The following is a complete version of the interview with Union Home Minister P Chidambaram, who was talking exclusively to Prabhu Chawla, Editorial Director, The New Indian Express Group.
Q: We are interested in knowing one thing – you made some comment about judiciary being over enthusiastic but the impression in the country is that the governance is given up by the people who have been elected to govern now it is for the judiciary to govern. Is that impression correct?
A: You see, I, in that speech welcomed the judicial activism. Earlier, it was judicial review now it is being expanded to a proactive judiciary. The caution that I have uttered is that you can only deal with issues which can be stated in legal terms.
Every question that comes up before the court must be framed in purely legal terms. And you must be able to give a legal answer to that question. To that extent, I welcome judicial activism, I welcome a
proactive judiciary. But when you overstep that line and frame questions or answer questions which are not in purely legal terms then I am afraid you are entering into dangerous territory.
You see, the down side of it is, if the courts begin to do the things which the executive must do the executive will kick the ball to the court’s side and the executive will say I am not responsible.
This is what happened in Babri Masjid. Kindly remember that the central government of that day said the court is looking into the matter, the court has taken an undertaking from the UP government and the executive did nothing and the undertaking was violated. What could be done? Mr Kalyan Singh could be sentenced to one day. Therefore, matters which can be handled only by the executive must be left to the executive. And only matters where the issue can be framed in legal terms and answered in legal language the court must…
Q. But do you feel that what is happening now is they are not framing the issues in legal terms and not answering in legal language?
A: In many cases yes and in some cases no.
Q: For example…?
A: For example, I’m told that they have now said that the computerisation of the PDS system must be done by a particular date and under the supervision of the court. That I think is not a legal question and the answer is not a purely legal answer. In the 1970s, the court took over… a group of companies in Kanpur and tried to run it under the court’s supervision. The whole thing collapsed.
In the Bhopal Gas tragedy case, the court appointed a trust to run the hospital. The trust was a complete failure and now finally we have got orders from the court that the hospital be entrusted to the government.
Q. But now the court giving you instructions means the previous action, whatever the government action was there, was obviously not legally correct. Whether it was Bhopal Gas tragedy… you are asking for review for the order of the past…
A: What you are asking now is a purely legal issue. Whether the court was right in quashing the charges under 302 and asking them to be tried only under a lesser charge is a matter for which we have filed a curative petition. Judgment has been reserved, so I don’t think we should comment on that now.
Q: But it was fallout of an action by the government. The government kept quiet on that after they accepted the verdict of the court.
A: I cannot answer why the government kept quiet for so long. All I can say is that when the matter came to a Group of Ministers chaired by me, we recommended that a curative petition should be filed and that the charge under 302 should be restored.
Q: What I am asking is that the impression is that the government also acts under judicial pressures now….
A: I’m not sure…
Q: If you thought, as the chairman of a Group of Ministers, we should file a curative petition it means you were convinced that the order of that day was judicially not correct?
A: That is what we are saying…
Q: The government at that point in time whichever government was in power yours or somebody else’s… the fundamental question or the big question is government performing what it is supposed to perform?
A: See, in many times, when the government does something which is contrary to the law, the courts must strike it down. If the government does not perform its statutory duty the court must issue a mandamus directing the government to perform its statutory duties. On that there is no difference at all, that is the traditional function of the court.
The writ of certiorari and the writ of mandamus are the two powerful instruments which the court has apart from other writs that they can issue.
…The debate becomes wider when you are asked to decide questions which are not framed purely in legal terms and the answer cannot be given in purely legal terms.
Q: Recent judgment came on CVC, on black money and other corruption cases… they (courts) are almost telling the government…
A: The CVC case was decided strictly according to the principles of judicial review. CVC was an
appointment, the appointment was challenged and the court exercised the power of judicial review… CVC is a purely legal issue.
Q: Didn’t the government misjudge it actually?
A: That is not the subject now. The government took a decision which was found to be wrong. There are hundreds of appointments made by various governments at various times and hundreds of appointments have been set aside.
Q: So you mean to say that the judicial review which you referred to in your speech the other day is subjected to legal questions like the CVC appointment?
A: That is absolutely correct.
Q: You had proposed NCTC an overarching body but now it appears that the plan has been shelved?
A: It has not been shelved. It has not been taken up in the CCS. The paper is still there; it has not been rejected or shelved. It has not yet been taken up by the cabinet committee on security.
