I will be very frank with you here. One of the reasons why I did not reveal the sources of information is that it is widely perceived. I can give you some supporting evidence. I cannot give you a conclusive or clinching evidence. I felt that Shri Ram Jethmalani who was cross-examining me there was a Legal Advisor to the LTTE. He is the only person today who has gone on record to criticise the TADA Court Judgment sentencing to death those 26 prisoners. I have given a copy of the cutting to the Speaker. I may read out from it.

This is the Mid Day of Thursday, 29 January, 1998. `Centre's most foul' is the headline. It says:

"The former Law and Justice Minister(of the previous 13-day Government) Ram Jethmalani was shaken by the extraordinary verdict. Told Mid Day that the fact that the victim was a former Prime Minister probably played in the mind of the Judge. Jethmalhi hoped that the judgment would be corrected by the Apex Court. Maybe, the Judge simply wanted to pass the case on to the Supreme Court."

Shri Jethmalani also defended another Swamy... (Interruptions)... No. Chandraswamy earlier. I will come to that later. Shri Jethmalani defended another Swamy -- Premananda Swamy. Swamy Premananda has been described by The Indian Express as the `LTTE Swamy'... (Interruptions)

ƺnҪ Eɪ j il {ɪ]x j ( nx ɱ J֮x): ɨ ɽi Mɪ *

b. ֥ɽhɨ ɨ : +{ ɽi {ɮx Mɪ * <ʱB Ei E +{ vɨ {ɮ +vʮi Vxi Uc nVB*

Now, Premananda is known in the whole of Tamil Nadu as a man whose Ashram provided the heaven for the LTTE. He has been popularly described as the `LTTE Swamy'. Shri Jethmalani, the senior counsel went to the City Court of Pudukotai to defend him. When the Judge was posed the question whether Premananda has the capacity to pay the huge fine of Rs. 66 lakh, the Judge observed:

"The accused were able to engage the best legal services available in the country, senior counsel, Shri Ram Jethmalani, and they were able to spend huge amounts of money in the trial of this case."

Now, I may be wrong. He may be very innocent. But you see, Shri Jethmalani. I have known of him for many years. I cannot claim the privilege of many years... (Interruptions)...I did tell the Jain Commission. I told, the Jain Commission all this. That is why, he has the defamation suit against me. I told the Jain Commission that `I will not reveal the sources because Shri Jethmalani is there, and I suspect that he has LTTE connections.' And, on that basis of the Jain Commission's deposition, today there is dafamation case pending against me filed by Shri Ram Jethmalani.

Now, Shri Jethmalani has also been kept out of the TADA Court on Bombay Blasts because he was communicating with Dawood Ibrahim. The TADA Court so said that `he cannot appear.' ... (Interruptions)

THE MINISTER OF URBAN AFFAIRS AND EMPLOYMENT (SHRI RAM JETHMALANI): He is being prosecuted in more than one Courts, and when the matter is sub judice, yet the man comes and talks about them. He knows nothing about the fact.

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY : I am not being prosecuted by any court. The only suit I have is his defamation suit, otherwise, I have no prosecution. But there is a TADA Court. I had the Press cutting with me. I have given it to the Speaker where the TADA Court Judge has said, "You cannot appear for any accused because under the Advocates Act, you are a material witness because of your connections and conversations with Dawood Ibrahim in the Bombay Blasts Case." I stand by it and I can prove it... (Interruptions)

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: When I get a chance, I will show you what type of a you are... (Interruptions)

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY : Yes, we will have a breach of privilege motion against you. It is reported in the newspaper.

SHRI AJIT JOGI : Sir, that word is unparliamentary. So, it should be expunged from the proceedings.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Have you uttered the word ?

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY : The word ... is unparliamentary. But he is unparliamentary and I do not expect anything better from him... (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Swamy, please. If that word has been uttered by you...

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY : I have not uttered. He has uttered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, have you uttered that word?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Kindly withdraw that word... (Interruptions)

SHRI BASU DEB ACHARIA :Sir, that word should be expunged from the records of the proceedings. (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will go through the records. If that word has been uttered, I will expunge that. ... (Interruptions)

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY :I do not mind if he says that it is ...because he is bound to say that it is a .... (Interruptions)

ʽxn Ei , Ex nIh ɮi E M Z x * <ʱB =xE ɽʱɪi E Eɮh +MɮV *

ɱ |ɺn : `E * +{ +MɮV ʱB*

We understand English.

