Rafale deal: Why the government is opposed to a JPC probe

A petition on Change.Org demanding a Joint Parliamentary Committee to enquire into the Rafale deal has garnered over 60,000 signatures at the time of writing. Initiated by a retired decorated officer of the Indian Army, Rajan Kochhar, the petition says, “We have the right to hold our elected Government to the highest standards of transparency and accountability. A Joint Parliamentary Committee will help establish whether the grave charges that have been made against the Government in the Rafale deal are justified…”

“A Government that has nothing to fear should have no hesitation in allowing such an enquiry to take place, to put an end to all speculation about rampant corruption in the Rafale deal,” it goes on to say. Information in the public domain suggest that established rules were bypassed, the price increased by 300 per cent over what was fixed by the earlier government and compromised national security by reducing the contract for 126 fighter planes to just 36.

The petition also points out that Reliance Defence Ltd, picked by Dassault as its offset partner despite the former having zero experience in aviation, has itself claimed in press statements that over the next 50 years, the company would benefit from the deal to the tune of Rs 1,30,000 crore.

Both Houses of Parliament have been virtually paralysed over the demand for a JPC since December 11, when the winter session began. While the government is willing to have a discussion in Parliament, it has refused to agree to the demand for a JPC to probe the deal.

A Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) is what the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had demanded to probe irregularities in the allocation of 2G spectrum. And Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister had conceded the demand then. The BJP had earlier demanded a JPC to enquire into the civil nuclear deal as well but had failed to make any headway.

The reason why the BJP is opposed to a JPC is obvious. A JPC comprises members from both Houses of Parliament. And it has the authority to summon bureaucrats and ministers, call for official notings and conduct an inquisitional investigation into a controversial deal or decision. An inquiry by a group of 20 to 30 MPs drawn from all parties is potentially explosive and can unearth potentially damaging information as meetings are held, questions asked and bureaucrats get grilled.

A four or six-hour ‘discussion’ in Parliament, in contrast, would be a tame affair, a shouting and slanging match which is bound to generate a lot of heat but very little light. Barely three months before the general election, the government appears petrified at the prospect of facing a JPC.

With the government adamant at not answering questions ‘in national interest’, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) clearly reluctant to even hold a preliminary enquiry and the Supreme Court having ruled itself out as an adjudicator, citing limitations of jurisdiction, a JPC alone can clear the air, that is provided the air is clean and cupboards free of skeletons.

The government has tied itself in knots while defending the Rafale deal. And now that the BJP has decided to hold 70 press conferences across the country to ‘expose’ the opposition to Rafale following the Supreme Court’s judgment, the issue will remain alive and questions will continue to be asked. Some of these questions will be :

1. Why did the government reduce the supply from 126 planes to 36?

2. Why did the PMO overrule the benchmark pricing fixed by an expert committee formed by the government itself?

3. Did Prime Minister Modi foist Anil Ambani’s company as Dassault’s offset partner, as the then French President Hollande has claimed? (The French government has not denied the claim but has merely restated that it was Dassault’s prerogative to choose the offset partner. It does not explain why Dassault would choose an inexperienced and heavily indebted partner).

4. Why did the government not buy more planes if the deal, as it claims, is 20 per cent cheaper than what the UPA had negotiated?

5. And, finally, if the government could share pricing details with defence reporters in New Delhi, with the CAG and with the Supreme Court, why can’t it share it with Parliament?

The government has repeatedly refused to share pricing details of the Rafale on the ground that it would compromise national security. But surely the details would eventually have to be placed in Parliament because as experts have pointed out, CAG reports are not edited or redacted by the PAC. There is only one report from the CAG which is placed in Parliament.

Is it then possible that the government doesn’t want the details to become public only till the general election of 2019?