Click to play videoRajdeep: Jaswant Singhji, thank you very much for joining us on Face the Nation. Let me first say that the book itself, A Call to Honour, I read it over the weekend, and many congratulations for actually coming out with a book on a very important period in India.
Jaswant Singh: I am flattered, Rajdeep. Firstly because you talked to me and invited me to be with you and secondly, because you are among the very few who have actually read the book. And thirdly, thank you for your compliment.
Rajdeep: Because, I think not too many Indian politicians or people in public life actually jot down their memoirs. Was this a conscious decision you took, that you wanted the world to know what happened in this crucial period at late ‘90s, near the 21st century?
Jaswant Singh: Absolutely. Not just the world, but I think that it is important that the countrymen and women should also together do that. Strobe had earlier said that we should write a book together, but then it disappeared. Because I continued to work in an office and he was out of office and he was impatient. But this is not a rejoinder towards it.
Rajdeep: Okay. Let me start then with the controversies. It's a very good book. But it is in a sense being shadowed by controversies from Day One. The big one, the mole in the PMO. The Prime Minister wants you to come up with the name of the person who you believe, as per the book, was a mole in the PMO during the Narasimha Rao regime leaking nuclear secrets to the US. Come up with the name.
Jaswant Singh: I am a bit disappointed and I intend to hold a press conference tomorrow (Tuesday). I am a bit disappointed with the phraseology that the honourable Prime Minister has chosen to use, challenging the decency. I am not actually given to indecent exposure and he doesn’t have to challenge me. I will seek a time with him and go and give him the document that I have, but I will not make public the names, because it has a national purpose behind it.
Rajdeep: But why did you conceal information for 10 years? That does not come out in this book very clearly. I know you wanted to establish a theory that the United States was very closely looking at India's nuclear programme. But don't you think it was your bounden duty to not go to the Prime Minister now but to go to the prime minister when you came to know about it in 1995?
Jaswant Singh: No, not in ‘95, because we were not in office at that time.
Rajdeep: But the letter was given to you in that period.
Jaswant Singh: That’s right. But that was a period of rather grave political uncertainty in the country, right until the elections in ’98. And I didn’t wish to indulge in what would appear even in retrospect, even marginally, a politics of vendetta.
Rajdeep: But you don't think it was your duty as a nationalist that it was a serious enough plan, a spy in the PMO, you were in the government then. Shouldn’t you have asked the intelligence agencies to investigate this?
Jaswant Singh: No. The people concerned were out of India and out of office and it was no longer relevant. And in any case, the NDA Government had done what it had set out to do, which was to conduct the nuclear tests and which was the principal purpose behind this person’s writing.
Rajdeep: You don't think today this claim should be investigated? Or do you believe simply it's something of the past and it's only a lesson for the future and nothing more?
Jaswant Singh: I don’t think we need to keep on digging yesterday’s graves. We need to recognise that this is the given reality of the diplomatic conduct of all countries. We also need to accept that we will be scrutinised and looked into. For example, the Mitrokhin papers, they are a reality.
Rajdeep: But you are going to give the prime minister the name of the person in confidence?
Jaswant Singh: I will give him all that I have without any change and I will tell him why I chose not to share all this because I didn’t see any rationale purpose being served.
Rajdeep: You didn't see any national purpose being served?
Jaswant Singh: No, no national purpose.
Rajdeep: But in the book itself, you thought it was important to reveal?
Jaswant Singh: There are two aspects that I thought it needs to be emphasised. First, that the United States was wrong to charge India. In fact, Madeline in one of the conversations said that ‘Jaswant you are a liar’. We did not lie and we did not hide the programme, and for the United States to say that ‘No, your programme was hidden’ is wrong. Also, so far as the current nuclear agreement or negotiations are going on, there is relevance, that is why.
Rajdeep: Are you, therefore, trying to suggest that even today India's nuclear programme is being watched at, is being spied on by the US? You believe that the spies are still operative? To that extent, it was important.
Jaswant Singh: It was being watched, certainly.
