Round The World
New
Delhi, 21 December 2018
Rafale
Deal
THE
CONTROVERSY COMPOUNDS
By Dr
D.K.Giri
(Prof.
International Politics, JMI)
The controversy on the Indo-French Rafale deal
refuses to die down, although the Supreme Court rejected the PIL and a petition
seeking its intervention for investigation into the deal. The Congress backed
by other Opposition parties allege that the ruling BJP made huge money in the
deal, whilst the BJP and the government accuse the Congress of raising a bogey
and compromising national security.
The petition filed by former senior leaders
of BJP Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie and
lawyer Prashant Bhushan, allege Prime Minister Modi of “criminal
misconduct... and gross misuse of the friendly media to purvey falsehood and drown
vital facts and questions in an avalanche of abuse”. It should be recalled that
the Prime Minister himself, in one of his visits to Paris, clinched and
announced the new deal of buying 36 fly-away aircrafts. Hence he is the main target
of these petitioners and the Opposition.
Some of the antagonists have even said that
“Rafale is the biggest scandal in defence since independence”, and they would make
it an issue in the coming Parliamentary elections unless a Joint Parliamentary Committee
is constituted to investigate and come out with the truth. In fact, as I write
this, Parliamentary proceedings are being stalled by the Opposition until the
demand for a JPC is conceded by the government. The stalemate is likely to
continue if no reconciliation is brought about on the issue.
So far, the ruling party is not budging and terms
those questioning or doubting the deal as anti-national. Naturally, the mystery
deepens in the minds of the people and worries many observers about the
authenticity of the deal and the veracity of the statements made by the warring
political parties. Let us aim at demystifying the debate by placing some facts
that raise questions to be answered.
The Purchase Agreement before Parliament
invoking the ‘confidentiality clause due to national security reasons’ is to treat
it as classified information. But others in the know of the deal deny the existence
of any secrecy clause in the contract. The French President Emmanuel Macron has
said in an interview to an Indian Journal that, “how much is to be disclosed is
entirely left to the Indian government”.
The bones of contention in the deal are
mainly three-- the Process, the Price and the Person. In this deal, the person
in the midst of the controversy is Anil Ambani who has been given the offset contract
in an ‘arbitrary manner’.
In 2001, the need for buying fighter
aircrafts was identified. The Request for Proposal (RPF) was issued in 2007,
and after a due process of selection, Rafale was chosen in 2012. The UPA regime
in 2007 defined the need for buying 126 aircrafts in terms of : (i) the Air
force should get sophisticated aircrafts fast as MiG 21 and MiG 27 were to be
retired; (ii) advanced technology has to be acquired to beef up the capability
of the Air Force; (iii) Indian aerospace industry needs to be rejuvenated; and
(iv) Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) would acquire advanced manufacturing
capacity, and India will be self-reliant in producing state-of-the-art
aircraft.
There were six bidders initially: Lockheed Martins’
F-16s, Boeing F/A -18s, Euro fighter Typhoons, Russia’s MiG- 35, Saab’s Gripen,
and Rafale. Two were shortlisted, Rafale and Euro fighters, but the former
bagged the contract as it was the lowest bidder and easier to maintain. Rafale
are twin-engine Medium Multi-role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) manufactured by the
French company Dassault Aviation. These perform a wide range of simultaneous
roles such as air-supremacy, interdiction, aerial reconnaissance, ground support,
in-depth strike, anti-ship strike, buddy-buddy refuelling, and nuclear deterrence.
The cost initially agreed was 10. 2 billions USD or 54,000 crore, 18 of them in
fly-away condition, and the rest was to be made by HAL, the public sector unit
on defence manufacturing.
Yet, after Rafale was chosen, the
negotiations went on for four years from 2012 to 2016. The UPA government came in for criticism for pricing
and offsetting conditions etc. Then suddenly, the Prime Minister, on a tour to
France, announced that India will buy 36 fighter aircrafts in fly-away conditions
in a government-to-government deal. The NDA government signed the contact on 23
September 2016 for 7.8 billion euro or 58000 crore. These 36 ready-to-fly
aircrafts were to be delivered in two years after the contract.
The process of having such a huge defence
purchase is suspect. Even the Supreme Court mentioned in its judgement the
lapses in procedure although it seemed to ignore it for the sake of national
security etc. The usual bodies in defence procurement, the Defence Acquisition
Council and the Cabinet Committed on Security were bypassed.
Also, the questions remaining unanswered are:
one, why 36, not 18 aircrafts as it was originally agreed, how was this number
fixed; second, why manufacturing in India was not ensured as it was envisaged
in the RPF, even making a mockery of NaMo’s pet slogan ‘Make in India’; third,
there was no mention of transfer of technology, and fourth, what happens to the
rest of 90 aircrafts out of 126.
The second bone of contention is the pricing.
It is claimed by the government that 36 fly-away aircrafts are cheaper than the
18 originally agreed on; the actual higher price is due to India-specific
add-ons like new weapons package, and the logistical support. The weapons
mentioned are; Meteor, an air-to-air missile covering 100km which can take out
any enemy aircraft, and Scalp, long-range ground attack missile of 300 km range.
Other add-ons are logistical support and post-purchase maintenance etc. It may
be mentioned also that in the earlier deal, the offset benefits were to be
shared between HAL 70 per cent and Dassault 30 per cent.
The opponents contest that there aren’t any
add-ons, in fact “add-ons are cock and bull after thoughts”. It has been stated
by the CEO of Dassault that “the same configuration as has been tested and
approved by the IAF in the MMRCA evaluation is maintained.” Then where is the
justification or the additional costs? Originally, 126 aircrafts including 18
ready-to-fly were costing 42000 crore, now 36 fly-away ones cost 54000 crore.
What a staggering surge in price!
The third ‘scandal’ is the person in Anil
Ambani, who was awarded the offset contract. Anil Ambani’s company was in heavy
debt, he has never made an aircraft in his life. How was he brought in? Anil
Ambani’s induction into the deal is as incompressible as dropping of HAL is
inexplicable.
Curiously, only days before the new deal was
signed two companies were incorporated; Adani Defence System and Technologies
Ltd. and Reliance Defence Ltd. Anil Ambani even travelled with Prime Minister Modi
when he signed off the deal in Paris. Here, the government contention is that
it is up to Dassault to choose its partner in India and GOI has no role in it.
But “even if the Dassault provides the name, it is hard to imagine how GOI does
not provide its opinion given the political and economic dimension of such a
contract. The former socialist President Francois Holland in fact said that GOI
imposed Anil Ambani on the French side.
From the above account, clearly, the
allegations of collusion, lack of transparency, and crony capitalism may stick
unless the government comes up with more convincing rebuttals. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature
Alliance)
|