Click to play videoThe Indian and Pakistani Foreign Ministers have met this Dusshera weekend, but they have been unable to overcome the standoff created by the investigation into the Mumbai terror attack probe. At home the war against Naxals is set to intensify with an MP’s son being killed in Chhattisgarh. At a time when the internal and external security challenge remains potent, CNN-IBN Editor-in-Chief Rajdeep Sardesai questions the man responsible for meeting those challenges: Union Home Minister P Chidambaram.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Is Pakistan stifling the 26/11 probe? Mr Chidambaram, we are asking this because only yesterday (Sunday) the Pakistan Foreign Minister, Mr Shah Mehmood Qureshi, after talks with the Indian Foreign Minister said the trial against the 26/11 suspects will start on October 3. Do you see this as a positive step at last?
P Chidambaram: When it starts I will see it as a positive step. These dates have been set many times before. For example, the last date that was set the judge was on leave, they said. So when it starts it is a positive step.
Rajdeep Sardesai: So to that extent you are still not convinced about the sincerity of the Pakistani action. You still believe that the proof of the pudding is essentially, as always, is in its eating?
P Chidambaram: That is right.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Are we then to presume that Mr Chidambaram believes that Pakistan is insincere when it talks about 26/11? Because that is the impression one has got over the last few months, that you are not convinced that Pakistan is serious about prosecuting those who are responsible for 26/11?
P Chidambaram: I don't want to make any judgments or use any judgmental words, but you are right I am not yet satisfied that Pakistan is moving as it should on the 26/11 incidents.
Rajdeep Sardesai: What is that would convince you? Would it be just the trial starting against the seven suspects who have already been arrested? Or would it require Hafiz Saeed, crucially, to be arrested and prosecuted for you to be convinced?
P Chidambaram: There is more than that. The trial must start--that is a given. Hafiz Saeed must be arrested, interrogated and the investigation must take place on Pakistan's soil. All the evidence against Hafiz Saeed is on Pakistan's soil, so that has to be gathered. They have to respond to our letters rorgatory. There are some requests pending from the FBI and the Indian agencies for certain things--that Pakistan has to respond to.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Sir, the (Pakistan) Foreign Minister yesterday (Sunday) said he doesn't want to take the Hafiz Saeed case to court if it's a half-baked court. You are a lawyer--
P Chidambaram: So let him bake it fully.
Rajdeep Sardesai: You want him to bake it fully?
P Chidambaram: Because the evidence is on Pakistan's soil.
Rajdeep Sardesai: You keep saying that the evidence is on Pakistan's soil. Do you believe we have shared all the bits of evidence we have; that our dossiers are good enough to stand scrutiny in a court of law?
P Chidambaram: Since you remind that I am a lawyer, let me explain. Whatever an investigating officer gathers is only prima facie material--it is admissible as evidence according to the rules of evidence. It will be subject to cross-examination by the other side.
If it stands up to cross examination, if the court accepts it as probable, credible and trustworthy then it becomes evidence to punish an accused. We have gathered an enormous material (of evidence) and we have shared every bit of material so far with the Pakistanis. If more material comes out in the trial in Mumbai, if witnesses present some more evidence we will share that also.
Rajdeep Sardesai: We are also getting mixed signals from Pakistan specifically on Saeed. Prime Minister Gilani one day says he has been arrested; next day his (Saeed's) lawyer says he is freely moving around; we hear that he was a state guest at an iftaar function in Rawalpindi.
P Chidambaram: I have heard four versions.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Has the government of India got different versions as well?
P Chidambaram: I have heard four versions. Arrest is one version, house arrest is one version, place some restrains upon him is the third version and he is a free man is the fourth version.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Those are the versions coming through the media, but what about the government?
P Chidambaram: No, I have heard the ministers speak the words I have just uttered.
Rajdeep Sardesai: If you as Home Minister are not convinced yet that Pakistan is acting on 26/11, why should the Foreign Ministers have met in the first place in New York?
P Chidambaram: That raises questions involving the whole government. That is not a Home Ministry issue. Nevertheless since you have asked, we have agreed to engage the Pakistanis but we have said when and in what manner a dialogue will start will depend on action that Pakistan takes post 26/11.
