Defence: Bhagwat Sacking; Trading Charges

With the slanging match intensifying and the Opposition trying to make capital out of it in Parliament, the storm over the dismissal of the navy chief refuses to subside.

George Fernandes, Union defence minister, knew that former chief of naval staff (CNS) Vishnu Bhagwat would not -- as retired soldiers normally do -- just fade away. Especially after he created military history on December 30, 1998, by having Bhagwat summarily dismissed nine months before his term as naval chief was to expire. But even the wily Fernandes couldn't have been prepared for the storm that broke out over the issue in Parliament last week.

As the Opposition trained its guns on Fernandes, even George Fernandes

levelling serious charges of corruption and malafide intent, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee personally intervened to take some of the heat off his favourite trouble-shooter. Vajpayee expressed his Government's inability to place all the documents relating to the sacking of Bhagwat on grounds of national security, but conceded that he was not averse to appointing a 10-member special parliamentary committee to decide whether the issue should be debated in the two Houses. He also said his Government was willing to allow a full-scale discussion on the corruption charges levelled by the sacked admiral. Meanwhile, in a move that generated a fresh controversy, the ministry went ahead and appointed Harinder Singh as the deputy chief of naval staff. Bhagwat had been sacked after he refused to execute the order appointing Singh even though it had been cleared by the Cabinet.

THE ALLEGATIONS

Bhagwat's charge: I had briefed Defence Minister George Fernandes about the subversion of navy officers by arms peddlars in May 1998.
Ministry of Defence (MOD) response: As chief of naval staff (CNS), Admiral Bhagwat had control over all kinds of procurements. If he had noticed any wrongdoing he should have taken firm action against such officers and even asked the Government to get the CBI to investigate them. But he didn't.

Bhagwat: Fernandes took a private decision to appoint Admiral Sushil Kumar without going through procedures required by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC).
MOD: Sushil Kumar was appointed CNS only after ACC's approval.

Bhagwat: Not once in nine months had Fernandes sent for me to correct or warn me on any matter. There was no record of repeated disagreements with the minister.
MOD: Apart from Harinder Singh's appointment as deputy CNS, there were several other disagreements, including the ex-CNS' refusal to transfer Rear Admiral Purohit from the post he was occupying.

For the Congress, keen on diverting attention from its role in reinstating Rabri Devi in Bihar, the Bhagwat issue came in handy. Support came from the most unexpected quarters with former prime minister H.D. Deve Gowda not only coming down heavily on the Government for sacking Bhagwat, who was appointed CNS during his tenure, but also charging Fernandes with dubious negotiations in the proposed T-90 tank deal with Russia.

All this suited the Congress fine. As Sharad Pawar, its leader in the Lok Sabha, says, "Our party will focus mainly on the issue of corruption." But that didn't mean the debate over Bhagwat's sacking was to be played down. Some Congressmen believe that the Government would find it difficult to delink charges of shady deals from the unprecedented sacking of a naval chief. For a party that had always squirmed in Parliament over the Bofors issue, here was a chance to hit back at the Vajpayee Government whose USP has been its untainted image. Especially since Fernandes made such a ruckus over the Bofors issue years back.

The Congress is now focusing on getting a joint parliamentary committee (JPC) instituted. "There wasn't a shred of evidence in the Bofors case yet a JPC was set up and the issue dragged on for years. Why can't we have one now?" asks party chief whip P.J. Kurien. All this, however, is not very encouraging news for Bhagwat who feels that the issue of his sacking may be sidetracked. Earlier, in a well-planned move, he broke his silence over his dismissal by addressing a large gathering at the Press Club of India in Delhi on February 21, a day before the parliament session was to begin. Releasing a written statement titled "From a Soldier of the Republic", Bhagwat accused Fernandes of conducting a "politico-military coup" to oust him and made some serious allegations against both the defence minister and his ministry. Some of Bhagwat's charges are:

Despite briefing Fernandes about arms peddlers hell-bent on subverting naval plans for indigenisation, the minister had done nothing about it.

Vice-Admiral Harinder Singh had links with such arms dealers. Bhagwat had warned Fernandes about this but the minister took no action.

Fernandes was plotting his removal since last August itself and abetting the subversion of the chain of military command. Bhagwat claims to have evidence to show that both Fernandes and former defence secretary Ajit Kumar had directly communicated with Harinder Singh bypassing him completely.

Admiral Sushil Kumar was appointed CNS in his place without following the proper procedures required by the ACC.

Army chief General V.P. Malik departed from the traditional political neutrality of the forces by inviting Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray for an army investiture parade.