Q: So that is not a priority anymore?
A: It is my priority but when…
Q: But the finance ministry and the defence ministry do not agree?
A: Nobody has said that they agree or don’t agree. They are studying the paper and the CCS has to meet on the subject. It is only at the meeting we will know whether there are differences and how to overcome those differences.
Q: You are still for it?
A: I am absolutely convinced that there must by an NCTC. I know of no major country in the world which does not have a national counter terrorism centre.
Q: But you have so many bodies in the home ministry, so many overlapping agencies — you have got NIA, you have got NCTC, you have got IB and other agencies… their functions may be different, I am not getting into what they are going to do, but don’t you think there is going to be conflicting intelligence floating around making it difficult…
A: In fact, some degree of redundancy must be built into the system so that we are not dependent only on one source for intelligence and information. We must rely on multiple sources for intelligence and information.
Q: But then there will be turf war, conflict of information…
A: That is why… if you rely only upon one source of information you will not get all the information. It is only when there are multiple sources and as far as counter terrorism is concerned, a body then receives all the information and will assess the quality of the information and then form a judgment. That is the way to go about it in counter-terrorism.
Q: You have got National Security Advisor who has established his own set up, has got his secretariat…
A: They are not dealing with counter-terrorism…
Q: But they are doing some kind of analysis
A: They are not in charge of counter-terrorism
Q: I am not talking about intelligence gathering
A: Intelligence gathering has to be done by multiple agencies. There is defence intelligence, there is Intelligence Bureau, there is Research and Analysis Wing… there are intelligence wings of the state governments. All over the world intelligence is gathered by multiple sources and that is the correct approach.
Q: But the MAC supposed to be doing the same thing?
A: MAC only does the analysis of the intelligence but there are other functions for the NCTC which are not done by MAC because MAC is not equipped to do that. Once NCTC is formed, MAC will be subsumed in NCTC. It will be the core of the NCTC. The analytical part will be done by MAC but there is an earlier part and a later part to counter intelligence and counter terrorism. Once that set up is created, MAC will be subsumed in NCTC. MAC will not be a separate agency.
Q: And same will be the case with RAW?
A: No, RAW is our external intelligence agency. It will remain separate. NCTC is only conceived… my paper conceived it only as an agency to deal with counter terrorism, nothing else. Because of the heightened terrorist threat, NCTC’s mandate is only counter terrorism.
Q: But you will have this kind of arrangement with other agencies outside the country…
A: Every country has got an NCTC today
Q: You will have some coordination with all of them…
A: We have it today… between agency and agency, we have coordination. Our intelligence agency has coordination with other countries’ intelligence agencies. Once we have an NCTC for counter terrorism it will then liaise with the other counter terrorism agencies of the other countries.
Q: When it is so important to have it, then why it has not been taken up in the CCS as yet?
A: Well, I cannot answer that. All I can say is that it being studied by different members of the CCS. It has to come formally before the CCS.
Q: How long will it take?
A: I can’t say…
Q: But you have not given up yet?
A: Why should I give up, it is my proposal.
Q: You cannot blame it on coalition culture only the Congress ministers are there, nobody from outside is there…
A: There is no coalition issue here. There is no issue of Congress minister or coalition minister. This is a proposal which will be considered by the CCS…
Q: One agency is being headed by a private person…
A: That is Natgrid. It is an information system that brings all data bases into one grid. That is purely a service function. That is a technical service provider…
Q: There are so many agencies in the government….
A: They are doing different functions…
Q: You have got census commissioner in the ministry then you have the Nandan Nilekani’s team…
A: It is for UID…
Q: They are also collecting information… they are not collecting waste
A: You are not reading their mandate each one has got a separate mandate…
Q: Can’t your census commissioner to do the same thing?
A: He can, he can do the same thing…
Q: Then why a separate agency…
A: But then you will have to add this organisation, the whole organisation, which you have created for UID to him. UID has anyway to be created and added to the RGI.
Q: But obviously the actual cost would be less …
A: No, no way. It will be the same thing. You will have to add a new organisation to the RGI. RGI’s hands are already full.
Q: Election Commission gives you cards, gives all the same information…
A: Please understand. The Election Commission card is only for the purpose of voting. It is an identity card for voting, we should not mix that up with gathering of biometric data and issuing up a unique
Identity number which will then be loaded on various applications. I think they have very different functions and you must read the mandate before….
