By Mohan Guruswamy
I have known and seen up close ten Prime Ministers of India and can safely testify that except for Dr Manmohan Singh, all the others collected money. The money was mostly for their parties and some of it inevitably leaked out. Collecting money involves trade-offs. It’s always an investment by the giver for more. Money is the mother’s milk of politics. Without it the political machine that sustains the whole edifice grinds to a halt. Without it the people who mostly man the system from the propaganda phase to the bringing-out-the-voters phase will just disappear. Thus the main task of a political leader is to raise money. Have no illusions about it. We have a corrupt system.
Narendra Modi didn’t get where he did without hush money and slush money. That’s why he figures in the documents seized in the raids on Birla Group companies in 2013, and on the Sahara India Group in the national capital region on November 22, 2014. It is alleged that there are notings by Sahara officials that they had paid money nine times to Modi between October 2013 and February 2014. It is also alleged that documents with Income Tax departments reveal that the Birla Group paid Rs 12 crore to Modi, of a total of Rs 25 crore, when he was Gujarat chief minister. (So let’s can this nonsense of an incorruptible prime minister. They are all men of the world, save Manmohan Singh who has a long relationship with people of grease and sleaze to do the job for him.)
This is why defence deals play such a major role in our politics. Like petroleum taxes they make for easy collection. India’s defence spend is expected to hit $620 billion between the fiscal years 2014 and 2022, with half of it going into capital expenditure. According to the Stockholm International Peach Research Institute India is the fifth largest military spender (2016) in the world and the largest importer of arms, accounting for 13 percent of the world’s total imports between 2012 and 2016. As much as 70 percent of India’s arms are imported.
India’s first big ticket military purchase was for de Havilland Vampire jets in November 1948. V.K. Krishna Menon, India’s first High Commissioner in London, engineered this deal. At that time India had UK Sterling reserves and the cost of the Vampires was just deducted from this. In those days of early innocence this deal escaped notice. Here was a relatively large arms purchase made on the quiet and with no options examined. Incidentally the Vampires arrived without firing pins.
Following the Vampires, India ordered several hundred Ouragan’s and Mystère fighters from France, Fairchild C-119G Packet transports from the USA, Hawker Hunter fighter-bombers and English Electric Canberra bombers. Most of these were ad hoc purchases and it was always speculated that some money had changed hands to facilitate these deals. We were in too much of a funk to use them in 1962.
Nothing ever came out on these deals, but soon people started noticing a new class of people in New Delhi. These were the early jet setters with homes in London and business interests in India. Their business interests were mostly centered on highly placed bureaucrats, military officers and powerful politicians. It was not long before the names of some leading politicians’ sons also began to be heard in this connection.
The only deals that didn’t have such intermediaries were the government-to-government purchases from the former Soviet Union. In fact the deals mostly favoured India and often we got the latest fighters, like the MiG 29, even before the Soviet Air Force got them.
The 1970s also saw the advent of the likes of the Hinduja brothers and soon arms deals became major sources of slush funds for buyers, sellers, middlemen and everyone else in between, all of whom went laughing all the way to the bank.
The first major deal that went this way was the Anglo-French SEPECAT Jaguar deep penetration strike aircraft in 1978, when Jagjivan Ram was defence minister. In 1979 the defence minister’s son Suresh Kumar was in a fracas in the car park of Parliament in a Mercedes Benz car (a rarity in those days) with a group of rival Janata Party activists led by K.C. Tyagi, now a JD(U) MP. When the police investigated the matter, it was discovered that the car was registered in the name one S.P. Chibber, a known arms wheeler-dealer who was reputedly the intermediary for the Anglo-French consortium which produced the Jaguar.
This was when the French Mirage 2000 made by Marcel Dassault Avions made its appearance. Rajiv Gandhi, as a newly elected MP in 1982 and Congress general secretary, saw it put through its paces at the Paris Airshow. He was very impressed. He sat in on the official meeting in the ministry of defence that decided to acquire Mirage 2000. Gandhi had just become a qualified Boeing 737 pilot and this was presumably considered expertise enough.
