NAILING THE TRUTH

Evidence: Fernandes denies receiving funds from foreign agencies and wants Bhagwat's "head examined" (see interview). Haksar is no more but the other person, defence analyst K. Subrahmanyam, is a trenchant critic of Bhagwat's dismissal. But he says: "I have never told Bhagwat about George's alleged connection with foreign intelligence agencies, though I have spoken of his receiving funds from Socialist International in 1974-75." On defence purchases, he is forthright: "I have no idea about it."

Gorshkov deal: "I might also add that pursuant to my demitting office, the signing of an MOU which has implications of a $500 million commitment in principle with the Russians was celebrated by Admiral Nanda and his son. I might also mention that the aircraft carrier Gorshkov is not the No. 1 naval priority. The No.1 naval priority is the construction of an indigenous air-defence ship (ADS) and not the Gorshkov."

Evidence: On November 27, 1998 Principal Secretary Brajesh Mishra asked Bhagwat whether the navy was still keen on the Gorshkov. Bhagwat replied that "the Russian offer was attractive". In August its refit cost, $509 million, was given to him at Moscow. NHQ then told mod that the subject should be "discussed face to face, at the earliest". Ironically, it was Fernandes who had overidden the IAF and the Finance Ministry and ordered the ads project be taken up "at the earliest".

Undermining security: "The media has revealed the instructions of the MOD, dated July 27, 1998, signed by the secretary, Ministry of Defence (Ajit Kumar). The communication, I believe, had the explicit approval of the Minister of Defence. The intent of the communication was clear from its plain language. It did not want such tri-service operations to continue and impede the flow of arms and ammunition to the North-east ... The chiefs of staff stated that no prior information to and approval of the mod was necessary and that the same would not be sought."

Evidence: Bhagwat's reference is to Ajit Kumar's instructions to the armed forces not to act against gun-running and other illegal activities "without the approval of the government".This was based on the Government's unhappiness with an earlier Operation Leach in which six leaders of the Karen Liberation Movement were allegedly shot in cold blood by a tri-service operation run by the navy. The decision in this case was not taken by Kumar but by a committee comprising the cabinet, foreign, home and defence secretaries and the raw chief, on a request from the Indian Embassy in Yangon.

Nuclear secrets: "I do not want to go into the details of the ATV project for obvious reasons. I, however, wish to place it on record that despite the advice of Dr Abdul Kalam and myself, the project continues to be in the hand of Vice-admiral Bhushan (retd) who is 62 years old and who has been granted extension by the defence minister contrary to our recommendations. He has already been there in the project for 20 years without adequate results."

Evidence: The US has been trying to scuttle the nuclear submarine project involving Russian assistance. So sensitive is the project that its existence is not even acknowledged by the government. mod officials say that it was Kalam who sought an extension for Bhushan since the project was at a critical phase. Bhagwat then demanded a "technical audit". When this was not approved, he leaked information about the project to the media.

The arms nexus: "On March 23, 1998, Vice-Admiral Harinder Singh filed a statutory complaint claiming the same relief to be appointed as a principal staff officer ... according to his dossier with reference to confidential reports, Deputy Chief of Naval Staff Vice-admiral Harinder Singh has had a very average record of service ... but there were adverse remarks against him for having accepted hospitality from Crown Corporation and Makalu Engineering Services in Moscow and St Petersburg during a trip there in May-June 1997."

Evidence: In February 1996, Bhagwat was a member of the Navy Selection Board that promoted Singh to the rank of vice-admiral on finding him "to be a consistently outstanding officer with an excellent track record". Till Singh decided to enter a complaint about being overlooked for a position appropriate to his seniority, there was no friction between the two. Coincidentally, the adverse remarks surfaced only after this, seven months after the alleged wrongdoing.

What is your objection to the opposition parties' demand for setting up a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to go into the Bhagwat episode?
Why? What should Parliament examine? As far as the removal of a navy chief is concerned, it is the prerogative of the executive. If they have charges against me, specify them. They can't have a madman's ravings put down on a 10-rupee stamp paper, endorse it and say it is an affidavit. The JPC must have an agenda which it will investigate. It is not something to joke about.

The Opposition believes there are enough charges.
I presume it is because they see political possibilities in this whole thing. They do not realise the damage they are causing to the nation's security. They are questioning the integrity of officers. Forget George Fernandes; I am dispensable.

