Click to play videoNew Delhi: Minister of State for Defence MM Pallam Raju has said that "someone" in the government "may have read too much" into the movement of two key army units towards Delhi in January.
Speaking to Karan Thapar on Devil's Advocate, he said that there are protocols that exist where somebody has to be informed or somebody has to be kept in the loop.
Here is the full transcript of the interview:
Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil's Advocate. How does the government respond to the controversies surrounding the Army and the Army chief – that's the key issue I shall explore today with the Minister of State for Defence, MM Pallam Raju. Minister, let us start with the Indian Express story suggesting that a possible coup in the making was nipped in the bud on January 16-17. The Prime Minister, the Defence Minister and the Army Chief have dismissed the story as alarmist, rubbish and stupid. But the paper stands by it. So are you absolutely certain there is no truth to the story?
Pallam Raju: I am absolutely certain and I am sure the Raksha Mantri very categorically stated that it was not true, when we had that function in Vishakhapatnam and I think it is unnecessary extrapolation of whatever facts the particular media had got.
Karan Thapar:Let’s for a moment focus on two critical details on which this story hinges. First that troop movement on that night was a violation of well-set protocols that any military movement at any time in the national capital region, has to be pre-notified to the Ministry of Defence. Does such a well-set protocol actually exist?
Pallam Raju: I am sure there are protocols that exist for our movement of troops and I am sure there are procedures that are followed. But I think if it is an operational necessity, I think the respective chiefs have the freedom to move the troops. And a movement of a troop need not be unnecessarily interpreted as something anti-establishment.
Karan Thapar: But are you suggesting that protocols exist and weren't violated or saying they do exist and they were violated but the violation can be controlled. Which of you are saying?
Pallam Raju: I would say that we need not go to much in the movement of troops and I think we need not be alarmist in something that has happened.
Karan Thapar:The reason I am questioning you on this point in particular- is that what you are saying seems quite different, what the Defence Secretary said to the Parliament Standing Committee and what various ex-chiefs and ex-DGMOs have said. All of them have said there are no protocols and you are saying there are protocols. But we should not worry about being violated.
Pallam Raju:No, I didn't say. What I clearly said is if there were movements of troops; we need not read much into in it. And if there are necessary movements of troops that are movements of troops that are necessarily by the movements certain conditions, I am sure there are protocols that exists that where somebody has to be informed and somebody has to keep in loop.
Karan Thapar:On that night were the protocol violated? Was the notification that required given? Or was it ignored or forgotten?
Pallam Raju:I wouldn't be able on comment on that because I am not privy to that.
Karan Thapar:Okay but this is the different answer to what the Defence Secretary is reported to the Parliamentary Standing Committee.
Pallam Raju: I am sure he is much more privy to the information like that.
Karan Thapar:The second set of detail that the story hints upon us is certain facts. The story says that the Defence Minister was alerted late at night, the Prime Minister was informed at the crack of dawn and third the Defence Secretary was asked to cut short his visit to Malaysia. He returned to India opened his office at night and summoned the DGMO and ordered that the troop movements be reversed. Did all of that have actually happened?
Pallam Raju:I am not able to comment on that because I am not privy to that information but I think the Defence Secretary returning was necessitated to respond to what was filed in the court.
Karan Thapar:So the Defence Secretary return because the Army Chief has taken the government to the court. Not because there were troop movements that were worrying the government?
Pallam Raju:Yes
Karan Thapar:But did he on return open his office late night and summoned the DGMO?
Pallam Raju:I am not privy to that.
Karan Thapar:You are not privy?
Pallam Raju:Yeah.
Karan Thapar:So it's possible that these facts on which the Indian Express stories hinges, may be correct?
Pallam Raju:No I don't want to speculate on that. Again you know there is no need to being alarmist on something that has been written. I am actually against these matters that are written which actually harm the national interest. And we need not to speculate matters like this, in a way you are casting aspersions on the forces.
Karan Thapar:I don't want to cast aspersions on the forces and I don't want to be alarmist. But I do want to ask you a simple question and let's set aside speculation of coup. On that night were the troop movements happening which attracted the attention of the government and about which questions were asked?
Pallam Raju:See, you are asking me information that I am not privy to. I am sure there are movements of troops, there are certain protocols that have been followed and there are certain people that are kept into the loop, as per the necessity. But on this particular movement we don't need to be alarmist.
Karan Thapar:The Indian Express used there carefully chosen phrase says 'something curious was happening'. Was something curious happening that night in Delhi?
Pallam Raju:Again you are asking me something. I am sure there are movements of troops, movements of special troops are necessitated by situation of different head of these organisations read and I am sure there are procedures that are followed.
Karan Thapar:Your position- whatever troop movements that happened on the 16 and17th, were not alarmist in nature. We should not read any alarmist need into it?
Pallam Raju:Yes.
Karan Thapar:What about the fact that I am told on the reliable authority, that at 5:30 in the morning on the 17th of the January, Mr Sandhu the head of Intelligent Bureau contacted retired Defence Secretary to enquire about protocols and rules that determine troop movements. If that story given to me reliably is true, would it not suggest that something is happening that is perturbing or causing concern to the government?
