The prospect of getting crucial pieces of legislation like the GST Bill through Parliament appears bleak yet again, given the stand-off between the BJP and the Congress, most recently over the AgustaWestland scam, in which an Italian court verdict has named Congress President Sonia Gandhi. In an interview with BusinessLine, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman explains why the blame for the parliamentary disruptions rests solely with the Congress. A combative Sitharaman also said that former Finance Minister P Chidambaram was attempting to divert attention from his role in “misleading” the court in the Ishrat Jahan case which possibly amounts to perjury. Excerpts:
Why is the BJP on the offensive once again when Parliament is in session? The Congress says the BJP is conducting a witch-hunt against Sonia Gandhi.
The AgustaWestland issue is in the spotlight because of what has come out of an Italian court. Simultaneously, you are telling me that the outside view is that the government hasn’t done much to pursue the case in India in the last two years. It’s the Italian court which has pronounced its verdict. Based on the verdict, you find some names. Some names are part of the judgment and there’s a list of witnesses and related persons. If they have named the Congress President in one of these documents, that’s not for us to answer. How can there be a witch-hunt and at the same time, the BJP hasn’t apparently done enough to pursue the case? How does it add up to the charge of witch-hunt?
What has come out is from the proceedings of an Italian court. How does that amount to the BJP conducting a witch-hunt? Are you suggesting that the Italian courts are being influenced by the BJP? I am sure the Indian readers and viewers will laugh at the very suggestion of it. I am not even going to engage with this kind of insinuations. I am sorry. After the verdict punishing the bribe givers has come, it is up to us to establish who the bribe takers are. Who is badmouthing whom? What kind of a question is that?
There is so much aggression from the treasury benches. Have you given up on doing any business in the Rajya Sabha?
I am surprised you should say that. From which end of the House do you continuously see aggression? We are saying we want to talk, discuss everything. At least in the Rajya Sabha, where I sit, and sometimes in the Lok Sabha, where I go to answer questions, I see the Leader of the House continuously saying ‘let’s have any discussion that you want’. They (the Opposition) give notice, but when the chairperson permits the discussion, they don’t engage and start disrupting.
From our side, we notice that they ask a set of questions, suggesting that the government should answer. And much before the answer is given or even attempted to be given, when a person gets up to answer, you have the entire set of Congressmen coming into the well. So, they are interested in asking questions, but not interested enough to hear the answer. The aggression, I would say very clearly, is coming from some sections of the Opposition.
Which section?
Obviously, from the Congress. Sometimes, when you see the Question Hour or the Zero Hour functioning normally, you just feel so relieved and happy. Isn’t this how it should be? It’s now become remark-worthy that the Question Hour goes on and you get the opportunity to answer questions. I hope it doesn’t become a matter of surprise for us every day. It is our duty to keep the House running.
P Chidambaram was very critical of your comments on the RBI Governor. How do you respond to his criticism?
In the context in which he (Chidambaram) raised that issue, I only see that he has used it as an excuse to evade answers that only he can give. Convenient for himself, he has chosen to speak on the RBI Governor’s remarks, as if the Governor needs the former Finance Minister to speak up for him. I don’t think it was necessary.
To put everything in context, let us go back to a press conference at the BJP office when I was asked by the party to comment on the latest developments in the Ishrat Jahan case.
After the briefing, on being asked by one journalist as to what I thought of the RBI Governor’s comments, I said I would have chosen different words or something to that effect.
Coincidentally and interestingly, this answer was picked up as though the RBI Governor required his (Chidambaram’s) support to defend him.
This was done because the wise former Finance Minister, who has no one else to blame if he finds himself in the unenviable position to have to answer on the meddling of the affidavit, does not want to speak about it. Instead, he picked on what I said against the Governor.
But Chidambaram has, in fact, talked about the affidavit.
Did he say anything at all? Having heard all that he said, I did read it and saw it being played on TV.
He is still beating around the bush. Who doesn’t know that an under-secretary is the one who will have to sign the affidavit? But he cannot do it out of his own volition. And he cannot do it without the approval on file of the competent authority. In this case, the competent authority was the Minister.
What he is saying is that the relevant question is not whether there were two affidavits from the Centre. The question is, after a magisterial inquest and investigation by two separate agencies have said so, whether it was a fake encounter or not.
He decides that, does he? So, why was the first affidavit talking about the terrorist link? If that wasn’t at all germane to the encounter, which he would like to call fake, why was it placed on record? Why was it done if it wasn’t core or germane to the issue?
After having filed such an affidavit, you see a political opportunity to somehow hit at the then Chief Minister and then Home Minister and you start tweaking what you said in the affidavit which is, if anything, misleading the court, which I think goes by the name of perjury.
It also includes pitting one agency against the other without worrying about national security, trying to bring people under cover in the public eye, having them investigate one another. Intelligence-sharing happens across the State.
You picked on one particular State. Here again, instead of answering questions that arise of the developments related to the affidavits, he says that’s not important, let’s talk about the encounter and whether it was genuine. He is just deflecting, not giving an answer.