That doesn't mean Foreign Ministers should not meet or Foreign Secretaries should not meet. There is no composite dialogue and there is no dialogue on any substantive issue.
Rajdeep Sardesai: And you believe that composite dialogue will not go ahead until you are convinced--the government of India, including the Home Minister is convinced--that Pakistan has prosecuted those responsible for 26/11?
P Chidambaram: That is putting words in my mouth. All I said is when and what matter the dialogue will start will depend upon the credibility of actions they take on 26/11. At the moment there is no dialogue on any substantive issue.
Rajdeep Sardesai: A viewer on IBNLive asks how is Pakistan taking action against Hafiz Saeed to ensure that there are no terrorists strikes against India given that there are people like Maulana Masood Azhar sitting there?
Have we, Sir, made our entire Pakistan policy Hafiz Saeed centric?
P Chidambaram: We have not, the media has. I told you that it goes far beyond Hafiz Saeed--dismantling the terror infrastructure, dismantling the terror camps--we know where they are, the communication network.
Rajdeep Sardesai: That is a long drawn out process.
P Chidambaram: It is.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Are we in for the long haul, then?
P Chidambaram: Aren't we? The United States is in for the long haul post 9/11. Why are we running out of patience? We are in this for the long haul.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Are you convinced that the Americans will back us in this long haul? That they will not put pressure on us to resume substantive dialogue with Pakistan, say put aside 26/11.
P Chidambaram: I have not seen any evidence of the US putting pressure on us to resume talks with us. In any event, these are not matters where another country can put pressure on us. These are autonomous decisions that we will take depending upon the circumstances.
Rajdeep Sardesai: A reader on IBNLive asks if India faces another 26/11-like attack, planned and executed from Pakistan, what will India's response be?
P Chidambaram: I can't say more than what I have said repeatedly: our response will be swift and decisive.
Rajdeep Sardesai: What does that mean specifically?
P Chidambaram: I can't explain that. When I say swift and decisive, I mean swift and decisive.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Will the response be different to last year?
P Chidambaram: I am sorry, I can't answer those questions.
Rajdeep Sardesai: A reader on IBNLive asks: Mr Home Minister, what are you doing to make the country a safer place to live in? Have we done enough to prevent another 26/11?
P Chidambaram: We have done more than enough than what was done earlier. We are today better prepared than we were on 26/11. We are adding to capacity, we are improving our intelligence gathering and intelligence sharing.
We work with other associate agencies around the world. I think we are better prepared than we were on 26/11, but that certainly doesn't mean we have done all that needs to be done. Even the US tells me that they are better prepared every month, every year but they have still some distance to go.
Rajdeep Sardesai: It is interesting you say that, because there hasn't been any major terrorist attack since 26/11. But we had a series of attacks between 2005 and 2008. What do you think has changed substantially on the ground? Is it something we have done? Is it international pressure on Pakistan that is working?
What seems to have changed? Has the relationship between the Lashkar and the Pakistani establishment changed? Some are saying the Lashkar commanders are now being used by Pakistanis to fight the war against Taliban? What has changed, Sir
P Chidambaram: A number of things have changed. I think what has changed most importantly is that there is better intelligence gathering, intelligence sharing and what I call intelligence follow-up. But a number of other things have changed too.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Let me close this section of the interview by asking again do you believe Pakistan is stifling the 26/11 probe and is not really serious about prosecuting someone like Hafiz Saeed because he is close to the establishment. Is that your view?
P Chidambaram: Yes.
Rajdeep Sardesai: And does that view differ from the Prime Minister, who said in Parliament trust and verify. He effectively seemed to suggest at Sharm el-Sheikh that India was willing to give Pakistan the benefit of doubt.
P Chidambaram: No, there is no difference between what I am saying and what the Prime Minister said. Trust but verify remains the policy of the government of India.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Therefore, the government is still not convinced that Pakistan is determined to prosecute 26/11 accused?
P Chidambaram: Yes.
THE NAXAL THREAT
Rajdeep Sardesai: Many believe that the Maoist threat is the biggest internal security challenge facing the government. Is the centre's war against Maoists set to intensify?