In 1985 the Rajiv Gandhi government decided to induct 150 Mirage 2000 fighters into the IAF. The first 40 aircraft were to be imported from France and the rest manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. But the second part of the program was not operationalised despite HAL’s having invested in an assembly line for Mirage 2000s. What happened is still a matter of speculation.
The next big deal pertained to Bofors about which so much has been written. The merits of the Bofors FH-77 155 mm Howitzer are not in question, although ignorant people like Ram Jethmalani tried to paint it as a dud. But what became apparent was irrespective of which Howitzer was bought Ottavio Quattrochi and the Hinduja brothers were cut into the deal. The Hinduja influence to peddle went beyond parties. Atal Bihari Vajpayee even wrote to then Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao (another Hinduja friend) to exonerate them of all charges and Jethmalani defended them in court.
Even if the Rafale had been bought in 2014 as it was cleared by the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft tender for far less, $10.5 billion for 126 aircraft, it would have involved under the table payments. These payments typically go three ways. One tranche to the Indian decision-makers, the second to the middlemen and the third to officials in French establishment and manufacturers. French leaders like Giscard d’Estaing, Jacques Chirac and Nicholas Sarkozy have at various times been accused by French media of taking money from the likes of Jean Bedel Bokassa, Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein.
This is a well-honed European practice. We saw it happen in the purchase of Bofors Howitzers when Olof Palme’s Socialist Party too got a cut. Even then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s son was found to have been paid in the Saudi deal to buy 220 Tornado fighters. The Guardian wrote: “MoD documents reveal that the price of each Tornado was inflated by 32%, from £16.3m to £21.5m. It is common in arms deals for the prices of weapons to be raised so that commissions can be skimmed off the top”.
But how much more are we paying for the “new” Rafales? Air Marshal M. Matheswaran (retd.), the officer who led the evaluation of the six fighters bidding for the MMRCA contract said that the Rafale was chosen as it was “an exceptional aircraft in a multirole capability, but was an expensive aircraft”. According to him the MMRCA tender was cleared “for $10.5 billion for 126 aircraft”. The French Air Force acquired its Rafale for €55 million apiece. The Indian Rafale cost more because of an India-specific weapons package and avionics modifications.
In the Air Staff Qualitative Requirements (ASQR) provided by the Indian Air Force, there were 13 “India-Specific Enhancements” demanded by India in the 126-aircraft MMRCA contract. These included radar enhancements, a helmet-mounted display, a towed decoy system, a low-band jammer and the ability to operate from high-altitude airfields.
That these were the same for the 36 Rafales ordered by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is made clear by the joint statement of April 10, 2015 issued by French President Francois Hollande and PM Modi, which reads: “…that the aircraft and associated systems and weapons would be delivered on the same configuration as has been tested and approved by Indian Air Force…”
There is much noise about the huge costs at which the 36 Rafales have been contracted for. The comparable costs of the 126 and 36 deals can only be read when all the costs are factored in.
The cost of the new deal for 36 Rafales is €3.42 billion as the cost of bare planes; €1.8 billion for associated supplies for infrastructure and support; €1.7 billion for India-specific changes; and €353 million for “performance-based logistics support”; with the weapons package of €700 million being the extra. What is new here are the performance-based logistics support and weapons package. So take out €1,053 million and you have the comparable cost, which means it is now €7.1 billion.
It appears that the “fiddle” is in India-specific costs, additional infrastructure and support, and performance logistics support. The first MMRCA deal would also have included India-specific specifications, as in the case of the IAF’s Su-30 MKIs. For comparison’s sake, the argument can be that 36 Rafales now cost €7.1 billion, while 126 Rafales in 2012 cost €7.75 billion.
Clearly a huge cushioning has been provisioned to meet the needs of all the parties concerned – the Bharatiya Janata Party, Anil Ambani and I would suspect even some French officials to preclude any whistle blowing. Look at these other facts now. According to the ministry of company affairs, Reliance Defence Ltd was registered on March 28, 2015. On April 11, 2015 Reliance Defence Ltd becomes the main partner to ensure the 50 per cent offset clause, under which Dassault and other related French parties would invest half the contract value back into the country.