Q: I am not going on mandate. My question is the UID or any other identity card should be the responsibility of the interior ministry. What I understand is this is the practice all over the world …
A: It is not… See the issue of the card for all residents of India is the function of the home ministry. But the issue of the number is by a specialised agency. Number alone will be issued; card will be issued by the home ministry.
Q: So you are saying you can do it but you have not been given the mandate….
A: It is a specialised function. We, therefore, have created a specialised agency which can give the number. See more children will be born, more people will attain the age of majority. So this UID is a
continuing function… numbers have to be given… people will die, the number has to be eliminated. So the UID exercise is a continuing exercise, it is not a one time exercise…
Q: But the other question that is coming again and again is about dialogue with Pakistan. You have been maintaining that you are not happy with the responses that have come, still we…
A: I am not happy with the response on 26/11.
Q: I am specifically talking about 26/11
A: I support, and I have said so, I support the efforts to maintain contacts with Pakistan and hold dialogue on number of issues. If you ask me whether on 26/11 the response is satisfactory, I still maintain the response is not satisfactory…Why? They have cited 160 witnesses, they have not examined one, three judges have been changed, they have arrested some people but we think that the real culprits have not been arrested. Therefore, their response on 26/11 has been less than satisfactory.
Q: If you see the American reports, they have listed ISI as one of the terrorist organisations.
A: In the new chargesheet the US has named four Pakistani residents and one more person whose nationality they don’t disclose as co-accused along with Rana. But this is something we had known
earlier because these names had come up even in David Headley’s interrogation. They have now formally charged Rana and these five others. Now, whether these five others are in Pakistan or elsewhere, I don’t know.
Q: They have named ISI as terrorist organisation.
A: No, that is not in the chargesheet.
Q: I am talking about their perception.
A: It is for them to decide…
Q: Do you agree with it or not?
A: As far as I am concerned…. we say that the attack on Mumbai was supported by state and non-state actors in Pakistan. Unless we have access to questioning a number of people in Pakistan we cannot come to any conclusion. We have not been given that access.
Q: No they are referring to ISI as an institution.
A: I cannot answer for US. I cannot say anything about any particular body unless I have access to investigation in Pakistan.
Q: As a home minister you may be having access to so many things which you share or may not share. You don’t seem to agree with what you are saying?
A: I cannot comment on what the US is saying or doing.
Q: But when you say the response on 26/11 is not as you expected, why are you standing with them?
A: By now they should have arrested the real culprits. The trial should have started and they should have punished some people. It has been two years and five months and the trial has not started. So what is wrong in my saying that the response is not satisfactory?
Q: There is contradiction at one time your government talks to them on the other hand you…
A: No, there is no contradiction. We continue to press them on 26/11, we continue to work towards improving relations.
Q: There is an impression that the USA is pressuring you to talk to them therefore you are talking to them.
A: No, we are not talking to anyone under pressure. I reject that argument.
Q: Somebody is killing your people here and has not taken any action against the perpetrators even then you want to talk to them. It gives them legitimacy.
A: I don’t agree. That is your view.
Q: Don’t you think that the cricket bonhomie has pushed the 26/11 issue at the backburner?
A: No, we keep it in focus. We continue to press them. At the same time, Pakistan is our neighbour, we must continue to maintain contact with Pakistan on a number of issues. At the same time we must continue to press them on taking action on 26/11.
Q: The perception when 76 CRPF jawans were killed in Dantewada was that you are in the forefront of fight against Naxals. But after recent Tarmetla killings it seems as if you have changed focus and putting the onus to fight Naxals on state government and administration.
A: I cannot answer perceptions. You must look at the statements we have made. From day one we have said the primary responsibility for fighting militants or fighting insurgents lies with the state government. And that we are here to help them by providing paramilitary forces, by providing training, by providing intelligence and by providing equipment. The primary responsibility, we have always said, lies with the state government. Now I am not responsible if your perceptions are different.
Q: Mr Chidambaram, but perceptions are always important because you also take actions on the basis on perceptions.
A: It is not the perception of everybody, this is your perception.
Q: The point we are trying to make is that you as the home minister were leading from the front by taking all the states and fighting the battle against Naxals together.
A: I cannot answer for your perception. You have to go by our policy statements and our policy statement from day one has been that the primary responsibility lies with the state governments.
Q: Have state governments failed in tackling Naxalism?