Pallam Raju:If that is true and I am sure if someone raised a flag and I am sure people would have followed it up. I am sure this thing is disgusting and questions of the patriotism of the forces. I don't think our forces would do anything like that.
Karan Thapar:What about the fact that this is also suggesting that the government may have panic, when there were no reason to panic. How do you respond to that interpretation?
Pallam Raju:I would not put it that the government have reacted, it's probably somebody down the line, who might have read too much in to it.
Karan Thapar:Somebody down the line might have read too much of it?
Pallam Raju:Yes.
Karan Thapar:Do you think it is possible that someone perhaps making mischief and I say that deliberately, alerted the government knowing that this would cause concern, triggering of inquiries by the Intelligence Bureau. Do you think that the possibilities?
Pallam Raju:No, it is a the possibility that the people would try to create little bit of confusion in the current scenario. And I don’t think that we should react too much to these things. We know what are our national interest are and we know what has to be done to protect our national interest. And I think we are acting in accordance.
Karan Thapar:So this whole India Express story, it’s possible could be explain on the grounds that mischief makers try to create concern by exaggerating something that was quit ordinary and straight forward?
Pallam Raju:I would read it like that way.
Karan Thapar:Alright, lets come now to the claim that a Retire Lt General attempted to bribe the Army Chief. When the Army Chief reported this matter to the Defence Minister, the Defence Minister asked him to take the action; the Army Chief said that he didn’t want to pursue the matter. Why did the Defence Minister leave it there?
Pallam Raju:Again I am not privy to that conversation and I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to comment on that. But as far as the Defence Minister is concern, he is very very strict on the propriety is being followed on matters like this and he is particular for cleaning up the system. He is for cleaning up the system and we are acting in accordance.
Karan Thapar:I tell you why I raised this issue because there are two concerns. First concern is – when the Army Chief said the Defence Ministry didn’t want to pursue the matter, he was actually refusing to do what the Defence Minister had asked. And people asked why did the Defence Minister not ordered that he act?
Pallam Raju:You know I cannot react to that without knowing what was the content of the conversation. We can only react what was reported in the media.
Karan Thapar:And what was said by the Defence Minister on the floor of the Parliament.
Pallam Raju:Yes. I can reassure you that as a government and as a minister we are doing to clean up the system. We are doing everything to make the whole procurement process transparent and wherever the irregularity brought out to our notice we are taking actions immediately.
Karan Thapar:The second issue of the concern here is that this is the Defence Minister who takes pride in the fact that he even acts on anonymous complains. But when the Army Chief and none other, came to him with a serious complain, the Defence Minister didn’t acted. It isn’t that the contradiction?
Pallam Raju:No again I cannot comment on something that has happened between two people. But I think that the Raksha Mantri has very clarify clarified the actions that followed and what happened. Like I said that we are taking all measures to cut down irregular activities.
Karan Thapar:Are you really minister taking all measures? Because you see what the Army Chief was reporting to the Defence Minister was not the one of the instance. The army Chief had been told that bribes have been paid in the past to senior officers, who knows, possibly to even some of his predecessors. So it was not one of but a prolonged case of bribery of senior officers over an extended period. Surely, the Defence Minister needed to act but he didn’t.
Pallam Raju: But I think the CBI investigation is on right now and they will get into the root of the matter.
Karan Thapar: Interesting thing that the CBI probe was ordered in March 2012 when the Army Chief went public to the media, not in September 2010 when the Army Chief first reported the matter to the Defence Minister. What changed in those 18 months to make the Defence Minister act now, when he was not prepared to act earlier?
Pallam Raju: I don’t want to speculate on the matter but I want to be absolutely clear that this Raksha Mantri and this government is very particular about making the whole acquisition process clean. That is why we have acted on some of the issues before it became public.
Karan Thapar: But here you have acted 18 months late. Shouldn’t you have acted when you have first found it in September 2010?
Pallam Raju: I don’t want to get into that but again I want to reassure that we are cleaning up the process. You have seen the recent example of six companies being blacklisted. We are improvising the acquisition process, making it more transparent, more accountable.
Karan Thapar: Let me put this to you, the matter became public, acknowledged when the Army Chief revealed it in two media interviews. Speaking as a MoS Defence, was the Army Chief correct in revealing this to the press or do you think it was a mistake on his part?
Pallam Raju: As a citizen, he has right to speak his mind. But there are issues which I think he should have probably followed the norm in terms of initiating action at the appropriate time before making it public.
Karan Thapar: What was the norm he didn’t follow?
Pallam Raju: That’s for the Chief to know when he should initiate. If he knew there was something regular going on, he should have initiated the action.
Karan Thapar: You are suggesting that the Chief should have initiated the action himself against the bribe giver rather than wait 18 months and reveal it to the press.
Pallam Raju: What I feel that once he was privy to some knowledge of something irregular is happening, I think he could have initiated the process.
Karan Thapar: Was this the lapse on his part?
Pallam Raju: I would not want to comment on that.
Karan Thapar: in your eyes, are you suggesting that he has failed to live up to the expectations of an Army Chief.