Bhagwat claims that he has proof to substantiate his charges. Almost as a threat, he keeps stating that he had maintained a diary of all meetings, discussions and events during his period as chief. He also reveals that he has plans to bring out a book on the whole episode of his sacking soon. As he told India Today, "I am not going to let this issue die down. I will see it through its logical conclusion." (see interview)

For all his bravado, Bhagwat may find it difficult to prove such a welter of charges, some of them not quite new. By hitting out at all and sundry, including the army chief, he may in fact be weakening his credibility considerably. Already, it has taken a bad beating with Malik dismissing Bhagwat's charges by stating that public leaders and state government officials were routinely invited to investiture ceremonies. Besides, more than three months after his sacking, Bhagwat still talks in generalities about corruption charges and is yet to come out with anything specific. Ministry of Defence officials refute most of Bhagwat's charges.

However, the crux of the issue is whether the Government was justified in taking the extreme step of sacking the naval chief. Since national security concerns are valid enough reasons for keeping things under wraps, the special committee appointed by Parliament may find it difficult to recommend the files being made public. Among the House committee members are three former prime ministers and two former defence ministers. Between some of them and Bhagwat, there is no love lost. Meanwhile Fernandes is gathering all the ammunition he can muster -- he reportedly has plenty -- to ensure that when the issue is discussed in Parliament, the Opposition is forced to back down. "I am not afraid of any discussion on the subject," says he. Whatever be the final outcome, Bhagwat is right about one thing. The issue is not likely to fade away in a hurry.

INTERVIEW: BHAGWAT
"The national security threat they are citing is just a fig leaf. They have nothing against me."

Soon after Parliament decided that a special committee would go into whether his dismissal should be debated in the two Houses, ex-chief of naval staff Vishnu Bhagwat spoke to Deputy Editor Raj Chengappa about how he viewed the development. Excerpts:

What is your reaction to Parliament's decision?
What is a sensitive issue? The prime minister should define it. What can be more sacred than Parliament? Everything that can be discussed about my dismissal has already been done in the open and in public. Why did the prime minister make a statement that I had damaged the navy? Why did the defence minister go on worldwide television and Doordarshan and make a series of charges? Then he said there was something so scary that he would never be able to speak about it for many, many years.

So what was George Fernandes referring to?
He claims I was blocking an inquiry into those who had been apprehended or who had been injured or killed in Operation Leech (a joint service operation to prevent gun smuggling). What is so secret about Operation Leech? He himself had it leaked out to the media and compromised the personalities involved in military intelligence and the operation that we were doing.

He seemed to indicate other things as well.
What is it that has irked this Government? Surely not my record for promoting national security. Or for drawing up a plan for the navy that would save the Government 20 per cent on manpower and crores of rupees. Or for neglecting my family and my children for the sake of national interest. Was I sacked for opposing the appointment of an officer who has earned his name in history for notoriety? The national security threat that they are citing is just a fig leaf. They have nothing against me and will have nothing.

The minister has said you were so defiant that even a dialogue wasn't acceptable after a point of time.
When did he suddenly decide I was defiant? I have recorded all my conversations with Fernandes in my diary. I challenge him to quote instances and dates.

What about refusing to appoint Vice-Admiral Harinder Singh even though the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet had approved it?
My assessment was that he is an officer unfit to be deputy chief of naval staff. If anyone wishes to question the judgement of the chief of naval staff (CNS), he would put it down in cogent reasons on file and send the file back to the CNS stating that his recommendation is not acceptable because of an intelligence report on the candidate. If there is such a report, why hasn't it been conveyed to the chief? They can reject my recommendation. But they cannot appoint him suo motu. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held we have the know-how and wherewithal to make such appointments.

You had defied the Government saying the order is unimplementable?
An officer who is defiant does not say "respectfully submitted" when he replies. I was observing the rule of law. And the rule of law is above the government and above the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. It is the Constitution that matters. And I am not going to be party for subverting the Constitution of the republic.

But in 1990 your own petition makes a case out for the Cabinet's decision as supreme?
Are you comparing my complaint about a proven fraudulent annual confidential report against me with an out and out communal statutory complaint by Singh which goes against the Constitution of India? Is that the flimsy ground on which the Government now stands?

You charge Fernandes with sanctioning defence purchases detrimental to indigenous projects. Do you have proof?
I don't want to talk much about the dirty little people who are selling the country. They never openly subverted the system. The system is far more sophisticated. We had plans to modernise and increase the capacity utilisation of the country's shipyards that would have made it eight times more efficient. We were going to make this navy unbeatable and invincible. These lobbies were trying to subvert such a process. It is not this or that item but the overall process. And I don't want to go into details right now.

You also state that no due process was followed by the Government in the appointment of Admiral Sushil Kumar as chief.
One of the many procedures for appointing a chief is that the candidate's confidential record (CR) dossiers are forwarded with a note from the incumbent chief to the minister who passes it on to his secretary who normally deals with it. Admiral Kumar's CR dossiers were in my cupboard when the order came. Do I have to tell you more? I stand by my statement that he is the private choice of the minister.