Defence minister Nirmala Sitharaman speaks to Diwakar and Rajeev Deshpande on India’s military action in Pakistan, Rafale and more

There has been strong focus on national security in BJP’s campaign. There is a view that issues like Balakot may have peaked and more ordinary bread-and-butter matters are on the voter’s mind...

May be so among the talking classes. But as we attend rallies and roadshows, we see that even when we are underlining all that we have done in the last five years, chits come from the crowd — not from the dais — saying ‘tell us more about Balakot, tell us about surgical strikes and if Pakistan will face more pressure’. So, I feel, at the ground level, even in the south, Balakot airstrikes and Pakistan seem to be touching a chord. It is on top of the agenda.

Has there been a militarisation of political rhetoric?

I wouldn’t think so. However, there is a view that India was soft on many issues till now and the decisiveness with which action has been taken to hit at terror is a good thing.

We are not trying to politicise the armed forces. If a government has taken a call on putting into action its belief that there should be zero tolerance to terror, why should we hesitate to talk about it? We are saying this is different from the response of (UPA) post-Mumbai. This government, post-Uri in 2016 and now post-Pulwama, is acting with the hope that if we hit at terror nerve centres, there will be a change in the attitude of the perpetrators. The PM has been saying, ‘I have given the armed forces the right to decide their response’. That conviction, recognition to the armed forces, was absent in the previous government. So, we would certainly like to talk about it.

I know you have been asked this before, but can the casualties in the Jaish camp be ascertained?

Maybe not from my side, or the Indian side! Of course, there are ways to establish it…. I dare say this is not a secret. Before February 25 itself, in Pakistan, there were public calls to join as recruits. The madrassa (at Balakot) was only a front. All this was in public domain. If someone looks at this, the numbers are easy to arrive at.

Your comment on reports that India had warned Pakistan of further military action if Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman was not returned safely.

I may not be able to elaborate on discussions, or to use your words ‘warning’, but we were very clear that Abhinandan had to come back.

The PM has referred to reports that US conveyed to Pakistan India was keeping missiles in readiness.

That no harm should come to Abhinandan was clearly our position. It is not for me to elaborate on what the PM has said.

There has been a lot of questioning of the air action of Feb 27. Do we have evidence to establish that a PAF F-16 was brought down?

Not only do we have technical evidence, this has also been put out too. The arsenal used by F-16s was displayed by us. This established use of the armament and use of F-16s. Then, we gave out details of electronic signatures of aircraft that came into Indian territory. There has not been any credible refutation. The evidence cannot be questioned, it is rudimentary for defence experts. We did knock down an F-16.

Allegations about the Rafale deal are a challenge to the Modi govt’s ‘clean’ image. In the latest episode before the SC, it is claimed that internal warnings and dissent notes were overridden.

These claims are not new. They said you paid more than we did. Theirs was a non-deal. We said our terms were 9% cheaper, CAG said it was 2.86%. So, on price, both SC and CAG held our deal as better. On process, the Indian negotiating team had different sittings to talk about pricing. During discussions, each member voices a different opinion. Every opinion is recorded. Finally, one opinion, all of them join in, is decided. There are no ‘dissenting notes’ inbuilt in the system technically. The individual who held a different opinion in the end signed the cabinet note. The SC has gone through this process.