Government officials insist that 74 percent of the offsets will be exported, earning €3 billion for the country in the next seven years. The experience with all offsets suggests that this is far-fetched. It has not happened so far. In the AgustaWestland offsets investigators discovered money trails from Mauritius, Singapore, the UAE, Tunisia, the UK and the British Virgin Islands linking the agents and the manufacturer. I will bet that Reliance Defence, a company registered just 14 days before the Modi-Hollande deal, was meant to create a pathway for “offsets” to come back into Indian hands, for politics and business.
Incidentally Anil Ambani’s flagship company, Reliance Communications Ltd (stylised as RCom) just defaulted on a major foreign loan and its future ability to fulfill its Rafale offsets commitment should now be in doubt.
Recently, IDBI Bank filed an insolvency application before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) seeking debt resolution of Reliance Naval and Engineering, the shipbuilding Anil Ambani company, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Yet Reliance Defence is quite confident about fulfilling its Rafale-related obligations. I suspect there are no obligations. Reliance Defence is just a pass through. It’s not without reason that Anil Ambani is believed to be close to Prime Minister Modi and to some in his close circle.
Lok Sabha 2019: An election that is not about one
By Gopalkrishna Gandhi
In the extremes of our tropical climate, every summer seems the worst ever. But the Tamil ‘kathiri’ — literally ‘scissors’, and metaphorically the merciless sun of May-June — is truly upon us in the peninsula this year. And it is only March.
Likewise, in the multi-polarities of our democracy every election seems to be about the most crucial we have ever had. And though the candidates for the April-May elections are yet to be formally announced, the election’s ‘kathiri’ is already in motion — sharp, cutting. And it is only March.
The elections this time are unusual, even unprecedentedly so, for they are not about how India chooses but about what India is about. For those many who want the present government back, the coming elections are a national referendum for an India that is rearing to be a Super Power under a leader who wants India to be exactly that with himself at the helm. One might say, and why not? True, why ever not, except that when that happens, everyone else becomes inferior, minimal, subordinate to the Supremo. Including the Constitution and the laws. And that is not what India has become a democratic republic for.
Those many — and it must be acknowledged they are many — regard the coming elections as presidential with but one candidate, Narendra Modi. And an occasion to re-affirm belief in his helming a strong Centre for nothing less than 15 more years, a golden era, when we will have Sanskrit proclaimed our Rashtra Bhasha, Veer Savarkar a Rashtra Guru, Saffron a Rashtra Ranga, we will have the Constitution amended to provide for national emergencies under new circumstances, an executive presidentship, with the Rajya Sabha abolished, appointments to the higher judiciary tempered by considerations of ‘loyalty to national security’, compulsory military service for one year with the liberal option of ‘drill Yoga’, the media self-disciplined into self-censorship, the bureaucratic and diplomatic echelons made colourless and comfortable rather than fearless and uncomfortable, the citizenry one merry choir well-practised in patriotic tunes and collective chants.
None of this is or will be in any Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) or National Democratic Alliance (NDA) manifesto. And Mr. Modi will never ever, I think, subscribe to any of these ‘goals’. In fact, he may be expected to deny that these reflect his views by a long shot. But these cameos do represent, broadly, the thinking of a kind of Modi-supporter, Modi-devotee who is to be encountered among many Indians, mostly from the educated urban and suburban middle-classes.
For the many others who want the present government dislodged, the coming elections are about the exact opposite. They are a non-presidential election where the many are against One Supremacy, and are in favour of an order in which every region, language and faith tradition is the equal of every other, where political opposition is valued for its own sake, dissent cherished as long as it remains non-violent, where the judiciary is respected for its stubborn independence, bureaucratic and diplomatic cadres for their professional integrity, technocrats for their rigorous professionalism, where the nation’s natural resources, particularly those that lie within and beneath forests, mines and on the seafloor, are not looted, where prisoners do not live in sub-human conditions and where, above all else, the Constitution is seen as the dynamic, living guardian of the citizens’ human rights pertaining to life, liberty, privacy and judicial remedy.
That being the reality or hard truth about the elections ahead, they are indeed the most important ever held in free India.