Pallam Raju: I think the Army Chief is a clean man. He is an institution. And it wouldn’t to appropriate for me to comment on an institution. But when certain procedures are concerned, I think it is up to him, in his capacity to decide what is right to do.
Karan Thapar: So here you think he didn’t take certain steps that you wish he had.
Pallam Raju: I think if he thought something irregular, he should have acted on it.
Karan Thapar: As a result of all that happened, not just the topic we are talking about, but the Army Chief chose to take the government to court on his date of birth controversy. Many people say that today many people say that there is a trust deficit between the army Chief and the Defence Minister. How do you respond to that?
Pallam Raju: I totally disagree. There could be difference of opinion on professional matters but no personal differences and I think both of them have highest regard for each other.
Karan Thapar: How serious are the differences of opinion on professional matters?
Pallam Raju: Those are not serious differences. Like, when we sit in a discussion room, there are bound to be differences two individuals. But those are not serious differences.
Karan Thapar: A second view is that this Army General VK Singh feels frustrated as a matter of fact that the Supreme Court judgement on his date of birth case went against him. And the some people say that the anguish is affection is action, his behaviour. Do you agree with that interpretation?
Pallam Raju: I won’t want to read it like that. As I said, he is a good man.
Karan Thapar: Is he a troubled man?
Pallam Raju: But I think he might have been disappointed with the Supreme Court judgement.
Karan Thapar: is that disappointment colouring his action and his behaviour?
Pallam Raju: I don’t think. I don’t believe that it affected his professional behaviour in any way.
Karan Thapar: Abhishek Singhvi has said that one man continuously pushing out the boat is creating problem. And he doesn’t hide the fact that he is talking about General VK Singh. How do you respond to your own party’s national chief spokesperson?
Pallam Raju: I wouldn’t want to speculate on others statement. I would like to comment only what I know of the person. and I think Army Chief is a great man.
Karan Thapar: Mr Raju, let’s take a break at this point. When I come back I want to discuss a new controversy that’s broken just a couple of days ago.
Karan Thapar: Welcome back to Devil’s Advocate in an exclusive interview with Minister of State for Defence Pallam Raju. Mr Raju, let’s come to another story that emerged in public in the last couple of days. How do you respond to the fact that retired navy chief admiral Ram Das and a former chief election commissioner and former home secretary Mr Gopalaswamy have petitioned in Supreme Court challenging the appointment of Lt Gen Bikram Singh as the next Army Chief.
Pallam Raju: Again on matters like this, it reflects on an institution and the responsible people should exercise restraint in making comments that they do. Thereby, setting a bad precedent.
Karan Thapar: So, are you saying that this was irresponsible on the part of former navy chiefs and former home secretaries to challenge the apoointment in Supreme Court?
Pallam Raju: I think if they had any reservations or if they had any information that they were privy to, they should have probably shared it with the government.
Karan Thapar: And not gone to court.
Pallam Raju: You are being overactive in pursuing a matter. And which is not creating the best of confidence in public.
Karan Thapar: Are you particularly dismayed that a former naval chief, a member of the armed forces himself has chosen to challenge the appointment of a future army chief?
Pallam Raju: No what dismays me is that you are talking about an institution and these are all responsible people. And if they have any information that they are privy to which they think they should have shared with the government, they should have done that.
Karan Thapar: And at no point these people contact the government. Is that right?
Pallam Raju: I am not sure about that.
Karan Thapar: But you don’t believe they did.
Pallam Raju: I am not aware of it.
Karan Thapar: Now one of the ground on which these gentlemen have challenged Bikram Singh’s appointment is that the Supreme Court has not finally determined the date of birth of general VK Singh. They say that that still is an ambiguity that needs clarification. As a result of which, I suggest, claiming that General VK Singh will not retire on the 31st of May and therefore General VK Singh cannot be appointed on that day. Does this worry you that this old age controversy might flare up again?
Pallam Raju: No, it doesn’t trouble me at all because I am sure the Supreme Court knows what it is doing. And at the same time there is no method of reconciliation between two branches, which is within the army. So, I think if there is a method for reconciliation of differences in a thing like date of birth, there should be a method within the army to reconcile the matter.
Karan Thapar: But you are not worried that the date of birth controversy that was troubling until the Supreme Court set aside might flare up again. You are not worried about it?
Pallam Raju: I am not worried about that.
Karan Thapar: My final question…today practically every retired army, navy, air force chiefs I spoke to deeply worried about state of civil-military relationship. Some even say that it is at its lowest point ever. Do you as a Minister of State Defence also share the feeling?
Pallam Raju: I don’t believe that at all. I am sure professionally there are bound to be differences at different level of working with the civilian authorities and the army. But again we thrash it out. We are very clear about the goal. We know that the defence preparedness of the country is paramount. We know that we have to build up the capabilities of the nation and we are all working for that.
Karan Thapar: So this concern that behind all the controversies, problem with the civil military relation is not the concern you share as a minister of State Defence.
Pallam Raju: I don’t think there is any problem of civil-military relation at all.
Karan Thapar: Mr Pallam Raju, a pleasure speaking to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment