We may never know whether there has been any corruption in the Rafale deal
There have often been arms deals that are controversial in India. To cite just one — the Bofors gun, purchased during Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's reign. There was a furore over the price of the weapon, with opponents claiming a scam of Rs 60 crores. The matter became more murky when the Swedish Prime Minister, Olaf Palme, who was supporting the Bofors transaction, was shot dead in Sweden in 1986.
No assassin was captured.
More to the point was the efficacy of the artillery weapon — the Bofors later turned out to be the Indian military's ace during the 1999 Kargil war.
But the Rafale deal beats all, not merely because of the price, but more so because of the controversies involved in the purchase.
Even the apex court is under fire as it relied on the government arguments apparently submitted on an unsigned piece of paper.
On its part, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has not yet initiated any investigation into the deal. Public-minded personnel have also not been allowed to place their own investigations before the CBI. On February 12, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) was to submit an audit report. But more confusing is the CAG's likely report which was discredited after the Supreme Court mistakenly cited it, before it was made public, seemingly to clear the government of any wrongdoing.
Consequently, the issue is mired in partisan debates, ranging from television news, references to Parliament discussions, government and BJP spokespersons.
This confusion further confuses the Rafale deal with technical and procedural jargon. With all this, there is considerable chaos, further complicated by reported procedural violations leaked to allegedly toe the line of powerful decision-makers in the Prime Minister's Office. Matters are so tangled that the actual numbers of Rafale aircrafts in two different deals, at two different times, has become both confused and controversial.
For example, PM Modi's reportedly unilateral decision to replace the acquisition of 126 Rafales with the procurement of 36 Rafales took both the Indian Air Force and Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar by surprise.
To my mind, this deal appears dubious. Arms expert Ajai Shukla, in an article published in the Business Standard, revealed that Dassault had bid €19.5 billion for 126 Rafales in 2007, some 40 per cent less per fighter than what the IAF is paying in the €7.87 billion contract for 36 Rafales, signed in 2016.
Further, the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) contract, including extra benefits of technology transfer to build 108 Rafales in India, would have galvanised India's aerospace industry. Earlier, the Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had apparently promised to make these figures public, but then reportedly backtracked, citing a secrecy agreement with France.
More worrisome are alleged attempts to weaken the Rafale deal.
The government has reportedly diluted the earlier 36-Rafale contract document, doing away with mandatory penalties for the use of "undue influence," use of "agents/agency/commission" and other mandatory clauses stipulated in the Defence Procurement Procedure, the rulebook for defence capital procurements. Ajai Shukla raises troubling questions — did the PMO intervene to remove an anti-corruption clause from a contract the Cabinet had already cleared? Was the "integrity clause" asked to be removed by the French? It doesn't appear to be so, as in this case, he claims, it is clear that the PMO apparently wanted the "anti-corruption clause removed."
However, Ajai Shukla also argues that despite further revelations, only a money trail would establish any criminal culpability in the Rafale affair.
Already, massive damage has been done. It is conceivable that we may never know whether there has been any corruption in the Rafale deal. Yet, Shukla puts it, "But the evidence of unforgivable incompetence is everywhere."