M Sɽi E V EO=b + {ʮʺliɪ l + Vx M E <xɱɨ] l, ɽ {ɹ]{ ɨx +B* +{ `E fM {Ec * <ʱB +{ ʱB*

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY :There is also a reference in the ATR and in the Jain Commission Report to the former Cabinet Secretary, Zafar Saifullah that he had seen transcripts of intercepts of telephone calls made by Mossad to me and that these were intercepted by the R&AW and the IB. That is, when he was the Cabinet Secretary, he deposed before the Commission: `I had seen telephone transcripts of calls from Mossad to Subramanian Swamy'. This, by the way, is reflected in pages 239 and 240 of Volume II of the ATR and I quote:

"Shri Zafar Saifullah's statement does throw some doubt when he (Shri Saifullah) states that perhaps there were some intercepts emanating from Israel for information to Chandraswami and Dr. Subramanian Swamy for Jaffna or for Tamil Nadu. These intercepts have not come before the Commission. They would have been most material evidence if the same would have been produced. If Zafar Saifullah's statement is correct, then, certainly the intercepts would have thrown much more light on the question of complicity. But in the absence thereof nothing can be positively found in respect of involvement of Dr. Subramanian Swamy."

Justice Jain has done great injustice by not reporting in the Commission Report that he had sent an interrogatory to the Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Secretary, with full involvement of the R&AW and the IB, had filed on the 17th December, 1997 an affidavit in the Commission. There is an oblique reference to it in the ATR on page 27 and I quote:

"Shri Zafar Saifullah was examined in camera by the Commission on 4.9.1996 in the absence of the Central Government Counsel and hence there was no occasion for the Central Government to cross-examine him. In his deposition, Shri Saifullah has not given any specific details about the messages. However, after the deposition of Shri Saifullah, interrogatories were sent by the Commission to R&AW and IB and they have clarified the position to the Commission that they had no messages as referred to by Shri Saifullah."

In fact, the affidavit, I believe, categorically says that these intercepts never existed. In the system of Government records maintenance, they could not have been destroyed if they had existed. I do not know about it because it is not included. It was orally informed to me recently by somebody who said that he had seen the affidavit in the Commission but the ATR makes it amply clear that the R&AW and the IB said that there were no such intercepts; and, on that basis, Justice Jain does not say anything. He says that it creates some doubt. He does not recommend action. He does not recommend further probe. He only says that this has happened as a running commentary.

Now, one of the most rotten things done by this Government in this ATR - if I may be permitted to use the word, `rotten' - and something which is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice is at page 17. The paragraph is headed, `Alleged involvement of Dr. Subramanian Swamy'.

The Commission has examined Dr. Subramanian Swamy on the basis of

(a) What has been stated in the book written by Shri Govindan Kutty and Seshan - an Intimate Story; (b) an affidavit filed by one Shri Velu Swamy before the Commission;

{] l* x =xE xEɱ n l*

... (ɴvx)

<ʱB xɽ xEɱ E =xx b{Vɶx n l* =ɺ {ɽ xEɱ n l*

(c) Dr. Swamy's interview to Mr. Haziz Hanifa, the Bureau Chief of India Abroad in New York; (d) Reference in a book Indian Intervention in Sri Lanka by Mr. Rohan Gunavardhane; and (e) Dr. Swamy's speech in Rajya Sabha on 29.8.1988.