A: It is very easy to pronounce judgments. It is only when you are sitting on the chief minister’s chair, when you have to tackle Naxals, when you have to ensure that human rights of ordinary people are not violated, when you have to protect villagers caught in the crossfire between security forces and the Naxals, when you have to respond to the charges made bycivil society organizations, when you have to answer cases filed in the courts, when all these dimensions have to be taken into account you will know how difficult is the job the chief ministers are doing. It is very easy for us to sit in an armchair and pronounce a chief minister or a government as a failure.
Q. But you attacked Buddhadeb Bhattacharya on the same issue?
A: Absolutely correct. I have…
Q. You did not appreciate his problems.
A: No, I have appreciated his problems and have given him great help. I criticised him only on one issue, namely, on the cadres of the CPI (M) who are indulging in violence. I gave him evidence for that.
Q: You gave him the names, you gave him the maps. You gave him about the Maoists also…
A: Therefore, I criticised him for that, what’s wrong? But that does not mean we did not help. We’ve sent him paramilitary forces, we have opened the police station in Lalgarh that had been closed for nine months and locked from outside. We’ve given them intelligence, we have shared intelligence. We have appreciated that their police forces have been able to arrest some leading Maoist cadres.
Q. But they have accused of misusing the office of the home minister by disclosing certain information.
A: They can make whatever accusations they want to make. Why should I answer accusations?
Q: But in new…
A: He himself has written to me appreciating our help. He has spoken to me appreciating our help. What about that?
Q: Question is you were aware of what they were doing arming their cadres. As a home minister was it not your duty to warn him. Did you warn him in writing?
A: Yes, the letters have all been made public
Q: There is a constitutional provision that you have taken under 355
A: Please understand… you cannot do those things. Those are simply not possible today. All you can do is caution and advise state governments.
Q: So there was no need for 355?
A: All that is not politically or constitutionally feasible today. Please understand that.
Q: 356 may not feasible but 355…
A: And then do what after 355? If I put article 355 on my letter what difference does it make?
Q: But if politically feasible you would have taken action…
A: No…no … what difference does it make, tell me
Q: No I am asking you a second question… politically it was not feasible for you…
A: It is a hypothetical question. Today, those things are not politically or constitutionally feasible.
Q: But you accused West Bengal government of breakdown of law and order and similar situation prevailed in Tamil Nadu also…
A: When?
Q: In terms of other issues… corruption other things… you did not speak against….
A: We are talking about law and order. My concern is about law and order. Don’t go to other subjects. I can only deal with security matters. So if there was a security breakdown or a law and order breakdown in any other state, I would have written to the chief minister the same letter and advised the chief minister of that state in the same terms.
Q: Wooing the voters with money power is also a law and order issue, which was rampant in Tamil Nadu elections?
A: That is election commission’s business, not mine. Money power has nothing to do with security of the state.
Q: But Mayawati has accused your party all the time about various other things… don’t you think Tamil Nadu
A: Let’s talk about matters relating to security and law and order. Don’t mix up other issues.
Q: Politics matters…
A: How does that concern security or law and order? Those are political issues which will be answered by the political party.
Q: Lt Governor of Puducherry came to you. What did you advise him – to resign, not to resign or you are leaving it to agencies…
A: The agency wanted to question him, so we asked him. He said yes, I am ready to be questioned. So we went through the constitutional arrangements that are required and the agency has questioned him. Now we will have to wait for the agency’s report.
Q: But he met you twice …
A: I am not going into the subject matter of the issue. That is not my business. The agency wanted to question him. He has made himself available for questioning, the questioning has taken place… let us wait
Q: You did not advice him either way
A: Let the agency report come. What is there to advice without knowing what the agency has found?
Q: Congress has always been quick enough in taking action against people on whom charges have been leveled
A: No charge has been framed. The agency wanted to question him, he has been questioned. You will have to wait for the agency’s report.
Q: You are on the drafting committee of Lokpal bill… in your view should Prime Minister and higher judiciary come under purview of the Lokpal?
A: The personal view of a member or a minister on the drafting committee is not important. As drafting committee, we have to come to a view. And the drafting committee’s first substantive meeting is on May 2. So we will begin work on drafting and we will decide, by consensus, what should be the scope and application of the law.
Q: You don’t want to say anything. Prime Minister himself is ready to come under Lokpal’s jurisdiction
A: As I said, personal view of an individual is not material. We have to take a view as a government as a whole and in this drafting committee we have to accommodate views of the civil society also. So it is in the drafting committee that the pros and cons of each proposal will have to be discussed and a view taken.