Rajdeep: And even today, it's being spied upon? Even today, at the highest level in the government, there are...?
Jaswant Singh: I can’t say that because I am not in the government. But I would be surprised if at the highest levels, India’s programmes are not being looked at very closely. Why is it that there has been an incident recently of somebody from the US embassy being asked to go.
Rajdeep: So that's why the information you had is important. It is why it should have come out.
Jaswant Singh: No, I have old information.
Rajdeep: You don't think so?
Jaswant Singh: If the government takes seriously what I am saying, than certainly I would not be charged with indecency and lacking in courage. It is not so like this at all, my dear Rajdeep. We need to take these entire thing seriously and with maturity.
Rajdeep: You don't think you compromised national security?
Jaswant Singh: Not at all. Not at all.
Rajdeep: No question of having compromised the national security? For 10 years, you didn't reveal the name of a person who was a spy in the PMO?
Jaswant Singh: Not for a moment. And we need to deal with such challenges firmly.
Rajdeep: Okay. So you are disappointed as you said with the Prime Minister. But then there are more controversies around the book. Jaswant Singh on the Kandahar hijack. You go into it in great detail. But you don't come into the big question: were you disappointed or not with the fact that you had to go on a plane accompanying terrorists like Masood Azhar, like Umar Sheikh and hand them over in exchange for the hostages. Your inner feelings don't come out. Was their inner turmoil?
Jaswant: Of course, there was inner turmoil. I give voice to my inner turmoil in my private diaries, which I reproduced exactly. Why did I go in the same plane? Because there was no parking space left at the Kandahar airport.
Rajdeep: But the controversies in the book come from two points: You say that ransom money, for example, was among the demands. But you leave it there. You don't go further to say did you pay the ransom money.
Jaswant: You see the problem is and, please forgive me for saying so, had you looked at the statement that was made in Parliament on February 28, 2000, and the statements that I have made repeatedly in press and what I have said in Parliament and what I have said here (in the book), then I don’t think that the question arises.
Rajdeep: No, but your are leaving it elliptical. Like somebody who shoots and scoots. You say ransom was demanded. Did the government pay the ransom?
Jaswant: Not at all. Of course not. Not a penny. There should be no ambiguity about that at all.
Rajdeep: You don't tell us in the book whether you thought it was a wrong decision or not. You make it, in fact, clear that it was a unanimous Cabinet decision. Because from time to time, there have been various elements, including from your own party, like L K Advani, who said that they had disagreed with the decision.
Jaswant: Absolutely no. I don’t know about Mr Advani, but the decision of the Cabinet that I have cited was unanimous. And the Cabinet arrived at the decision very quickly.
Rajdeep: There is also this controversy over a red bag, which you said the hijackers came back to take in Kandahar. That bag, you said, contained explosives.
Jaswant: That’s right.
Rajdeep: There is no question of any money changing hands?
Jaswant: Where is the money? There is no question of money? This was a bag that was loaded into the plane IC-814 at Kathmandu.
Rajdeep: Do you feel in hindsight it was a wrong decision? Or you had no choice?
Jaswant: Rajdeep, the choice was grim. The choice was between two equally grim but valid wrongs. Release three terrorists or let 166 people die. In the hindsight and the vision being 20/20, you will always be judged. It’s impossible to judge. I chose life and it was not a wrong decision. With the atmosphere in the country, I would not have accepted 166 dying. You need the whole country to rise, to suffer.
Rajdeep: So today, you have no regrets in hindsight? When you think of the terrorist acts committed by groups like the Jaish, when Daniel Pearl incident was identified with Omer Sheikh, you have no regrets?
Jaswant: No at all. I do say in my book that life must remain and fight against terrorism must also remain. There are no regrets about life.
Rajdeep: Mr Jaswant Singh, the next question. On Gujarat riots and Ayodhya. You call the Gujarat riots a blot on the BJP Government's image. You actually say it was an example of the failure of state control.
Jaswant: No, I didn’t say that. That’s your phrase.
Rajdeep: Loss of state control are the exact words you used. You said loss of state control resulted in these violence.