Now, all that they quote is: "The Commission has held that it may be that he may have some links with the LTTE". The LTTE operates through so many wings like intelligence wing, political wing, propaganda wing and publicity wing. Having links with the LTTE or supporting the cause of Eelam does not necessarily mean that there may be complicity in the horrendous assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi. Strictly speaking, the ATR should have recorded all these five sources. What did the Commission conclude about these depositions? First, I shall take up the Parliament debate which in fact happened in 1988 when I was in Rajya Sabha and I shall quote from that Parliament debate. I have given a copy to this Commission. The Commission asked for it and I gave the Commission a copy of this. What does it say? It is my speech which Ram Jethmalani in my cross examination suggested to me that it is a pro-LTTE speech and that it proves that I was in link with the LTTE. While I was speaking, Shri V. Gopala Swamy -- he was also a Member in Rajya Sabha at that time -- got up and said, "All Tamils are with the LTTE. Mr Subramanian Swamy, you should know this. You are using this occasion to denigrate the LTTE." What was my speech? This was on 29th August, 1988, well before the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi. I said, "LTTE, lay down your arms. You take the Gandhian path. The people of India will rise to the defence of Tamils in Sri Lanka. But because you are using weaponry and killing people, this violence we will never accept and that we will never accept any single organisation as a representative of all the Tamils of Sri Lanka". This is the demand of the LTTE. There are other organisations also. While I was speaking, Shri V.Gopala Swamy intervened. He cannot deny that he has sympathy for the LTTE. Maybe he has changed his mind since then. He said, "You are using the Parliamentary platform to denigrate the LTTE." This speech was used to say that I was having connections with the LTTE. The ATR does not mention what Justice Jain ultimately says. He says, "Just because you are supporting Eelam or even having sympathy for the LTTE does not mean you have complicity". In fact, I would say that I am the only politician who can claim to have opposed the LTTE right from day one. Five Governments have put me in `Z' category because of the high LTTE threat to my life. I have given copies to the hon. Speaker. I have reports saying that the security should be stepped up for me because one team has come from Bangkok which wants to assassinate me. This was given to me. When I was the Chairman of the so-called GATT Commission my office was changed because the Delhi Police said I was in the hit list of the LTTE. So, the office should be in a better place.

Of course, I got a better office as a consequence. But the fact is that this is the truth.

The second one is Shri Velusamy. I do not know who is behind him. But in 1992, I had expelled him from the party. ... (Interruptions) It is Janata Party. We do not change parties every day. It may happen in Andhra Pradesh, but not here. ... (Interruptions) It does not matter; I do not mind being alone. But it is Janata Party; the symbol is the same as it was in 1977.

I expelled him in 1992. In 1995, he filed an affidavit stating that on the 21st of May 1991, I was not in Delhi as I claimed, but I was loafing around Sriperumbudur; that I went to Madras and then quietly went to Trident Hotel and from there, I went to make arrangements in Sriperumbudur.

The Commission in paragraph 5.9, at page 236 of volume 2, states:

"Thus the circumstance creating any doubt regarding the presence of Dr. Subramanian Swamy on the 21st May, has no basis. Shri Velusamy has not been able to establish what he averred in his affidavit. The statement of Dr. Subramanian Swamy thus gets support from official record."

I was a Minister at that time. How can I disappear? I mean, it is impossible for Ministers to disappear in this country. Maybe, some Ministers in this Government may have that capacity! But I certainly could not. I told the Commission when this affidavit came, that either you allow me to cross-examine Shri Velusamy - which he did not permit me - or you may ask the Government, because they would have a record of where I was.

I was there; on the 21st of May, Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav's election was countermanded; I accompanied him to the Election Commission and then when the assassination news came, he was in Orissa. I telephoned to him. At that time, I was the seniormost Minister present in Delhi. I telephoned him at Orissa and told him to come immediately; made arrangement for Mrs. Sonia Gandhi to go on a special Air Force flight; went to the airport to see her off. Then, I went with him to see the President of India to decide what to do about the elections. All this is recorded in the newspaper. And yet, the Commission entertained an affidavit about my presence in Delhi. I told all this, ultimately, of course, Justice Jain concludes that `I get support from official record.'

Then the third one is Shri Haziz Hanifa, a Sinhali-based Washington Reporter; he concocted an interview with me and published in India Abroad, a weekly news tabloid which was published in the USA. In that concocted interview, I was quoted as saying that I introduced the LTTE to Mossad. I promptly denied the interview and my denial was published in the same article. My long denial was published in the Indian Express and the Hindustan Times. But in the original tabloid itself, the article carried my denial. But the ATR does not mention this and Justice Jain also says nothing about it. He says, Dr. Subramanian Swamy had denied it and stopped it at that. The Commission merely carries a narration of this at pages 236 and 237, but made no comment.