And that being the case, when one hears Aradhana Mishra, a Congress MLA in Uttar Pradesh say, “Priyanka-ji has reiterated that the INC (Indian National Congress) will contest all 80 seats in Uttar Pradesh,” or the Congress’s doughty veteran and chief of the Delhi Congress, Sheila Dikshit say about the seven Lok Sabha seats in Delhi, “It has been unanimously decided that the Congress will not go for an alliance with AAP (Aam Aadmi Party)”, the election’s results seem foregone.
The Congress, five years ago, contested not “all 80” seats but 67 seats in U.P. in those elections, winning only two, United Progressive Alliance chairperson Sonia Gandhi’s seat in Rae Bareli and Rahul Gandhi’s in Amethi. And in Delhi, it was number three, after the AAP at number two, in terms of vote share.
“All 80 seats” in U.P. and “no alliance with AAP” in Delhi are great news for the BJP, whose vote-share in U.P. for the 2014 Lok Sabha elections was lower than that of the Samajwadi Party (SP), the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and the Indian National Congress (INC) combined (the combined vote share of the other three being 49.30%, a clear 7 percentage points above the BJP’s 42.30%). In Delhi, too, the BJP was ahead of the AAP and INC when those two stood divided but was clearly behind them, in all but one (New Delhi) of the seven seats, if the vote-share percentages of those two were to be seen together.
The jury is out on whether the nation’s outrage over the killing of 40 Indian brave-hearts in Pulwama and its pride in the gutsy riposte by the Indian Air Force has changed the electoral math. Perhaps it has and the nation will leave livelihood, drought, dismay over the Goods and Services Tax, Rafale to rest and vote solidly for another term for Narendra Modi. Perhaps it has not, and given that Winston Churchill lost the elections after winning the war in 1945 and, nearer home, the NDA government lost the elections after Kargil, it will vote for change. But the Opposition has to accept the fact that an unmeasured percentage of vote-share has slipped from its anticipated scores into the BJP’s.
The Congress showed statesmanship in Bengaluru last year. If reports are to be believed, not just Rahul Gandhi but Priyanka Gandhi had something to do with the Congress’s decision to propose and then actively put in place a coalition government led by H.D. Kumaraswamy of the Janata Dal (Secular). That was highly realistic, prudent, sagacious. As is the Congress-DMK-Left alliance in Tamil Nadu.
That spirit needs to be shown now in U.P., Delhi and elsewhere if those who believe in India being meant to be democratic and a republic are not to be betrayed.
Is it too late? Late, yes, but not too late yet. Pride bolts the door to accommodation, prudence opens it.
This is the time to enlarge democracy’s, not one party’s base. Getting even with the AAP in Delhi, the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party in U.P. and the Biju Janata Dal in Odisha can be a temptation for the Congress in ordinary times, not for this election summer when the ‘kathiri’ is out. Every party which believes in democracy is a natural ally of every other party believing in the same. Smaller confrontations must step aside in the face of the biggest contradiction that there can be, namely, of two contesting Indias — that of Gandhi-Nehru-Ghaffar Khan-Bhagat Singh-Ambedkar on the one hand and of a Hindu Rashtra on the other.
And this should be done in grim awareness of the fact that the 21st century autocrat is now to be seen not just in India but in countries as different and distant from one another as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Venezuela, Egypt, the Philippines, Hungary, using traditional ‘resources’ as well as new, softer and deadlier technologies, to spot and immobilise dissent, create a sense of a perpetual ‘other’, an eternal ‘enemy’, all in the name of a hyper nationalism.
But if there is gloom, there is also hope, as in the instance of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who, from the white heat of trauma spoke of the Christchurch victims of terror as “us” and of New Zealand being “ home” to them.
Jayaprakash Narayan brought the democratic coalition together in 1977. There is no Jayaprakash today. But his spirit beckons the conflicted soul of India’s democracy.
Partition, freedom and democracy
By Krishna Kumar
Had Krishna Sobti, the eminent Hindi novelist, not died this January, she would have renovated our appreciation of the truth about freedom and Partition occurring together. We habitually forget this truth each time we learn it. An interview she gave to Partition scholar Alok Bhalla is one among many repositories of the insight she brought to this subject. Through her fiction too, Sobti tested the strength of the social fabric that Partition shook and tried to tear apart. Why it didn’t tear completely is a question she helps us to answer.
