How has the BJP treated the AIADMK, considering the latter is its largest ally and partner in the Government?

This is a coalition government. All the constituents of this coalition have their rights...Any issue raised by any of the constituent, whether regional or national, must be given due importance.

It was towards this end that a coordination committee was formed. If one party feels that they alone can dictate terms or their policies can be implemented, it ceases to be a coalition government.

Are you implying that this government has notrespected the essence, or what you term spirit, of a coalition?

This is an experiment, and like any other experiment, this too had its share of ups and downs. But yes, the coordination committee must meet more often. My leader must be heard. Only then some conclusion must be arrived at. A national agenda alone is not the solution. They are only the guidelines...If one party takes everything for granted, then misunderstanding is bound to develop.

Does the AIADMK have any specific grievance?

Our issues have been included in the national agenda but that is not enough. There is tardiness in the implementation. For instance, Women's Reservation Bill. The Government's performance on it should have been studied by the coordination committee, but it was not done. Similarly, there is a lack of commitment on the issue of 69 per cent reservation for the OBCs. Cauvery was also not discussed by the committee. In the case of Coimbtore blasts, we have been demanding a CBI inquiry, but the Government hasbeen hesitating.

Did the AIADMK hold a separate rally in Tamil Nadu merely to prove a point to MDMK leader Vaiko and the BJP?

The birth anniversary of Anna was a big event. And it was not a government programme but each political party's programme...We being the true followers of Anna, how could we keep quiet? Only if we had celebrated in the same place could one allege that there was some competition.

Your allies such as Vaiko have said that even if the AIADMK breaks off, they will continue to support the BJP.

You have to ask them why they have changed. This may be his own view but he never said that he will break the alliance.

Does your party have adequate representation in the Cabinet?

Whatever representation we had has dwindled. But my leader has already written to the Prime Minister on this. All I can say is that we expect a fair representation.

The popular perception is that the Government is not working because of the tantrums thrown by Jayalalitha.

It isthe BJP leaders who have been saying they can run the Government without the AIADMK. If that is the case, then how is `Madam' a hurdle? If we raise an issue, it doesn't mean we are creating hurdles...She is only raising legitimate demands of our party.

On the dismissal of the DMK Government, the BJP denies having made any pre-electoral commitment to the AIADMK.

During the elections, where we shared the platform with BJP leaders, the issue of the DMK's dismissal was raised. I don't want to go into Advaniji's statement that there was no assurance...If the BJP was so particular, they should have said that they don't support this demand at these meetings...Many second-line BJP leaders with whom I campaigned supported dismissal of the DMK Government.

What about Jayalalitha's change of stand on the equation between the DMK and BJP? Earlier she had said that there is a secret understanding between the two and now she says it does not bother her.

Till the AIADMK took the initiative, the BJP wasan untouchable in Tamil Nadu. We took the risk when there was no guarantee that the BJP would form the government. Other parties have started coming forward only now.

Were transfers ever an issue with the BJP?

I would like to make one thing very clear. Transfers are the prerogative of any government and a reshuffle is natural when any party comes to power. But in a coalition government, it is necessary to have some discussion with other leaders.

That means it was not discussed.

I don't think so, otherwise there wouldn't have been problems.

But the BJP maintains that it was Jayalalitha who had asked for the transfers.

Let them prove it.

Have your party's wishes been ignored in transfers?

I can't make such a sweeping remark. But for example, when I assume office, I may want officials who I think would be more useful or who understand our feelings better...But the bureaucracy is not cooperating. I got my private secretary six months after I became a minister. Whichevername I forwarded, the bureaucracy would raise some objection.

But your leader did say she was not consulted in transfers and that appointment of Javed Chaudhary as the Revenue Secretary made no difference as he had harassed her partymen as the ED chief.

If our leader says she was not consulted, she would not have been. At least opinions can be sought.

Thereafter, she even said the AIADMK support is under review.

Review means whenever our demands are not met with we have to answer our party cadres too and for that, we had to review. Later on, she even said that there is no threat to this government ...Moreover, why doesn't the BJP come forward and explain that these are not threats but demands?

It is broadly perceived that Jayalalitha wanted the ED chief and Revenue Secretary transferred to scuttle the cases against her.

She made it clear that she is ready to face the court and does not need any support from anywhere.

Then why was the ED prosecutor appointed by MKBezbaruah sacked soon after his transfer and the entire panel of lawyers changed in Jayalalitha's cases?

Have the previous governments followed any criteria in appointing lawyers? Whenever any new government comes, the panel of lawyers is changed.

But is it a coincidence that only those lawyers or officers not liked by Jayalalitha were changed?

As you said, it is just a coincidence. There is no motive.

The Prime Minister is reportedly upset with you for not clearing as many as 150 proposals involving investment of over Rs 50 lakh each and for not amending the Company Act, which had been announced by Vajpayee himself.

From my side, there are no files pending. But I am not a rubber stamp to put my signatures blindly on every file. The secretary has to satisfy me, give me all the information...Some files, I think, need some consultation and so I send the files back with observations. But I have also cleared some proposals.

As for amending the Company Act, I have already begun theprocess. We had sought opinions of various ministries and they have been received.

Under you, the Law Ministry has faced many embarrassments, be it the appointment of judges, CVC ordinance or transfer of Bezbaruah.

In the case of the CVC ordinance, Law Ministry officials only helped the Department of Personnel. The affidavits are prepared and filed by the concerned ministry and our lawyers only help them. Even on ordinances, the Law Ministry drafts it only when asked, otherwise the ministry prepares the draft itself, as in the case of the CVC ordinance.

It was the Cabinet that had, after discussions, appointed a group of ministers to finalise the draft, and then the recommendations of the group were ignored.

Several new suggestions and information were received by the group. But perhaps it was felt that only that which has been discussed by the Cabinet should be finalised. Probably, it was felt it was not necessary to include the extra points made by the ministerial group.

Will yousupport the ordinance in Parliament?

That we shall see later.

But what about collective responsibility of the Cabinet?

As a Cabinet minister, what we decide, I accept collective responsibility for that. But when it goes to Parliament, it is different. Then it depends on circumstances and merits as debated by MPs.

What about the false affidavit in the case of Bezbaruah's transfer?

That affidavit was also prepared by the Department of Personnel.

And the judges' appointment? Was there an abuse of consultative process?

We have only raised technical objections...Some clarification was required and we will abide by the court's verdict. We did clear many appointments by the CJI (Chief Justice of India). Only later, when we required clarifications that we made the Presidential Reference.

Or because the CJI refused to cooperate...?

No, I can never say this. These were all procedural matters.