Then, there is Shri Rogan Gunarathne. He wrote an anti-Indian book titled `Indian Intervention in Sri Lanka'. At page 409 he quoted that on behalf of two LTTE Tamils, in USA - at that time, in 1986, I had gone back to teaching at Harward; I was teaching at the Department of Economics - I tried, in January 1986, to promote the cause of Eelam with both Israel and the US Governments, but both rebuffed me.

This book of Shri Rogan Gunarathne which I again denied in cross-examination, reflects the typical stupidity of Sinhalese in regarding every Tamil as LTTE. On this matter too, the Commission merely has a narration, but has no comments; and the ATR does not record this fact.

There is, of course, the great Shri Seshan who had written a biography in which he said that he told me that it was not the LTTE which killed Rajiv Gandhi, but it was Mossad.

He has told that I got angry. In fact, I asked for Shri Seshan to be summoned and before Shri Seshan was summoned, I was summoned.

MR. CHAIRMAN : As Shri Seshan is not here, you cannot refer his name here.

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY : His name is there in the ATR.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you referring to ATR?

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY : It is on page 17 of the ATR.

SHRI AJIT JOGI : It is there both in the Report of the Commission as well as in the ATR.

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY : I am not going to go out of this because this is such a serious matter. I will not go out of it. Shri Seshan wrote a biography in which he has said that I got angry because he suggested to me that it was Mossad which was responsible and not the LTTE. I immediately wrote

a letter to the Commission asking them to call Shri Seshan for cross -examination. The Commission called me first for cross-examination and asked me. I told the truth and I would like to tell the truth here. Shri Seshan came to my house and said, "Mossad has killed Rajiv Gandhi and not LTTE." I asked him, "Are you in a shock or have you got any basis?" He said, "No, I can find the basis." I asked, "How?" He said, "You tell Shri Chandrashekhar to make me the Home Minister of India and I will find the basis." Shri Chandrashekhar is sitting here. He went and met Shri Chandrashekhar...(Interruptions)...I would not tell you what Shri Chandrashekhar told me after he heard Shri Seshan. But that was what he told me. What did the Commission say after the cross-examination of Shri Seshan?..(Interruptions)...Yes, I plead guilty and apologise to the House for appointing and inflicting Shri T.N. Seshan on the nation.

On page 63, Volume - II, the Commission has said like this.

"I have considered the deposition of Shri T.N. Seshan which I have found to be incredible in material aspects. Such is the `Conscience of India'."

That is the joke that Justice Jain has cracked on Shri Seshan because Shri Seshan wrote a book titled `Conscience of India'. The Commission further said:

"Such is the `Conscience of India' and I close the subject of involvement of foreign agency as finds mention in the book here."

He dismissed it.

Now, Mr. Chairman Sir, strictly speaking, the ATR should have recorded, if they are going to record these depositions, that the Commission rejected everyone of them or made no comments. In fact, out of the five, they rejected four. Parliament thinks that he only said that just supporting LTTE does not mean that you are a part of the complicity. Now, when all the materials in the Report of the Commission are taken together, what do they mean? Nowhere in the Report - final or interim - has the Commission delivered an indictment or recommended prosecution or even an inquiry. It has not recommended an inquiry. It has said that "my London trip was a mystery in 1995". I could not have plotted the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi in 1995. Retrospectively, you can get pension. But you cannot get an assassination organised retrospectively. I find that this is absurd. He said that it was a mystery. What is the mystery? Is it that Shri Chandraswami said that I met him in London and that I said that I met him in Monte Carlo? Is this for a probe? You can probe. I am not objecting to a probe. I have been probed by many Governments. Whenever they do not like me, they probe me. Everytime there is an agitation, the Government is bound to do it. But do not use the Commission as the basis for your legitimacy. You can say that you do not like me and that I am going to topple your Government. If God gives me strength, I would have you toppled. You are unfit to rule. You have made a mess in all sectors. You have made us a laughing stock all over the world. I would like you to topple. If you want, you may take revenge through other methods. But do not use Rajiv Gandhi's assassination for that. Now, I would say that there is not even a suggestion for inquiry against me in the Report. On the contrary, a substantive allegation against me has been rejected by Justice Jain Commission.