Six weeks after her death, a violent conflict broke out between India and Pakistan. The immediate, ostensible causes of the outbreak are terrorism and Kashmir. Real sources lie deeper. Reading Sobti’s works reminds you that the deeper roots of the India-Pakistan conflict can be found in a shared attitude of derision towards the past. Public mood shifts between indifference and disdain for the past. There is little genuine interest in the past or curiosity to figure it out. Politicians feel free and tempted to use the past to manipulate the collective mind.
As the single most important event of our modern history, Partition illustrates the general attitude I am talking about. Across the three nations produced by Partition, there is little consensus over what it means to live with Partition. But there is a shared feeling that Partition is at the heart of many problems and behavioural reflexes. Each country looks at Partition from the perspective that the state apparatus has assiduously developed over time. The term commonly used these days is ‘narrative’. It comes in handy. It is a post-modern invention signalling the decline of interest in objectivity. The relatively better educated politicians often use it tactfully to debunk serious commentary, calling it just another narrative. So, why the different nations that constitute the South Asian region bring sharply divergent perspectives to matters of shared interest is explained in terms of diversity of narratives. Are these narratives incompatible? No one seems curious to find out. Nor is anyone actively conscious that the acceptance of incompatibility means granting permanence to intra-regional conflicts. One clear reason why no one is worried is because a feeling of permanent conflict seems to offer unlimited political capital.
When SAARC was established in 1985, it created the hope that mutual understanding would be pursued as a regional political goal. For all seven members, but especially India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, mutual understanding would have meant recognising the importance of acceptable portraits of the past. Such portraits exist in literature, but historical awareness requires more than a literary portrait. It means providing reliable resources to validate a view about what happened so that we feel more comfortable with where we are in the present. This awareness is crucial to avoid a feeling among the young that they live in a dark, noisy tunnel with no known exits. An ominous uncertainty hangs over the subcontinent, best expressed by the availability of nuclear weapons to end potential conflicts.
Sobti had hoped that people could now recognise the complications arising out of history. In her interview with Professor Bhalla, she expressed the view that the emotional content of Partition had run out. This is not true. Though seven decades have passed, there is no sign that Partition is devoid of emotional content in India or in Pakistan. In a study of history textbooks used in the two countries, I found that in Pakistan, Partition is presented as unfinished business, while in India it is still viewed as a wound inflicted by Muslims and the British. In both nations, Partition continues to serve as an inflammable memory account. The toll it took on the two nations has not sufficed to cool the coals buried under the ashes of time. Apart from the destruction and violence suffered by common men, women and children on both sides of the border, the post-Partition suspension of reason cost India the life of its greatest leader. That injury has not healed, and the ideological divide it signified continues to grow. Sobti had assumed that the Constitution would unite Indian society around its core values. That did happen to an extent, but words and statements alone don’t safeguard values. Freedom and a sense of fraternity are among the values sculpted into the structure of the Constitution. Truth is not mentioned as such, but one assumes that it has an assured place in the edifice of law.
In this context, it may be useful to recall Mahatma Gandhi’s dual commitments: truth and non-violence. The pairing of truth with non-violence suggests that truth and war are not compatible. This is why the threat of war at election time is not good news for the practice of constitutional democracy. For now, the threat of war seems to have passed, but it could easily be made to linger as a memory relevant for voting day. In this sense, the brief outbreak of armed attacks is an ominous reminder of the fragility of the equilibrium that permits us to practice democracy. In Pakistan, democracy is even more fragile. There, it barely survives under the direct shadow of modern weaponry.
The India-Pakistan hostility is richly intersected by bad memories. It has perennial potential for shaping politics. Moreover, an activated conflict invites everyone to play politics. This kind of politics is necessarily manipulative. It helps to bypass more earthy questions which ought to be central to any election. These are questions like why economic growth offers little relief from unemployment, why the village languishes when the city prospers. One can add many more issues to this list. To call them peace-time issues or to designate them as being secondary in comparison to security will be to surrender to history, that too a history soaked in emotions. It is true that politics is a game played in the shadow of history. However, if it is dominated by history, then democracy can hardly serve the cause of progress, howsoever defined. It will always remain stuck in history.
