Beyond the Rafale controversy The Excelsior 20 Dec 18
Beyond the Rafale controversy 20 Dec 18
The political battle over the Rafale had to simmer down. The Congress expected to pull and stretch it till May 2019, but the same was cut short by the supreme court. It has left the opposition with no ammunition at the national level to target the Modi government. It may continue flogging a dead horse but would have little takers. It would now desperately be seeking other scams as the BJP would begin the raising of AgustaWestland as the interrogation of Christen Michel gains steam.
There was hardly anything in the Rafale case which could be touted as a major scam. The Congress which had almost nothing against the present government dug this out and sought to exploit it. It was also desperate the Modi speaks on the subject enabling them to twist his words in the future, which he ignored. With the supreme court verdict now clearing the government, Modi would raise the same along with other cases to embarrass the Congress.
The deal was between governments, price fixed between them. Logically, the nation could not have afforded 126 aircraft, as purchasing them would have placed all future procurements at risk. The ‘gun versus butter’ battle can only provide so much for the gun, as in India the butter is equally important.
As the nation moves to enhance its reach and begins joint exercises with multiple countries, it is the navy which would project the strength of the nation’s military might. Simultaneously, the army needs upgrades. It does not possess even the right rifles for its soldiers. Hence procurements for the army and navy are equally important. Thus, insisting that 126 aircraft should have been purchased is speaking from lack of knowledge on financial viability of the nation.
The requirement for 36 aircraft implied two squadrons, one for the east and the other for the west. The logic behind the air force rejecting the demand for theatre commands was that versatility in airpower would be impacted if the nation adopts it. Air Marshall KK Nohwar (Retired) stated, ‘The IAF can operate from anywhere. Fighters could take off from a base in the East, ‘strike targets’ in the Arabian Sea and land in bases in the South’. This implied that both squadrons would be able to sidestep based on the nature and type of threat which emanates. Therefore, it accepted the minimum requirement of two squadrons.
The air force which had conducted trials on multiple aircraft before closing in on the Rafale was clear of the ability of the aircraft. Thus, while the summoning of air force officers to the Supreme Court was unprecedented, it gave the court the view from those involved in the trials that the choice of the aircraft was correct. The aircraft was chosen by the previous government and could not have been changed by the present. Only its figures could be reduced or increased.
The Congress played up the selection of the offset partners which was also disregarded by the court, stating that the prerogative rested with the company. This put paid to claims that HAL was ignored and would now be left cash strapped. It ignored the fact that HAL is a manufacturing hub and hence unsuitable to be an offset partner. It also cleared Reliance Industries, which had filed a defamation suit against the Congress. The defamation case would now be on strong ground.
It therefore emerges that the Congress desperate to seek some ammunition against the government had selected the Rafale. The fact that it was uncertain and unaware of the true deal became evident when its spokespersons raised the issue in different forums with uncertain data. It would continue fighting for a Parliamentary probe, hoping to prove that the government has something to hide.
While most details of the deal remain away from public knowledge, the supreme court was provided all documents to enable it to judge the actions of the government. Its support indicated that there were no rules broken and it does not necessitate a court sponsored probe. Therefore, any future questions on the deal are now redundant, filing objections to court orders notwithstanding. The government seeking an amendment to the court order would in no way change the judgement.
There have been claims that the raising of the Rafale was one of the factors by which the BJP lost three major states in the recent elections. This claim may not be true. Rafale would not play a major role in state elections. There would have been multiple other causes for the loss. Had the supreme court accepted the ordering of a probe, it could have impacted parliamentary elections of May 2019. Demanding a Joint Parliamentary Committee to study the deal and report its findings would now not find any support from the ruling party.
Politicians twisting statements is but natural. Prior to the supreme court verdict, the opposition was banking on a court ordered probe, by which it could embarrass the government till May. Now that the court has turned down the plea, the same opposition is now claiming that the court was not the right forum to raise the issue. They would now use the parliament to project the case.
The AgustaWestland deal on the other hand was a clear example of a scam and kickbacks. It was signed by the UPA and subsequently cancelled by them itself, once reports of the scam surfaced. The NDA inherited the case and managed to get one key suspect back to India. Three helicopters remain parked, rotting and unused. The arrival of Christian Michel and his interrogation would slowly open a can of worms, which would be difficult to refute.
There would be planned selective leaks to the media in the days ahead, increasing in tempo as May 2019 draws close. No court order would be able to prevent the spread of leaks. This cannot be countered by re-raising the Rafale deal. This would compel the Congress to seek other cases on which to target the BJP. It would only make the forthcoming elections even more murkier.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army