Q: Coming back to the original question. Even this new committee has been formed under pressure from the civil society; certain other actions have been taken under pressure from the judiciary. So coming back to the real question has the government lost will to govern or does not want to govern or is unable to…
A: I don’t think the committee was formed under pressure from civil society. There was already the NAC which had almost completed its work on drafting a Lokpal bill. You saw that from the letter which Mrs Gandhi wrote to Anna Hazare. It had almost completed its work and they had consulted Mr. Shanti Bhushan, they had consulted Mr Anna Hazare himself. Anyway, a situation arose where a joint drafting committee had to be formed, so government decided that a joint drafting committee be formed. Don’t see it as an example of acting under pressure.
NAC also has civil society members. Therefore, instead of the NAC taking up the drafting, the JDC is taking up the drafting.
Q: And you are saying there was no pressure even when five people chose themselves as committee members despite NAC being there
A: I am not commenting on how civil society members were chosen. There are two views on that. The point is, NAC had almost completed its work on drafting the bill and giving it to the government. And we would have welcomed the NAC draft and then discussed it within the government.
Q: Are you not disturbed with what has happened to the image of the government during last few months?
A: This is your perception of the image. Wait for May 13 and we will know what the people think of the government.
Q: Wait for May 13! You are talking of winning election obviously.
A: You have a perception of the image of the government, which I respect. But let us see what peoples’ perception is on the 13th of May.
Q: Let us use it as hypothetically again because you have challenged that May 13 is coming…
A: I want to know what the people think…
Q: If they reject you then will you admit that you were ….
A: Obviously, if the people vote against us then we would have to conclude that in the peoples’ esteem we have failed… in people’s estimate we’ve failed, we have to admit that with humility. But I am confident that on May 13th, results will show that the people do not share the perceptions which are run on the media most of the time. Media’s perception and the people’s perception are not necessarily the same.
Q: 13th May, you think, will explode that myth.
A: You are putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is media’s perception and people’s perceptions are not always the same.
Q: But what media says you always follow that closely.
A: We do not follow, we watch the media
Q: Whether it is the arrest of Kalmadi or the chargesheeting of Kanimozhi…
A: Media is pillar of our social structure…you cannot deny that…
Q: Are you saying that media is telling lies
A: I am not saying that media is telling lies. Media has a perception…
Q: Which you think is not correct?
A: I didn’t say that. I said you would have to wait and see whether media’s and people’s perception is the same. I am not passing any judgment. I am saying media has a perception. Let us see what the people’s perception is. Ultimately what matters is not anyone’s perception but the people’s perception.
Q: If the people reject you?
A: If the people vote against us, obviously, in the esteem of the people we have failed, in the estimate of the people, we have failed.
Q: Today you reacted to the PAC report and the kind of institutional demolition is going on in this country…
A: Who demolished it? There is no PAC report. First of all there is terminological inexactitude. There was a draft report submitted by Mr MM Joshi in his individual capacity. In the PAC, 11 out of 21 members, rejected it. There is no PAC report.
Q: They also elected a new chairman?
A: No, I am told, that at 11 o’clock when PAC met, 11 members gave letters saying we reject this report.
Q: They elected a chairman, according to newspaper reports.
A: Please listen to me, don’t you want to follow the facts. At 11 o’clock they rejected it. Then the discussion continued. It resumed at 4 o’clock. At 4 o’clock, they said please put it to vote. This is what I am told. Mr Joshi stood up and walked out of the meeting. The remaining members said why are you walking out of the meeting? He said, no, I am going out and walked out. Therefore, they elected a person to preside over the meeting, not a PAC chairman, only to preside over the meeting and complete the process of lodging eleven rejection slips. There is no report of the PAC. It was a draft report given to the PAC which the PAC did not adopt. It becomes a PAC report only when the draft is adopted by the PAC either by consensus or by majority. Here, 11 out of 21 members have in writing rejected the draft.
Q. Home Ministry has been quite liberal in granting permission for telephone tapping which has led to the violation of individual privacy in some cases. How do you propose to prevent its misuse?
A. Such requests don’t come to me. They are dealt by the Home secretary. We are equally concerned about its misuse by unauthorised persons. I am all for protective privacy. The whole issue of phone tapping is being addressed by a Committee under the Cabinet secretary. Let us wait for its report.