A NEW IDEOLOGY WITH A NEW SLOGAN
By Tawfeeq Irshad Mir
“I know the value of word; when there was nothing, it was word. To play with words is to strike the strings of violin, to exude the honey of melody.”
The ideology and narrative of Shah Faesal till the controversial tweet” labelling India as” rapistan” in 2018,
“In 2016, Shah Faesal Strongly suggested that Kashmir should ‘stay with India’, Dr Shah Faesal further said that it (India) is the “only country” in the world with which a culturally diverse and “politically disparate entity” like Jammu and Kashmir can find “anchor”.
In his article titled “Kashmiris trapped in deadly politics of grief, must abandon macabre heroism” published on The Indian Express, Dr Faesal has built his argument around the post-1990s phase of of the Kashmir-conflict to censure the five-month-long unrest the valley witnessed in 2016.
“Every new agitation in Kashmir has had this familiar tetrad of eruption, hope, bereavement, despair. By the time the first stone was pelted in the July uprising of 2016, the outcome was already known to everyone. It is this predictability which has begun to worry Kashmiris now,” reads his article.
Referring to 2016 unrest, Dr Faesal said that “revolution cannot be an annual summer carnival” while claiming that Kashmir was the “most unlikely new nation to enter the world map” due to the “flaw(ed) fundamental design” of the Kashmir project.
He goes on saying that the “indiscipline” valley witnessed during the recent unrest has the “potential to criminalise society forever”.
“It was not the state as much as people to people violence, the humiliation of bystanders, vandalism against schools, damage to public property by “misguided teenagers” that exhausted Kashmiris, reducing a mass movement to a movement of mass from one corner of the street to the other corner,” he said.
Dr Faesal also claimed that it was “hard to frame the Kashmir question properly” and thus the region cannot be compared with Palestine, East Timor of Kosovo.
“Is it separation from India, annexation with Pakistan, the search for an Islamic caliphate or a secular democracy? Has it factored in sub-regional and diverse ethnic aspirations? If it is self-determination, then who are these people queued up outside polling stations? If the slogan is “azadi”, why is the Pakistani flag raised? Is it class-neutral or only a proletariat dream? Is it territory or ideology, economics or politics? Today, in Kashmir, it is hard to ask these questions because there are no answers. And because there are no answers, every such question is seen as a provocation or obfuscation of the truth about Kashmir,” the article reads.
The then MD JKPDC Shah Faesal, in the conclusion, suggested Kashmiris to ‘stay with India’ since the country is an “emerging superpower”. Looking at the crisis in the Muslim world, it will serve us well if we help ourselves out of the time warp we are stuck in, abandon false hope and macabre heroism and work towards a dignified exit from the conflict. One possibility is to accept that in spite of all its infirmities, India is the only country in the world with which a culturally diverse and politically disparate entity like Jammu and Kashmir can find anchor,” he concluded.
On Sunday Sha Faesal launched his party in Srinagar, with a new slogan “ab hawa badle gi”, in a slightly different avatar wearing white shilwar and black coat, along with former JNU leader, Shehla Rashid unfurled his vision and ideology.
His vision and sagacity are unprecedented. Just now I have gone through the manifesto which reflects your depth. Let not any reaction deviate from the ultimate goal. Possibilities are numerous, once try to act, not react. Some scratches in reactions keep on running.one thing, he should bear in mind the couplet of Iqbal “Khudi se iss tilishm-e- rang-o-boo ko tod sakte hai,. Yahi tawheed thee jisko nah tu samjha, nah main samjha.
I want to know how his party would help in reviving old silk route or the kind of strategic center for Central Asia which his vision document talks about. Does he think an inch moves without the centers authority, would they allow such initiatives?
I just want to ask one question to Shah Faesal and his supporters…. tell me how it is possible to solve Kashmir issue according to the aspirations of people… when you accept the constitution of India,, which says J&K is an integral part of Kashmir. It is confusing me.
It is Dr Shah Faesal himself to clear all the doubts once he will go through the political discourse. It will be his policies and decisions which will tells us the real reason behind his political mileage. But the course of action which he has chosen is full of hurdles and he has a long way to cross before finding a space for himself and his followers.
(A student of Nursing at GMC, writer can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org)