P Chidambaram: I object to the word war. We are not waging war--these are our own people; these are Indian citizens. There are some armed cadres among the CPI-Maoists. There are also some semi-armed or tribal people who are not part of the armed cadre but carry some kind of arms. Then there are a large number of sympathisers. So I don't think it's not right to use the word 'war' against Naxals.
What we are doing is very simple. The civil administration must assert its control over the territory. Over the last 10 years large tracts of land have been ceded to the Maoists. There is no civil administration there. We are trying to regain control over these areas, so that development can take place.
Rajdeep Sardesai: But for that you possibly need an unified command structure. There have been some reports suggesting that you will use your elite paramilitary troops--you might even use the Army--because ultimately you are taking on people have taken over large tracts of the country. Will there be a unified command structure?
P Chidambaram: There is one in Chhattisgarh.
Rajdeep Sardesai: But across the country, in all the Naxal states, would you prefer that?
P Chidambaram: I think it differs from state to state. All intra-state operations against the Naxals are carried out by the state police. We give our paramilitary forces to assist the state police. There are some pockets where it requires inter-state operations--there we are taking a more direct responsibility but the state police will be fully involved.
Rajdeep Sardesai:Sir, there is a feeling that there is a difference between your approach and that of your predecessor, Mr Shivraj Patil, and possibly even the Prime Minister. Both of who used to talk about the root causes of Naxalism; the socio-economic causes of Naxalism.
You have always seemed to suggest that first it is necessary for them to give up arms?
P Chidambaram: I deny that. You should also say what I said second. The point is we believe that development is the ultimate answer to the problems that are espoused by the Naxal leaders on behalf of the poor people. The point I am trying to drive home is how can development take place in an area which is not under the control of the civil administration.
The district collector doesn't go there, the SP doesn't go there, there is no medical officer there, there are hardly any schools there, no contractor is willing to lay roads there; if one of your telecom service provider puts up a tower they blow up the tower.
Therefore, the point I am making is that first the civil administration must regain control over the area, establish civil administration (and) then it should be rapidly followed up by development.
Rajdeep Sardesai: But there are those, particularly in West Bengal, who say that the civil administration is handicapped because many of these Naxal cadres are being patronised by political parties. Here the insinuation being the Trinamool Congress is patronising the Maoists in Lalgarh.
P Chidambaram: Completely wrong. Let us get this straight--the CPI-Maoists and CPI-Marxists regarded that they were on the same side of the line, fighting class enemies. They were together; now they have fallen out--they are fighting each other and therefore there are casualties on either side.
Rajdeep Sardesai: And the Trinamool Congress has nothing do with perhaps encouraging the Maoists in this battle against Marxist cadres?
P Chidambaram: There is no evidence at all. The Trinamool Congress leader (Mamata Banerjee) that she has never regarded (Chhatradhar) Mahato as a member and in fact Mahato has made it clear that he was never a member of the Trinamool Congress.
What he said is that in his fight against CPI-M in Singur or Nandigram he was supporting the Trinamool Congress but he was never a member of the TMC.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Last week an important Naxal ideologue, sympathizer--whichever you way look at him--Kobad Gandhi…
P Chidambaram: You underestimate him--he was a politburo member of the (CPI-Maoist). He was one of the nine politburo members.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Now his arrest has led some human rights activists to suggest that the government has not been fair in the manner in which they arrested him and is determined not to give him a fair trial?
How do you respond when human rights activists say this? They also said this during Dr Binayak Sen--arrested for two years and there were questions raised.
P Chidambaram: Well, I can only be sorry for them. Where were they when four people were killed, including two paying guest students--when those pictures were shown on TV and carried in newspapers. Barely three weeks ago--where were they. I didn’t hear a voice.
Kobad Gandhi was arrested by the Delhi Police, produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, remanded to judicial custody, then allowed to be admitted to a hospital because of his illness--I believe he is still in hospital--and he is under judicial custody. That is the judicial process in India, so what is the complaint about.