Jaswant: Yes, yes. The violence did occur. This is a comment that has been made by several of my colleagues. What I have cited there is what the most ardent supporters of BJP observed as minus marks for the BJP.
Rajdeep: But you don't blame anybody. You don't hold anyone responsible. You don't hold anyone accountable.
Jaswant: No. I am not in the blame game.
Rajdeep: But you were in government. If there was a loss of state control you were in power in Gandhinagar and in New Delhi.
Jaswant: New Delhi certainly doesn’t matter. As far as Gujarat is concerned, I think the Chief Minister and the Government of Gujarat are today displaying exemplary governance. Gujarat is today the best-governed state in the country.
Rajdeep: You are not going to still confront that question. You don't hold Narendra Modi responsible in any way for 2002 even though you say it was a blot on BJP's image, it was a loss of state control?
Jaswant: Of course not. Not at all. Look that’s what the supporters of the BJP say. Because I have analysed the two principal political parties.
Rajdeep: So you don't hold Narendra Modi responsible in any way?
Jaswant: Of course not. Of course I do not hold him responsible. In fact, the use of force to quell riot by the Narendra Modi Government was much more than anybody else. Number of firing by the police was more.
Rajdeep: You don't see it was a failure of Raj Dharam as the then prime minister (Atal Bihari) Vajpayee seem to allude to?
Jaswant: The Raj Dharam includes the management of government. It’s the best-managed state in the country today
Rajdeep: On Ayodhya also, you say it was disappointing. What happened in Ayodhya, it affected the government. You felt acutely disappointed. Again you hold no one responsible.
Jaswant: No. I have said that it is the failure of the movement to control the accompanying vandalism. The movement or the cause of a temple for Ram. It is a cause to which millions subscribe.
Rajdeep: Accountability sir. Somebody should be held accountable. In the book, you don't seem to hold individuals or collectives accountable maybe.
Jaswant: No. Because, all are under investigation. Because all are being judged. They have been held accountable. Our government was dismissed. Mr Advani was charged.
Rajdeep: You don't see the Ram Mandir Movement as a continuum that resulted in the demolition of the Babri Masjid and to that extent, the movement itself has much to answer for?
Jaswant: No, not the movement. The cause or the movement is the determination or the difference between faith and belief. You might not believe that there is an entity called Ram or the temple. There is a faith that moves millions.
Rajdeep: Again on Kargil, you devote some time, a considerable time in the book to it. You almost seem to support what Gen Mallik, the then Army Chief, seem to suggest that there was an intelligence failure. You talk about your meetings with the vice-chief, where he gave you the impression that the intrusion was by terrorists and irregulars and not by Pakistani army men.
Jaswant: I don’t have to suggest. The facts speak for themselves.
Rajdeep: It was an intelligence failure?
Jaswant: Of course. The Kargil Review Committee says that. I don’t have to say it. We appointed the Kargil Review Committee.
Rajdeep: Again, who do you hold responsible?
Jaswant Singh: I hold responsible the totality of the circumstances. Every assault, attack, initiative, design of this nature, shall always be accompanied by some kind of an intelligence mishap. And intelligence, you must understand Rajdeep, in governance it is always late. It’s never specific and it happens to every country.
Rajdeep: Therefore, when you look back on Kargil, do you feel there was a great betrayal?
Jaswant Singh: By Pakistan, of course.
Rajdeep: You, therefore, believe that the man responsible, and you are very clear in your book about it, Gen Musharraf's role. He is the person India is dealing with. You believe we have no choice but to deal with him.
Jaswant Singh: But if we have to because he acted, I think, mistakenly. Pakistan has paid a price. I think perhaps undeservedly the then prime minister has paid a price. India has to keep moving and we cannot remain trapped in the injustices of the past or the grievances of the past.
Rajdeep: And when Nawaz Sharif says today that he has no knowledge of it, and that it was an entire military operation, do you really believe him?
Jaswant Singh: I think what Miyan Sahab is doing is really a part of the internal politics of Pakistan. It’s a territory I would really much rather stay away from.
