EXPUNCTION, EXPULSION, EVICTION- WHO'S AFRAID OF RAHUL GANDHI ?

    The BJP is as subtle as a kick in the backside. It has lost no time in proving to the world that every word Rahul Gandhi said in Cambridge about the decline of Indian democracy was true, and then some. It has since then not allowed him to speak in Parliament, had him convicted in what is clearly a command performance, disqualified him and expelled him from Parliament with an alacrity reserved only for Opposition legislators. In the process, it has also obtained two collateral benefits on the side- ensured the passing of the Finance Bill without any discussion in 12 minutes flat (perhaps a record in our history), and stone- walled anyone discussion on Mr. Modi's friend.

   It is difficult to second guess  psychoneurotics, so one doesn't really know the strategy behind the party's extreme moves, but I don't for a moment buy the theory that the BJP is in panic mode. The BJP never panics, it just becomes more devious and ruthless: it just raises the stakes in what the bond traders in Wall Street call Liar's Poker. The action against Rahul Gandhi is just part of its strategy to take out all opposition leaders, one by one, and ensure an Opposition mukt Bharat even BEFORE the 2024 general elections. Any party can win an election, but how many can do that even before the votes are cast ?Mayawati, Mamata Bannerjee, Akhilesh, YSR and Navin Patnaik have been silenced into various stages of pharyngitis; Kejriwal, Tejaswi, Soren are already in the coils of the anaconda. Nitish Kumar remains an electoral enigma and can, like a grass-hopper, jump either way. Rahul Gandhi was the only national leader of stature who, like Oliver Twist, would not abide by this script and so Mr. Bumble had to wield the stick.

   For once, however, the BJP may have miscalculated, led astray by its arrogance born of absolute power and sense of invincibility. The BJP under Mr. Modi is no longer just a political party, it is now a soldiery, a militia, an army constantly waging war, during and between elections. Governance, or the lack of it, is a side-show. But even in war there are some time-tested rules; one of them was stated by Napoleon Bonaparte: "You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war." Mr. Modi obviously thinks he can not only out-Herod Herod but also teach Napoleon a thing or two, so he has continued with his shock and awe tactics. Perhaps for too long.

   He may have finally over-reached himself in his quest for the thousand year  Hindu reich, believing in what Robert Browning did NOT say: "a man's reich must exceed his grasp or what's a havan for?" The latest instance of the hounding of Rahul Gandhi appears to have finally convinced the coy PMs-in-waiting in the Opposition that the moment of reckoning has arrived: they now either hang together or they hang separately, in various jails in BJP ruled states, not their luxurious farm houses. They appear to have finally realised that to become Prime Minister the sine-qua-non is to stay out of jail, and the only way to ensure that is to take the keys of the kingdom away from the jailor. So they are coming together now, albeit reluctantly, like the pack ice on the Arctic seas when winter approaches. It remains to be seen whether the ice will form into an all embracing ice sheet or break up into individual floes, all going their separate ways to certain oblivion. I am not holding my breath in the interim.

   The BJP's second blunder is is in retaining their delusion that Rahul Gandhi is still a "Pappu." He never was one, but they had manufactured this canard with the help of a prostituted media and had managed to sell it to the people. The Bharat Jodo Yatra has shattered that misconception to smithereens; the speech in Parliament on Modani and the calibrated concerns about India's democracy expressed in the UK have further demolished that lie. Not only is the old Pappu gone, I think vast sections of even erstwhile BJP supporters (not bhaktiveers, mind you) are now grudgingly conceding that Rahul Gandhi has the moral underpinning to be a leader, the tenacity to fight for his vision, and the courage of his convictions. He is the only Opposition leader who has been consistently attacking the govt. for its Tughlaqi decisions, corruption, lies, tyranny and neglect of national security: he has not been blowing hot and cold like the others whose politics are dictated more by the shadows of the ED and CBI than any ideology or principles. He stands head and shoulders above any other Opposition leader, and the ice floes are beginning to gravitate towards him. Even the sold-out media and polling agencies are beginning to concede that his popularity graph is rising.

   Modi-Shah appear to have misread this changing public perception and are still going by their old toolkit. Having more or less demolished most of the other regional satraps, or at least intimidated them into silence, they have now let loose their heavy artillery on the one remaining Opposition redoubt- Rahul Gandhi himself: sink him and 2024 is theirs. It's a bit like, once you take out the escorting destroyers you can then target the aircraft carrier itself at leisure. But the BJP has made one mistake- the carrier is no longer where it once was, it has moved on, it's a moving target and the BJP guns can't find the range any longer.

   Pappu has moved on in the last six months and, rather than being a force that divided the opposition in the past, he now has tremendous potential for uniting them. The BJP's overkill of convicting and expelling him from Parliament has made this process easier. It has compelled the media to focus on him, and in the last two weeks he has received more prime time coverage than even the Prime Minister, notwithstanding Aroon Poorie's cringe-worthy genuflections to the Supreme Leader at his annual Conclave recently. Even more, this united show of Opposition unity may even induce the judiciary to straighten its spine a bit and to begin to take on an executive which has been riding rough shod over it ever since 2014. For the judiciary has a vital role to play if democracy is to survive beyond 2024. It is, paradoxically, both part of the problem and the solution.