Rajdeep Sardesai: A reader on IBNLive asks: has the Naxal issue silently become even bigger than the Kashmir issue for India? Do you see that as the primary internal security challenge facing your government today?
P Chidambaram: There are two different issues, so you can’t compare and measure one against the other. Kashmir is an old issue. We are working to find a solution to the Kashmir issue--development, dialogue…
Rajdeep Sardesai: Even while infiltration continues. Only today (Monday) some Lashkar terrorists have attacked a house in Kashmir. Do you believe infiltration is continuing, because you said a test of Pakistan has to be also what it does to check cross-border terrorism?
P Chidambaram: Yes, there is infiltration. Even this morning and last night our forces have engaged militants and neutralized some of them.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Are you sensing that it is growing again?
P Chidambaram: You will be very happy if I used words like growing, etc but the point is there is a problem in Kashmir. The problem has many, many aspects. One them is infiltration--militancy--we deal with that. There is a problem of development; there is an issue of dialogue. I think Kashmir is a more complex issue and we are dealing with every aspect of that issue.
On the other hand Naxalism has grown in the last 10 years. As I have said in Parliament, I think we underestimated the menace of Naxals. In the last 10 years they have recruited more cadres, acquired more arms and extended their area of influence to more regions, to more parts of India. Therefore, it is a grave internal security problem.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Do you view the Maoists as India’s Taliban? Because you have described Maoists as bandits. You have said they are boys--at one level they are boys.
P Chidambaram: They are our citizens but when they indulge in looting, extortion, killing why should I not describe them as bandits. They are obliged to follow the Indian law.
This is not a colonial government against whom you are fighting for independence. Governments in this country--state and centre--are elected governments and if you wish to depose that government the ballot box is the way to depose that government.
Rajdeep Sardesai: A reader on IBNLive asks can the central government show the same spirit to check red terror as they did after 26/11? Is it true that China is providing financial and logistical support to the Maoists?
Are the Naxals getting external help?
P Chidambaram: No, there is no evidence that China is supporting the CPI-Maoist.
Rajdeep Sardesai: External help?
P Chidambaram: Well, they are able to acquire arms.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Where do you think they are getting them from?
P Chidambaram: I don’t know where they are getting them from, but I know they are getting it via Myanmar and via Bangladesh.
Rajdeep Sardesai: And is this being supported by Pakistan again? Do you have reason to believe that?
P Chidambaram: Difficult to say.
Rajdeep Sardesai: There were some reports that suggest, after an arrest in New Delhi, there were links between the Lashkar and possibly some Naxal groups.
P Chidambaram: These are speculations. I can’t as Home Minister endorse speculation.
Rajdeep Sardesai: You have started an aggressive government campaign through ads against red terror, pointing out how they have targeted women and children.
Is there now going to be a zero-tolerance policy towards Naxals?
P Chidambaram: There was always a zero tolerance policy, except that the policy is more visible now.
Rajdeep Sardesai: If there was always a zero tolerance policy the fact is Naxalism has grown in that period to acquire larger and larger land mass?
P Chidambaram: For 10 years there was zero tolerance, but the policy is more visible and more rigorously applied today. Please remember the primary responsibility of fighting Left wing extremism lies with the state governments.
We have had different shades of state governments in the last 10 years so we can’t point fingers at each other. Over the years now I think most state governments have come around to my point of view that we must first regain control of the area and then rapidly follow it up with developmental measures.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Why can’t we have a unified command across all the states? Won’t that help, because otherwise Naxals can move from one state to another. We have seen that in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. Have one joint, unified command.
P Chidambaram: These is nice on paper--unified command. It doesn’t work that way. Each state has its own language, there are many dialects, the local population is different from state to state--one has to win the support of the local population while fighting the Naxals.
Therefore the primary responsibility of fighting Naxals in any state must remain with the state government and I have no intention of taking that responsibility away. Except in inter-state operations there will be a joint task force headed by a central officer.
REFORMING THE POLICE
Rajdeep Sardesai: Is there an urgent need for comprehensive police reforms. Mr Chidambaram, let me read out to you what you said at the state DGPs conference: “it is a matter of deep regret that many police officers have been reduced to a football , to be kicked here and there, from one post to another, without regard to the damage done to the job as well as the officer.”