What are you referring to?
Well, you have a Deve Gowda who wakes up one morning and says we should not buy T-90 tanks but T-72 tanks from Russia for reasons he is yet to explain. And in doing so he questions the integrity of one of the finest officers in the Indian Army -- General S.S. Mehta (who headed the army committee that recommended its purchase). If there was a situation of conflict and we had to fight in the Rajasthan desert, General Mehta would have led a corp with 1,000 tanks into action. If I have to make a choice between General Gowda and General Mehta, I won't take a second look at General Gowda. General Mehta has lived with tanks all his life. He and his men would have to fight, not Gowda's sons. We are playing with our men's lives. Gowda wanted a JPC on me. They should have a JPC on him if they wanted to have fun and games in security matters.

Bhagwat accuses you of being funded by foreign agencies, for harbouring terrorists and abetting gun-runners, especially from Myanmar.
Who are these Burmese gunners I am supposed to be in cahoots with? If it is these poor Burmese students who are staying at my house, Bhagwat doesn't even know they are looked after by the UN High Commission for Refugees. The foolishness of the man has no limits. If it is Tibet he is referring to, I have been a supporter of the Tibetan movement since 1949 when Bhagwat was still wearing short pants. My concerns on Tibet are no different from the country's concerns.

He said you were considered such a security risk the prime minister did not take you into confidence about the nuclear tests before it was conducted.
That is not true. I was briefed much before hand, before Bhagwat was told about it.

Why didn't you take action against Defence Secretary Ajit Kumar in September last year when the three service chiefs said they had major problems with him?
I had no reason to question his integrity, ability, experience or commitment. I found nothing to make me believe the man was an ogre. After all even if we have differences of opinion there is no reason to say throw this man out. We are not schoolchildren. I told Kumar we had to run this thing together.

Bhagwat says that you gave him no reasonable warning before sacking him.
When it became absolutely necessary to put things on record I wrote a letter to the prime minister on August 28 in which I cited three or four instances of total defiance by Bhagwat to comply with government decisions. The prime minister chose his principal secretary (Brajesh Mishra) to tell Bhagwat to take care. Bhagwat even charged into my office after that about the letter. I also wrote letters to the prime minister on November 5 and December 7 citing more examples of his stepping out of line.

What was the last straw?
One didn't need a last straw. In any other army or service on the first defiance he would have been told to fall in line or get out. But I didn't do that. The real crunch came in November. This is the most sensitive aspect of the whole thing which I cannot speak about in the near future or even the distant future. It is not a fig leaf of national security. It impinges on our short-term and, more than that, our long-term security concerns.

Was it his unwillingness to implement the order appointing Harinder Singh as deputy chief of naval staff that finally made you decide to sack him?
I had not thought that he would take things to a point where he says a government order is not implementable. When he took that position there was no turning back.

Was it the question of asserting civilian control over the forces?
Bureaucracy is not exclusive to the civil service. You have bureaucracies in every institution, including political parties. Civilian control in our case is control of the executive wing of the government which is the cabinet. And in this case you have a defence minister who wants information and is told by his chief of staff, "No, this information can't be given to you".

Do you regret having delayed Bhagwat's sacking?
In hindsight, yes, I feel I should have done it much earlier. I sensed a certain arrogance in the man. But I had not expected so much venom in him towards his own subordinates. It was not just clear cases of defiance of authority. There is a total violation of the Navy Act by him, he even lied to the Government. I had also not anticipated the man could expose our security concerns and cause harm to the country. If he had continued, the damage to the navy would have been beyond repair.

Why haven't you said all this before now?
It is hurting me because I had not opened my mouth. If I had said all this on the day it happened, this man would not have had a place to hide. But I went by the rules. I went by the law. And I took all the blows. Even now I refuse to answer sensitive questions -- they can blow up a lot more things in the country and our relationship with our neighbours. And Bhagwat seems to be keen on that. So whose game is he playing by demoralising the forces?

Has this whole issue affected your functioning?
It has not affected my functioning. The Government is aware it is not George Fernandes who is the target. It is the Government itself.

Did you offer to resign at any stage?
Why should I resign? The prime minister has not asked me to. He has categorically said he supports me.