For while the Raksha Mantri, himself of the Samata rather than the BJP, has been the proximate cause of the damage done to the most reliable institution of our still nascent democracy - the armed forces -- it is not George Fernandes alone who has much to answer for, but the Prime Minister and his cabinet who let things come to such a pass. The demand for a JPC must, therefore, be seen for what it is, not a partisan attempt at getting back on George for all the insult and innuendo he has heaped on the Congress in the past, but an indictment of the entire Cabinet for their collaboration in subverting tried and tested systems of keeping politics out of the armed forces and the armed forces out of politics. Yes, Power Minister Kumaramangalam, who has just read Jayalalitha a lecture on collective responsibility,carries quite as much of the blame as the Defence Minister, for what has happened is the collective responsibility of Vajpayee's government. Therefore, it is not just George Fernandes's head that is on the executioner's block but the collective head of this whole sorry lot. Vajpayee, therefore, need not think that by sacrificing George he will find an escape valve for himself.

Both the dismissal of Admiral Bhagwat and the cloak-and-dagger manner of appointing his successor have grievously damaged the institutional thermocole which keeps the armed forces from burning their fingers in the white heat of the political dialectic.

While it is for the Defence Minister to explain why his ministry failed to insist on a reply from Vice Admiral Harinder Singh to the show cause notice issued to him by Fernandes's own ministry, the Prime Minister will have to explain why the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet chose to appoint as Deputy Chief of Naval Staff an officer who had earned the `outstanding' grading duringbut 16 months of a career spanning upwards of three decades. Indeed, only the Prime Minister can explain why he twice turned down his Raksha Mantri's request to be relieved of Bhagwat, only to crumble when the request was made a third time. Did it, or did it not, have something to do with pressure from the Akali Dal? Is the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet to be treated as a puppet of inconvenient coalition partners - moreover, in matters relating to the defence of the nation?

To quote Bhagwat, ``what facts were placed before the ACC, what kind of documentation was prepared and what selective material was put forward and what withheld, is a matter which can only be answered by looking at the official records''. And only a JPC can order the production of the official records. There is nothing unprecedented about defence ministry records being submitted to JPCs. The point is that neither the BJP nor George Fernandes objected to the Bofors papers being opened to pubic scrutiny. Why then the hesitationover letting a JPC discover for itself whether the point made by Bhagwat is well-founded or not? After all, a Navy which believes the road to preferment lies in cosying up to Parkash Singh Badal or his kind is a danger to our democracy; a Navy which is assured that politicians cannot promote favourites is an iron-clad guarantee of democracy. That, not Harinder Singh, is what the JPC demand is about.

And while Fernandes alone can explain why ``the defence secretary violating all norms was directly in touch with Vice Admiral Sushil Kumar and made calls to him at least on 17 occasions''(Bhagwat's affidavit), it is for the Prime Minister, on behalf of his cabinet and in the name of collective responsibility, to explain whether due procedures, including intelligence vetting and verification, were undertaken before appointing the replacement Chief of Naval Staff or whether, as affirmed by Bhagwat under oath, the ACC were engaged in demonstrating that ``the Mini-ster of Defence can make a private choice inselecting the Chief of the Armed Forces''.

Similarly, while Fernandes alone can explain why Operation Leach, aimed against gun-running for insurgents, Indian and foreign, of whom he has been politically supportive, was crippled on instructions from the civil authority (the affidavit gives the sordid details), only the Prime Minister can tell whether the underhand manoeuvre of flying in the replacement Chief of Staff in an intelligence agency aeroplane before informing the incumbent that he had been relieved of his responsibilities was George's little brainwave or a well-considered coup d'etat by the Vajpayee government against a serving Chief of Naval Staff. And, in any case, why such subterfuge: was Bhagwat readying to ride up Raisina Hill on a white charger? Gunboats up the Yamuna?

The worst of unstable, opportunistic, unprincipled coalition government is that people are slotted into the wrong position for the wrong reason. Publicly, George, at the time of the formation of the government, wastouting the claim of not being interested in a ministership. It is for the Prime Minister to reassure the House that he had in fact checked out the intelligence files on George Fernandes before offering him the most sensitive position in government: the Defence Ministry. Bhagwat has stated that he had been informed by ``credible sources'' that ``Shri Fernandes has links with certain foreign intelligence agencies and that he has also been funded through those agencies from 1974 onwards''. There is nothing new in these allegations. They have been doing the rounds since decades, so much so that even a PM as masoom as this one could not have missed it. The Prime Minister will be well-advised to clarify whether he insisted on a `reluctant' George taking on this grave responsibility without checking the record - or after doing so. He would also be well-advised, before opening his mouth in the House, to remember that there are many others in the House who have had access to the record, for the Lok Sabha, asit is presently constituted, is something of a graveyard of former Prime Ministers. After all, as Bhagwat says, the Prime Minister has little faith in his Defence Minister. How can he expect the rest of us to have any more?

Aiyar is a Congress party official but these views are his own