You regret likening them at all to a football?
P Chidambaram: Please, that is a metaphor.
Rajdeep Sardesai: But you believe they are kicked around?
P Chidambaram: Yes.
Rajdeep Sardesai: You believe police officers are being kicked around by state governments. That will make you very unpopular with some of the Chief Ministers.
P Chidambaram: Not physically, metaphorically they are moved There is massive evidence to show that tenures are so short that no police officer, or for that matter any government servant, can do justice to the job if he has a tenure ranging between two days to two months.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Will it not make you unpopular with Chief Ministers after you made your comments, particularly when many of the Opposition Chief Ministers have said who is the Home Minister of the country to tell us how to treat our police force?
P Chidambaram: I have not heard anyone say that, except a passing remark by the Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister. I think he took it literally. He was speaking in Hindi--my sense was that he was objecting to the use of the word football, rather than the thought behind the idea.
Rajdeep Sardesai: But aren’t you worried that this entire area of police reform, or many of the statements you are making will get you into confrontation with state governments, make you unpopular.
P Chidambaram: No. What I have said is what the Supreme Court has said--not using metaphors of course. The Supreme Court has given clear directions on police reforms. They were unhappy with the responses of the state governments; they have appointed the Justice (K T) Thomas committee to go into each state’s response to the directions and report to the Supreme Court.
Therefore, if they are not happy with the Supreme Court’s directions, to the Justice Thomas committee’s oversight why should they be unhappy with what I say?
Rajdeep Sardesai: The Gujarat government was unhappy with the manner in which some kind of controversy, or even conflict, was created over the Ishrat Jahan encounter case. They seem to suggest that the Centre should have stood by the state government, particularly after the affidavit filed by Centre in the courts.
P Chidambaram: Sorry, there was no controversy. I don’t know if you have read the affidavit, I have read it several times over. What did the affidavit say?
The affidavit, according to me, is confined to two pages. It simply said this is the intelligence we had, we shared that intelligence with the state government; we are not responsible for the action taken by the state government thereafter.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Was there perhaps a mistake in the drafting?
P Chidambaram: No, there was no mistake in the drafting. It was mischievously used by the Gujarat government as a shield against an enquiry into an alleged encounter. Now whether there was an encounter or whether there was a fake encounter, whether anyone was killed willfully is a matter which the enquiry will throw up.
The Gujarat government should have defended itself in the encounter to the best of its ability, but to use the Central government’s affidavit on sharing intelligence as a shield I thought it was pathetic.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Do you believe the centre’s affidavit should be revised?
P Chidambaram: There is a suggestion that we should file a short affidavit, saying exactly what I said. Namely that we shared intelligence with the Gujarat government as we do with every other government on most issues concerning that state.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Mr Chidambaram, an alleged fake encounter in Gujarat becomes a big issue. Fake encounters have taken place in Manipur and yet one of our reports suggested that the maximum gallantry awards were given to the Manipur Police.
Manipur has a Congress government. Would you take action against fake encounters in Manipur with the same alacrity as you did in Gujarat?
P Chidambaram: But I did when that young man was killed and Tehelka published those pictures. I picked up the phone and spoke to the Chief Minister and requested him forthwith order a judicial enquiry. He did the next day. He asked the Chief Justice to name a judge.
The Chief Justice declined. He was then forced to appoint a retired judge. In Manipur I have taken action and I have advised the Chief Minister to hold an enquiry.
Please remember the Manipur Police have also down a very good job of a neutralizing a number of militant cells. There is a good side and there is a bad side, but for the last seven, eight, nine years you ask anyone in Tamil Nadu my voice has been the most vocal against fake encounters.
There have been a couple of encounters in Tamil Nadu. I said fake or no fake I do not support encounters at all.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Sir, the biggest question of course that is asked in this context is how do you insulate the police from political interference. That is what the Supreme Court had also suggested but never interpreted on the ground.
Is part of the answer is moving this area of policing and law and order from the state list to the concurrent list (of the Constitution), give you more powers. Can it be done?
