Sinha has also inadvertently contradicted the much-touted response of then-Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar to the protest note. Current Raksha Mantri Nirmala Sitharaman had attacked N Ram’s article for selectively quoting the note and cropping Parrikar’s response from its photo of the last page of the note.

The full page was released by ANI, which shows Parrikar responded to the note on 1 January 2016, a month after the note was forwarded to him, saying:

“It appears that PMO and French presidents office are monitoring the progress of the issue which was an outcome of the summit meeting. Para 5 appears to be an over reaction.

Def sec may resolve Issue/matter in consultation with pr. sec to PM” (sic, emphasis added)

As can be seen in bold, Parrikar seemed to believe that the involvement of the PMO and the French president’s office at this juncture was just to monitor issues in the negotiation. Monitoring would not imply active involvement, meaning there was no interference or undermining.

But Air Marshal Sinha has a very different story to tell. According to him, the INT asked for a bank guarantee, but the French negotiators didn’t agree. As a result, the INT told them to “find out a solution and come back to us.”

When the leader of the French negotiators, General Reb, went back to France, he wrote back to Sinha that “his government has discussed with our government at Prime Minister’s Office level. So he said that they have discussed that they will give a comfort letter.”

Sinha has openly admitted that the PMO and its equivalent in France made the decision about dropping a sovereign/bank guarantee requirement, and accepting a comfort letter instead.