.”

This is the purpose of the second affidavit; to simply clarify that intelligence inputs are shared by the Central government. But they are only intelligence inputs and not proof.

The interpretation is that politics was involved and you backtracked on the theory that Ishrat was an LeT operative…

The affidavit says intelligence inputs don’t “constitute conclusive proof”.

And then it goes on to say that Central government was not concerned with the merits of the action of the Gujarat police and anything stated in the affidavit was not intended to support or justify the actions of the State police.

If, on proper consideration of the facts, it was found that an independent inquiry or investigation is to be carried out by the CBI, the Union of India would have no objections to it and that it would abide by the decisions of the court.

This affidavit was vetted by the Attorney-General when it was filed. Which part of the second affidavit is wrong or false?

So you’re saying that as investigations progresses in a case, the understanding of the government can also change...

That would be a perfectly understandable situation. But that is not the case here.

The alleged encounter was first investigated by the State police. The Central government did not investigate the crime. The only agency of the Central government associated with the case was the IB.

The State police conducted the investigation and came to a certain conclusion. But the Metropolitan Magistrate mandated a further inquiry, which came to an entirely different conclusion. It caused an uproar.

Taking note of that, the Central government clarified that our intelligence inputs cannot be taken as conclusive proof to justify the State police’s action.

It must be taken only as intelligence inputs. And if, contrary to the earlier position, the court believes that a Central agency, like the CBI, should investigate the matter, we have no objection.

Earlier, the Central government was opposing a CBI investigation. But in the second affidavit, it said that if the court believes that a second investigating agency should come in, we have no objection.

Tell me what is wrong, especially after Judge Tamang’s order?

Do you believe that in the saffron terror and encounter cases, the prosecuting agencies are now backtracking? That there’s an effort to muddy the waters…

When the NIA was set up, I told the first set of officers that you must acquire a reputation for unimpeachable integrity and professionalism.

You must carve out for yourself a position that is unassailable because you are investigating terror and terror-related activities.

We entrusted very few cases to the NIA to ensure that the quality of investigation and prosecution remains first rate. But what is happening since 2014 is extremely disappointing.

Whether it is the Ajmer Dargah blast case or the Samjhauta blast case, witnesses are retracting their testimonies after having recorded them before a magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC.

How is it possible that all of this happening in such a rush after 2014? It is quite clear that there is an organised effort to save everyone who is accused in any of these cases.

Mr Chidambaram, internal security is not without its accompanying politics. The BJP is successful in creating the perception that the Congress was unable to fight terrorism because of its anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim bias...

I don’t think so. The worst terror attack on Indian soil was on 26/11 in 2008. It lasted four days. It was a televised terrorist attack and televised anti-terrorist operation.

Most people had written off the Congress in the 2009 elections which was due to take place exactly four months after the Mumbai terror attacks. But I think the Congress gave enough confidence to the people that it will fight terrorism and we returned to power with an additional 61 seats.

It is during the UPA’s tenure that we broke the back of the Naxalite movement. We ensured that in J&K, the number of terror incidents and related fatalities among civilians as well as security personnel sharply came down.

I think the Congress’s credentials in fighting terrorism cannot be questioned. Right-wing Hindu groups perpetrating terror is a recent phenomenon.

The BJP is predictably playing politics here.

Why can’t we admit that there are such groups among the majority that take to terrorism just as there are fundamentalist Islamist groups that resort to terror.

We have to fight both. I don’t think that there should any quarter given or any quarter asked in fighting both type of terrorism. I think what we need to question is the BJP’s approach towards terrorism that has caused a setback of at least six or seven years in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).

We are back to where we were between 2008 and 2010 when the stone-pelting incidents happened.

At that time, it was a major challenge. Initially, the State and the Central Governments were clueless about how to deal with the stone-pelting opposition. But eventually we found a way out.

We devised a completely different SOP, different drill and a completely different set of instructions. After over a 100 people died, there was a very sharp decline in casualties. All that has been set at naught by the present establishment.

Politically, don’t you think the BJP is better at framing national discourse?

If I can give credit to the BJP for one thing, it is their ability to frame national discourse in the wrong manner and divert attention from the real issues.

In Hyderabad, the real issue was how is a first generation learner from a deprived background driven to a point where he commits suicide? The BJP turned it into a Dalit versus non-Dalit issue.

In Dadri, the real issue was whether a mob can deliver justice because it believes that somebody is eating a particular kind of meat. They framed the debate in such a manner as to question whether Mohammad Akhlaq kept beef or mutton in his house. Is that relevant?

Again, in JNU, they framed the debate around whether anti-national slogans were shouted. What was the real issue? Is not a university a place where there can be many shades of opinion?

Is not a university a place where these shades of opinion are allowed to clash and debate?

I think anytime the BJP frames the debate in a particular manner or diverts the issue, the Opposition must expose that mischief.

And I am afraid the Opposition is not astute enough. There may be individuals rising to the occasion but it should be done in a much more determined fashion.

You were also in trouble over the Afzal Guru execution issue…

What did I say? I said that I was part of the government that prosecuted and punished Afzal Guru. I am bound by that decision.

But if another person holds an honest opinion that Afzal Guru did not get a fair trial or that the punishment was disproportionate to his alleged role, you can’t call him anti-national on that ground. Whether it’s right or wrong, a number of people in Kashmir hold that opinion.

A certain number of people in JNU hold that opinion. How can you brand them all anti-national? That is all I said.

Isn’t it becoming impossible to voice any opinion without fear of getting branded?

Absolutely, the space to voice an opinion is shrinking. Look what happened to Dr Raghuram Rajan. A junior minister was asked to snub the Governor of the Reserve Bank. For what?

For quoting an ancient proverb to highlight the fact that instead of getting euphoric, we should be level-headed and look at the unfinished task. That was the thrust of his remarks.

But they are finding fault with his choice of words!

And delivering a snub to him in public! I think far from diminishing the stature of Dr Raghuram Rajan, this government has exposed its inability to tolerate anything that appears to be the slightest criticism of its drum-beating.

And in my view, Dr Rajan was not criticising or disparaging the growth. He was only highlighting the unfinished work.

Would you disparage the growth figures? Dr Manmohan Singh has been quite critical.

No I don’t. I respect the integrity of the CSO. I don’t question the integrity of their numbers but I want them to explain their methodology.

They have adopted a deflator of 1 for the whole year. That is translating a 6.6 per cent nominal growth into 7.5 per cent GDP growth.

They’ll have to justify the use of the deflator 1. Dr Manmohan Singh is a trained economist. What he says obviously must and will carry more weight.

Mr Chidambaram, given the bonanza from oil prices, don’t you think we should have seen more expenditure on welfare?

The have turned their face against welfare governance. According to my calculation, and nobody else has given alternative numbers, the bonanza from oil to the Central government was ₹1,40,000 crore in 2015-16.

They could have expanded welfare and investment. They did not. The reason is that they did not collect their non-tax revenue and did not go through the disinvestment programme.

And because nominal growth was low, the fiscal deficit actually expanded and they had to fill that gap.

So, the bulk of this ₹1,40,000 crore was used to fill three huge holes in the budget numbers.

And this is after cutting ₹75,000 crore in the Budget Estimates versus the Revised Estimates of the previous year.

The result is that on the one hand, you cut ₹75,000 crore from the welfare programmes and on the other, you reap a bonanza of ₹1,40,000 crore and then use it to fill these holes which you created for yourself.

That is why there is so much distress, especially in the rural sector.

Related Topics
comment COMMENT NOW