P Chidambaram: That is not the answer. No central government can take over the policing of the entire country, especially law and order. The answer is to replicate what we do at the centre. For example, at the centre there is an establishment board.
In the last, say, 10 months that I have been in office I have not overruled a single recommendation of the establishment board. There is a DPC--I have not interfered with a single recommendation of the DPC.
We have a very clear tenure policy at the centre: SP level four years, DIG level five years, IG level five years. There is a clear tenure policy.
Rajdeep Sardesai: But you are aware today that the Indian citizen doesn’t quite trust the police in the way he or she should?
P Chidambaram: The Indian citizen must call upon the political party, which he or she is intending to vote for, to clearly say in its manifesto that there will be a police establishment board, there will be an oversight security commission on police excesses and there will be a tenure policy for all police officers.
Rajdeep Sardesai: All parties will put it on their manifesto, the challenge is in implementing it.
UPA GOVERNMENT’S AUSTERITY DRIVE
Rajdeep Sardesai:Is the government's austerity drive mere tokenism? I am asking you this question to you because you are seen as one of those ministers who actively wants to reject the security paraphernalia around ministers and yet number of your colleagues insist on VIP security in these times of austerity.
Do you believe VIP security is an impediment in times of austerity?
P Chidambaram: No, I don't think there is a contradiction. Many people require and deserve security. That security must be provided.
Rajdeep Sardesai:How do you remove the cases which are no deserving?
P Chidambaram: We have an officers' committee which reviews it periodically. Several downgrades have been done, and some upgrades have been done. I accept those recommendations.
Rajdeep Sardesai:Do you believe Rahul Gandhi should be a little more particular about his security?
P Chidambaram: Rahul Gandhi is protected by the SPG and I think the SPG did all that was required to be done to protect him. An impromptu visit does not mean that the security is compromised.
Rajdeep Sardesai:But the Uttar Pradesh government should have been informed about Rahul's recent visit to the state, isn't it?
P Chidambaram: That is the judgment the SPG will make.
Rajdeep Sardesai:Are you okay with the fact that he travels in trains--as you said austerity cannot be at the cost of security?
P Chidambaram: I have been assured by the Prime Minister that austerity does not mean that we compromise in security and I have made that very clear that the austerity drive will not be at the cost of either efficiency or security.
Austerity must become a way of life for everyone, not only politicians but for everyone, business people, industrialists, academics, writers, etc.
Rajdeep Sardesai:Do you believe that the austerity drive of the government is tokenism?
P Chidambaram: What is wrong with even 'tokenism' when there is such a vulgar display of ostentation. Even 'tokenism' has an impact. It puts people to shame and if that moderates a vulgar display of affluence, to that extent it's good.
Rajdeep Sardesai:I am going to go with a rapid fire. Sir, do you think that your party overreacted on Shashi Tharoor's Twitter 'cattle class' comments?
HOME MINISTRY OR FINANCE
P Chidambaram: There were many reactions.
Rajdeep Sardesai:What's your view? Would you Twitter and tell your community that you were at CNN-IBN an hour ago?
P Chidambaram: Frankly, I don't have the time to Twitter.
Rajdeep Sardesai:The Supreme Court has also asked the government to decide on mercy pleas fast. Do you believe that the time has come to expeditiously decide on mercy pleas?
P Chidambaram: I have to give a slightly long answer on that. The judicial process comes to an end when the final court pronounces on the guilt or otherwise of a person. The mercy process is a very different process.
It's a separate article of the Constitution. The President there means the Central government, but I think the mercy process in all countries takes many years because there are many, many considerations that come into play.
Rajdeep Sardesai:So in that case (Parliament attack convict) Afzal Guru's case is not unusual because everyone wants to know when will that be decided, when will he be hanged?
P Chidambaram: I've answered that before, but I will answer it again on your channel. Not unusual at all. The first case that is pending today--others have been disposed of--was a case that reached the President sometime in April 1998. The NDA was in office for six years thereafter. Today, we have 28 cases--26 are with the President's office, two are with the government. This is not at all unusual.
