The final report was presented to the Government on March 8. It has to be placed in Parliament within six months, ending September 8 along with an Action Taken Report (ATR) which is being prepared by a high-powered committee.

Justice Jain has devoted an entire volume (Volume II) on allegations and evidence against Chandraswami. Another volume is devoted to intelligence reports, documents and press clippings concerning the tantrik.

The final report says that the material and circumstantial evidence ``raise a serious doubt regarding the involvement ofChandraswami in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi''. He also says that the evidence and material with the commission point ``an accusing finger'' at Chandraswami.

Justice Jain calls for a further probe into Chandraswami's ``complicity and involvement'' adding that, ``there are, of course, gaps and missing links (in evidence). Unless these gaps are filled and linkages established, the circumstances would continue to raise only doubts.''

Giving his assessment about the evidence of former BJP worker and Chandraswami aco-lyte Ramesh Dalal, Justice Jain says that while the entire evidence ``cannot be taken on its face-value and cannot be accepted without further verification, nonetheless outright it cannot be rejected. So the matter merits further probe... Unless investigations are made, nothing can be found.'' Among other things, Dalal had told the commission that he had seen some LTTE activists at the tantrik's ashram.

The section on Chandraswami contains details about the tumultuous period of Indianpolitics when Rajiv Gandhi was Prime Minister, the Bofors scandal had broken and a conspiracy was brewing to unseat him. Chandraswami, according to Justice Jain had a ``definite'' role to play in the machinations.

Statements of key witnesses such as former cabinet secretary B.G. Deshmukh and former home minister Buta Singh are used to butress arguments.

What Justice Jain describes as the ``plethora'' of evidence against Chandraswami includes IB and RAW reports as well as the correspondence between these agencies and the PMO. Some of the documents show that all through the tenure of Rajiv Gandhi, the IB and RAW had been tracking down the movements of Chandraswami.

One note from Sarla Grewal, Rajiv's secretary, to M.K. Narayanan, the IB chief, dated September 23, 1987 states that the Govt had information that Chandraswami had been meeting oppn leaders and was actively plotting to remove Rajiv. RAW inputs from Toronto, Fiji, Sydney and Dubai mentioned the activities of the tantrik during his foreignvisits.

According to the final report, the animosity that Chandraswami had for Rajiv Gandhi has been firmly established as was the fact that he had ``all through'' been working against him. Witnesses have stated that Chandraswami frequently used to vent vitriol against Rajiv Gandhi. The report quotes two such instances: ``Main usko khatam kar doinga (I'll finish him off),'' ``Jaise uski maain ki maut huie, vaise he Rajiv Gandhi ko marunga (Rajiv Gandhi will be killed the same way his mother was).''

On the relations between Chandraswami and Narasimha Rao, Justice Jain says, Rao himself had told a former minister that he should not ``insist'' that the Jain Commission be given further documentary proof against the tantrik.The report dwells at length on the ``association' between Chandraswami and Rao. The report states that the two were ``very close'' and that their association was ``not casual''.

Another section of the report deals with Chandraswami's connection with the arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi and hisdeposits in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).

The report states that the first piece of the complicated jigsaw emerged during the income tax raid at Chandraswami's ashram. Among the papers seized in the raid were original drafts of payments totalling $11 million which were made by R.W. (Tiny) Rowland to Khashoggi. The payments were made in four installments between October 1985 and Feburary 1986.

Confirmation about two of these payments was given to the commission by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in Feburary 1998 -- a month before submission of the final report. The CBDT informed the commission that the first draft (for $2 million) was handed over by Rowland to Khashoggi ``on behalf of Chandraswami'' and the other (for $3 million) was handed over to K.N. Aggarwal, Chandraswami's aide. Rowland, had also written to the home secretary and foreign secretary admitting that the payments had been given to Khashoggi ``on behalf of Chandraswami'' for purchase of audio tapes ofconversations relating to Rowland's business.

What did give a boost to the commission's probe was the surfacing of a 130-page report prepared by US Senator John Kiri, copy of which was given to the commission by RAW. The report establishes the fact that both Khashoggi and Ernie Miller (described by Justice Jain as a ``known'' Chandraswami associate who was involved in the Lakhubhai Pathak case) had accounts in the London and Paris branches of the BCCI.

Then comes the LTTE link. The Kiri report states that the BCCI was being used by several intelligence and militant outfits like the CIA, Mossad and LTTE and that Khashoggi had two or three ``very active'' accounts in its Monte Carlo branch. The report states that many of these accounts were being used for gun-running and for engineering political assassinations. As much as $84 million had been transferred into the LTTE's accounts.

In his conclusions, Justice Jain says that the Kiri report clearly points to the CIA angle in the BCCI affair and that it was``manifest'' that the BCCI was also being used as a financial front by several terrorist organisations engaged in arms trafficking, including the LTTE.

Another missing link concerns the dealings between Chandraswami's aide, Vikram Singh and a Sri Lankan, Anuaro Fernando. The seizure of Chandraswami's diary during the IT raids revealed a payment of Rs 10 lakh made by Singh to Fernando. When questioned, Singh said the payment had been made for the import of rice. The commission had informed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) about the transaction but the agency had reached a dead end on the probe.

Eventually, it was the RAW which revealed the antecedents of Fernando to the Jain Commission. The RAW reported that the real name of the Sri Lankan was Nirmala Anuara Fernando and that he was involved in the trading of gems and in a case of forged currency notes. Justice Jain says ``the deal (money transaction) does not appear to be above board''.