Rajdeep: There is another contentious issue which you try and address in your book, which is the Agra Summit. There was this entire debate over whether a joint statement was being prepared by you and the then Pakistani foreign minister Mr Sattar. You are very clear in the book that there were just pieces of paper that were exchanged. Is that the only level at which any exchange took place in Agra?
Jaswant Singh: That’s true.
Rajdeep:: You also said this was a high-profile media event and that you were opposed to it and why hold it in Agra. Who do you hold responsible for that?
Jaswant Singh: I am responsible. We first suggested Goa, but Goa had monsoon at that time. Then our Chief Guest, the visiting General who earlier had called himself the CEO, then styled himself as the President, he expressed the desire that he must come to Delhi and, therefore, for logistics, Agra became a necessity.
Rajdeep: So, you have a regret that it happened in Agra. It should have been a low-profile event without the media gaze.
Jaswant Singh: No, I’m not saying media should not be there. But I don’t think it should have been taken over by the media in the determination of both the agenda and pre-supposing what the result ought to be.
Rajdeep: Therefore, you don't agree, and you spoke also, with the speculation that has been widely held that there were hardliners in the Vajpayee Cabinet who scuttled the Agra Summit?
Jaswant Singh: In that case, I was certainly a hardliner, because I was handling all the so-called people.
Rajdeep: So there was no question of hardliners opposed to Jaswant Singh scuttling this? Okay.
Other question was on the Parliament attack. You say you were not in favour of a retaliatory action on Pakistan even after the Parliament attack. It was coercive diplomacy all the way?
Jaswant Singh: That’s true. That’s my view.
Rajdeep: But interestingly, there is a line where you say you almost expected that attack to happen because when the attack took place in Parliament, you said as per the book,"I thought to myself so it's finally happening." You actually believed that there would be a terror attack on Parliament?
Jaswant Singh: Yes. I’ll tell you why. Because earlier, in October 1, an attack had taken place on the Jammu & Kashmir State Assembly. That had informed me that now possibly the targets are going to be the legislature. And it was more of an instinct than an assessment of intelligence. And the instinct had said, “Look Jaswant, there will be some occurrence in Parliament, we are an open society, and this is what will happen.” I didn’t know what will happen. But something will happen.
Rajdeep: And even today, when you see the Mumbai blasts, it's in a sense a continuum, isn't it? You subscribe to the theory, as you go towards the end of the book, where you look ahead, that we are a soft state that is unable at the moment to deal with terror.
Jaswant Singh: I don’t say we are a soft state. I wouldn’t go into these easy and rather convenient phrases, which acquire a life of that. India is India. It is neither soft nor hard. It’s India. And we must stay with that. And I also say how deeply troubling it is to see the militarisation of the United States of America. I also say, this is not the path for India to follow.
Rajdeep: You actually emerge as a critique of the USA in the book, to some extent when the general perception was that Jaswant Singh is very close to Washington. That's one of the revelations that emerges out of the book.
Jaswant Singh: Well, I don’t know what to do with perceptions. Actually, I am not much given to presenting myself to the media and explaining myself.
Rajdeep:: So, you have allowed the words in the book to speak for themselves?
Mr Singh, your relations with the Sangh Parivar. In the book, you say that the Sangh Parivar's opposition to your induction the Cabinet, which you say that, when you lost the Lok Sabha elections in 1998, without identifying the RSS, you say : "I was again to be sworn in to the office, but could not be because of some last minute difficulty. This arose from an objection being suddenly raised from senior quarters about my inclusion in the ministerial ranks. Why not name the RSS?
Jaswant Singh: No. Why do you start by saying that this is attributed towards the Sangh Parivar?
Rajdeep: So who do you attribute it to?
Jaswant Singh: To senior quarters.
Rajdeep: You won't name?
Jaswant: No, of course not.
Rajdeep: You are going one step forward in the book. But you are not really trying to push the envelope beyond a point.
Jaswant Singh: No. I don’t need to push envelopes under doors or beyond a point. I need to share. Actually, I was not even going to say this until my editor said: ‘It’s best to explain’. Why I said I was to be sworn in, but for reasons I wasn’t sworn in. End of story.