On my recent visit to the US, we discussed about some matters, including mercy petitions, and they told me it was not at all unusual that prisoners who have been convicted to a death sentence remain in prison for many years.
Rajdeep Sardesai:Do you think Afzal Guru should be hanged or not?
P Chidambaram: I can't give an answer to you because that answer can only come when the President exercises her powers.
Rajdeep Sardesai:Nalini, lodged in Vellore prision, serving a life sentence, went on a hunger strike last week seeking early release. Your view sir.
P Chidambaram: I don't know what the judgment in the case was. The Supreme Court has in more than one case has said it is within our power to decree that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the remainder of the life of the prisoner without parole.
Rajdeep Sardesai:Your view?
P Chidambaram: I don't know what the judgment was in that case.
Rajdeep Sardesai:Is the China threat being exaggerated?
P Chidambaram: We are not exaggerating it but the stories on incursion have been exaggerated
Rajdeep Sardesai:While the focus remains on cross-border terrorism from Pakistan, do you believe Bangladesh is also a problem area in terms of infiltration that is taking place, particularly in the Northeast?
P Chidambaram: In terms of infiltration, Bangladesh indeed is the root, but the new government in Bangladesh is certainly more cooperative.
Rajdeep Sardesai: On Section 377, the Cabinet left it to the Supreme Court to decide on the Delhi High Court judgment of gay sex. You were part of that committee which headed’ why is the government so scared on making its stand known?
P Chidambaram: We are not scared at all.
Rajdeep Sardesai:Do you believe that the Delhi High Court judgment is a progressive judgment?
P Chidambaram: We have made it clear that we did not find any legal error in the judgment. Therefore, the government is not appealing the judgment. But there is an appeal in the Supreme Court filed by others. So the government has requested the attorney general to assist the Supreme Court in everyway that it desires to decide whether the judgment of the High Court is correct or not. It's our view that there is no legal error and therefore we did not appeal against the judgment.
Rajdeep Sardesai:Do you believe it is progressive?
P Chidambaram: I speak for the government.
Rajdeep Sardesai:You stirred some controversy when you said that Delhiites should change their behaviour ahead of the Commonwealth Games. What did you exactly mean?
P Chidambaram: I was following the speech of Sheila Dikshitji. She made the statement first then I followed it up. I would say the same thing in Chennai or in Hyderabad.
Rajdeep Sardesai:Do you believe Indians in general need to mind their manners when you are hosting a big event?
P Chidambaram: We live in a mega city. If you are living in a village or in the countryside, you can perhaps urinate on the road. We shouldn't do that in the city.
You can't violate traffic rules in a city. In a country road, who cares if the bullock cart is on the left side of the road or the right side of the road. Therefore, what I have said is that if you are living in a mega city, you should learn to behave like a citizen of a mega city.
In light of the Commonwealth Games, I say this is a great opportunity to make an attempt to change the behaviour of the citizens of Delhi just has Beijing did and Germany did.
Rajdeep Sardesai:What do you prefer being? The Finance Minister or the Home Minister? I ask you this because there was a feeling that you were a reluctant Home Minister and yet you are now being projected as the 'new Iron Man’.
P Chidambaram: I was the Finance Minister for the previous UPA government for four years and six or seven months. I was looking forward to completing that tenure, is that not a legitimate desire? Suddenly, when I was shifted, it was of course a jolt, and I said I was reluctant but as I said orders are orders.
Rajdeep Sardesai:Now, as you complete almost your one year, are you feeling a sense of satisfaction? Are you hear for the long haul?
P Chidambaram: Again orders are orders. If I am asked to choose a portfolio, I will probably choose Environment and Forest for two reasons. One, I can go to a forest lodge for three days and read books which I have not read and secondly, environment is the new issue that has captured the imagination of the people.
Rajdeep Sardesai:Well at the moment, the issue that is confronting you is the internal security environment of this country from Naxals to cross-border terrorism to Hafiz Saeed.
You have got many more challenges ahead of you. Appreciate your joining us and taking the time out.
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter and Google+)
displayed with permission. Use of the CNN name and/or logo on or as part of CNN-IBN does not derogate from the intellectual property rights of Cable News Network in respect of them.