Union defence minister Pranab Mukherjee and navy chief Admiral Arun Prakash have always maintained that the navy's investigation into the war room leak was completely above board. But consider the following:
- On March 21, 2006, in a suo motu statement in Parliament Mukherjee named Parashar as a recipient of classified information. Barely three days later, on March 25, Parashar flew to London and met up with Shankaran. Strangely enough, there wasn’t even a lookout notice for him even though the case was handed over to the CBI on February 18.
- On January 9 this year, the MoD in an official press release stated that the intelligence bureau had investigated the matter and "it was found that no other naval officer, including the naval chief, was involved". But on June 23, the CBI raided eight navy officers. Why weren’t they investigated in May 2005 when the leak was first detected?
- None of the material unearthed by the IB was handed over to the CBI. Between February 18 and April 5 the CBI had to hunt for Parashar’s whereabouts and their only lead was B-2/59, first floor, Safdarjung Enclave. It was only later that they found out that he was actually staying on the second floor of H-31, Green Park Extension. Why was the CBI not passed on this information by the government?
- On October 28, 2005, the naval HQ stated that "action against the civilians" involved in the case is being taken by "appropriate authorities". But the case was handed over to the CBI only on February 18, a good four months later. Soon the defence ministry made the IB a convenient scapegoat for the delay and in a written statement on March 23, told Outlook: "The matter was being looked into by the Intelligence Bureau and hence there was no delay." If that is true then what does the IB have on the case? The MoD is unwilling to part with this information.
- On August 25, 2005, naval HQ conceded that the "name of K. Shankaran (sic) a distant relative of Admiral Arun Prakash" had surfaced in the investigations. Obviously there was no point in keeping them under surveillance by the IB after being named in the media in August. Instead, naval HQ pointed out that Admiral Arun Prakash had even offered to resign. But Admiral Prakash never sent any recommendation to the government or its civilian agencies to either question, detain or arrest Shankaran and his associates in a matter related to national security. Why was Shankaran allowed to leave the country on November 10, 2005, days after the naval officers were dismissed without a trial?
- Finally, the call made from the official residence of Admiral Arun Prakash to arms dealer Parashar has never been denied. But what is shocking is that Parashar was present along with Shankaran at a party at the official residence of the navy chief the day Admiral Prakash took over as the 20th chief of naval staff on July 31, 2004. In fact Shankaran is on tape when he told Outlook that he was there along with Parashar. As usual naval HQ refused to comment on the issue. How did Parashar get access to the official residence of the chief of naval staff?