Rajdeep: But here, in the book itself, for example, you support Advani's remarks. You seem to support Mr Lal Krishna Advani's remarks on the Jinnah question, something that has divided the party.
Jaswant Singh: No. I don’t support.
Rajdeep: When you speak on Pakistan, your notion of nationhood of the subcontinent approximates that of what Advani now sees Jinnah to be.
Jaswant Singh: No. I am saying as far as India as a nation is concerned, it is a non-territorial nation – that is India’s strength. And so far as the State of India is concerned, there have been occasions, whether it is a state and vast large number of occasions learning into centuries when there was no state. So as far as Mohammad Ali Jinnah is concerned, he started his political life as an ardent supporter of Hindu-Muslim unity. Post 1936, he switched.
Rajdeep: So, you don't support the Advani thesis that Jinnah's first speech to the Constituent Assembly in Pakistan revealed the views of a very secular mind.
Jaswant Singh: In his personal life, he was indeed not what one would call an Islamist to the core. But as an advocate of the creation of Pakistan and division of this country, certainly not. It is the promotion of Islam as a separate nation.
Rajdeep: So to that extent, you have your sharp differences with what Mr LK Advani's formulation was? Be honest about that.
Jaswant Singh: Sharp is your word. But, I have differences, any two intelligent men even on assessment of history would look at it differently.
Rajdeep: You don't think to that extent, as you critics would suggest, this book has come at the wrong time. Just as the BJP is trying to raise the issue of national security, there you are Jaswant Singh -- I am talking from your critics' point of view -- racking up Kandahar, raking up the nuclear issue. The RSS seems to feel this is not the right time for Mr Jaswant Singh to be coming out with these details.
Jaswant Singh: Look, an author, my dear Rajdeep, does not decide the date of publication. An author writes a book and this book has actually come after a great labour without disturbing any of my existing publication.
Rajdeep: You don't think it anyways compromises your role as a senior leader of the BJP?
Jaswant Singh: Why should it? I have given voice to my dreams and aspirations, my struggle.
Rajdeep: You still remain a proud member of the Sangh Parivar in that sense?
Jaswant Singh: Absolutely.
Rajdeep: You still remain committed to the notion of Hindu nationalism?
Jaswant Singh: I remain committed that the tatva of this country, which is civilisation.
Rajdeep: So, the civilisational notion of Hindutva? You remain committed to the civilisational notion of Hindutva?
Jaswant Singh: Absolutely.
Rajdeep: I am asking this at the very end because there has always been a sense that Jaswant Singh is the right man in the wrong party. Therefore, when Gujarat comes up, and you say that it hurt the image of the party. You speak about Ayodhya. People feel Jaswant Singh is a right man in the wrong party.
Jaswant Singh: No. You are in fact juxtaposing a lot of words and phrases. I cannot belong to any other political party, but to the BJP. I cannot belong because I subscribe to the fundamentals of what the BJP stands for. I am, from the very beginning when the BJP came into existence, a member. There is no other political thought or party that I can or will belong to.
Rajdeep: Let me, therefore, rephrase it. Maybe you are the right politician in the wrong system. Because very few politicians in the first place would have written a book like this.
Jaswant Singh: There is one aspect of this with which I feel somewhat hesitant to unqualifiedly agree is the word ‘politician,’ because the connotations of the word today are pejorative. And you use it in a pejorative sense, I think it is a calling.
Rajdeep: So to that extent when you say it's A Call to Honour, is this book about a Jaswant Singh who is optimistic about India or someone who senses that India is really a nation in the crossroads, wrestling with several dilemmas -- international and domestic.
Jaswant Singh: The book is an attempt to analyse a journey since 1947. It is an analysis of where we are standing today. How did we or what did we achieve or failed to is in the book, it's a chapter on India. It does suggest that what we face today are challenges. We have to stand up and address.
Rajdeep: Jaswant Singh, thank you very much for joining us.
Jaswant Singh: Thank you, very much.
(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.