Former ISRO chairman G Madhavan Nair today said he had had to “virtually gatecrash” to meet the head of one of the committees that was looking into the controversial ISRO-Devas deal — this, Nair said, could not be described as an opportunity given to him to present his case before the panel. Nair was responding to remarks made by Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office V Narayanasamy that he was “misleading” the nation by saying that he had not got an opportunity to defend himself. The Pratyush Sinha committee report, parts of which were made public on Saturday night, mentions the meeting between Nair and Sinha.
“We were sent a few questions (by the Pratyush Sinha committee). I responded to that and sought a personal hearing to clarify my position. But I did not get the date... Once I learnt Sinha happened to be in the Delhi office of ISRO and I virtually gatecrashed to meet him,” Nair said at the Idea Exchange programme at The Indian Express office today.
“We met for about half an hour. Half the time went in exchanging pleasantries. I was asked to give clarifications on a few points which I sent within the next 24 hours. Meeting one person of the committee at an individual level is not the same thing as presenting your case before the full panel,” he said.
Nair and three other scientists have been debarred from taking any government position for their alleged role in a space agreement involving the lease of S-band radio waves to a private company by ISRO’s corporate arm Antrix Corporation.
Nair said he was prepared to take full responsibility for his actions. “If the government comes to the conclusion that the acts of ‘omission and commission’ as pointed out by the Pratyush Sinha committee are a crime, I am ready to be hanged. Tell me I have committed a grave crime and hang me. But at least follow the process. The Pratyush Sinha committee recommended that action should be taken under the Pension Rules or any other rules. I would like the government to tell us which rules have been followed,” he said.
He said the manner in which the government had gone about in the case had sent a “wrong message to the scientific community”.
