War Of Words

G.K. Pillai

Former home secretary;  director, Adani Ports & SEZ

“It was a trap and a successful operation. Intelligence agencies had managed to lure the LeT to send its terrorists to India… One affidavit in 2009 said these people were LeT operatives and in the other affidavit that aspect was deleted. It was done at a pol­itical level...”

Counterpoints: Why exactly would intelligence agencies lure terrorists? And if they indeed did have the capability, why would they not arr­est them? Did Pillai place his objections on file ? Is his admission now proof that the encounter was indeed staged?

P. Chidambaram

Former Union home minister

“Which part of the affidavit is wrong ?...I accept the responsibility for this affidavit. It was brought to my notice that the first affidavit was filed without my approval and it was being misinterpreted. It was my duty to correct the first affidavit.”

Counterpoint:  The BJP’s primary obj­ection is that the then home minister did not take his babus into confidence and dictated the affidavit himself. Chidambaram does not explain why the ‘correction’ was necessary and why he felt compelled to take personal int­erest in the affidavit  and dec­ide to bypass the secretary.

R.V.S. Mani

Former undersecretary, home

“What was the reason for the second affidavit, I don’t know. I signed the document because when an order is received on file, I have to execute it.” In a TV interview he claimed to have been tortured into filing the second affidavit.

Counterpoint: He filed the affidavits in August-September, 2009, but complained of being tortured by the CBI in 2013 while giving his statement as a witness. He is clearly mixing up the two. The second affidavit  that he makes out to be something sinister turns out to be a  fairly innocuous supplementary affidavit .

Kiren Rijiju

Minister of state, home

“The disclosure of the facts by former home secretary G.K. Pillai depicts the true mindset of the Congress party as to how much UPA government went out of the way to protect a Lashkar  aide. It is a tragedy for India that the Congress party is proved to be sympathetic to terrorists and separatists.”

Counterpoint: He is clearly making a  sweeping political statement and  does not explain how the allegedly revised affidavit  filed before the high court in 2009 could have helped the ‘LeT’ aide or aides killed in the encounter way back in 2004

Ravi Shankar Prasad

Union minister for telecommunication

“Enough suspicious circumstances have arisen (to suggest) that the decision taken by Mr Chidambaram changed the complete complexion of the case.”

Counterpoint: The minister does not explain how the two affidavits filed before the Supreme Court in 2009 changed the complexion of the trial  which is yet to commence. Or how probes by a Special Investigating Team (SIT) in 2011 and CBI in 2013 arrived at the same conclusion that the encounter was fake; or how the affidavits helped them reach to that conclusion.