   BUT- and this is the most important part- the Congress must eschew the notion that it can now take on the BJP on its own. It cannot. It needs the others, just as they need him. The humility of the Bharat Jodo Yatra must now translate into the realpolitic of the elections: the sharing of turf with others, the admission of weakness in certain states, the willingness to  take a back seat in those states. The Congress is a national party, yes, but it is also a regional party in vast swathes of the country, and must accept this. It must concede, for example, that Samajwadi party has to be the lead player in U.P, TMC in Bengal, JDU-RJD in Bihar, KCR in Telangana, and so on, and do a seat sharing in these states on THEIR terms. 

   The others need to realise that the Congress is the largest regional party in the country, and must reciprocate the sentiments where the Congress is the stronger force. By my reckoning it is the primary opposition to the BJP in nine states- Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Goa, Assam, Gujarat and Karnataka, which provide 190 seats to the Lok Sabha. It should keep its powder dry for these states, and if it does well in them (last time it lost 95% of these seats to the BJP) it will automatically emerge as the natural leader of any post election coalition. It should not bank on any "sympathy" vote: even if it gets some, this is not likely to resurrect its fortunes on the scale it did Mrs. Indira Gandhi's in 1980. At that time the Congress was still a formidable force with 154 seats and 35% of the national vote; today it is down to 52 with just about 20% of the vote. The Congress can certainly improve its tally now but the regional parties are the key.

  The BJP has already thrown the kitchen sink at Rahul Gandhi, what more can it do to "neutralise" him ? Expedite the defamation case against him in Bihar? Put the National Herald case on a fast track? Put him in jail? Its bag of dirty tricks is running on empty and its tool kit now looks a bit obsolete, repetitive and jaded. One can sense a certain apprehension and desperation in the BJP's ranks. In fact, Mr. Modi has a monumental dilemma on his hands: he has to decide whether Rahul Gandhi is more dangerous in jail or on the streets. He would not have forgotten Mrs. Indira Gandhi's comeback in similar circumstances. To be sure, history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

WAKE UP- THE WOKE REVOLUTION IS HERE !

    I have no hesitation in confessing that I'm a very confused man these days. It has nothing to do with Mr. Amit Shah's suggestion of a "middle path" for the BJP and the Opposition to engage in a dialogue, which is perplexing enough. For Mr. Shah's middle path is not the one propounded by the Buddha, it is more akin to the one Confucius warned us about: Man who walk in middle of path get run over. Which is what happened to others who chose to take Mr. Shah's advice- Sukhbir Badal of the SAD, Udhav Thackeray of the Shiv Sena and Mehbooba Mufti of the PDP. Confusing suggestion, you will agree, but not what is the source of my current ataxia.

   My mental disarray stems from this new Woke culture being thrust upon us by a society gone berserk. Its latest manifestation is a handbook of guidelines issued by Oxfam, stipulating for its employees a whole new terminology in order to respect social, racial and gender "sensitivities." Take just one example. For the last 72 years I have held the belief that I was born as a male child ( even though the good wife may had a few doubts about that occasionally); the last time I looked, the evidence also pointed in that direction. But Oxfam has now put a huge question mark on that: it says that it would be more correct to say that I am AMAB ( Assigned Male at Birth); my sister is AFAB ( Assigned Female at Birth). The reason: no one should presume someone's sex, for he/ she/ they may change their mind at any later stage, and prefer to be a transgender ! I wonder what my mom and dad would have thought of that. Actually, I'm also out of line in referring to them as mother and father- Oxfam says I should refer to them only as "parent/s" since we have no business assigning gender roles to any one- the mother may decide to be the father and vice versa! Is it any wonder that kids go around these days with a vacant look on their faces? My elder son is not getting married just yet because he is still trying to figure out which  gender he belongs to, though he was AMAB.

   I'm afraid the Book of Genesis may have to be re-written very soon if this goes on much longer. In those non-Woke days God created just two sexes or genders, male and female, and asked them to go forth and multiply, which they have since done with remarkable success, considering that we are now topping five or six billion soulless souls. ( There may be a slight reduction in the figures now that the BJP's emphasis is more on divide than multiply). But the good Lord himself had got it all wrong, we are now told, because there are 15 genders forms, not two ! Other than the old fashioned male and female, the others include cisgender, transgender, calcigender, non-binary, etc. among others. It's little wonder that my son can't decide who to get married to- its a problem of plenty, if you ask me. In my time one married either a boy or a girl; now one needs AI or ChatGPT to figure it out!

   This Woke movement started sometime around 2010 and was meant to create an awareness and response to social inequalities, racism, sexism, slavery, white supremacy, discrimination and other social injustices. This was certainly a laudable objective; two of its manifestations have been the Black Lives Matter and the ME TOO crusades. In recognition of this the Oxford English Dictionary even added  WOKE to its inventory of words in 2017. But one can't help but feel that in trying to change the Queen's English to the Drag Queen's English these reformers may stepping beyond their remit and intruding into the realm of the ridiculous.

   What, for instance, is the point of splitting hairs and refining concepts till all that remains is a meaningless desiderata of neulogisms ? Take, for example, what used to be called "lack of self-confidence". It's not so simple, folks: the condition is now linked to your "sexual identity" (whatever that means) and has been given all kinds of names- gender dysphoria, transphobia, transmisia, and so on. Conversely, if you happen to feel good some morning, it's not because the BJP lost in Himachal or you have finally found Sunny Leone's phone number, it's because you have gender euphoria ! Is it necessary to link everything to, or explain everything in terms of, sex or gender ?

   It's a language thing, you know. What worries me is not the robust response to the inequities and prejudices that the Woke generation is mounting: that is welcome and perhaps more than overdue. But as a student of literature( entire English literature, in current parlance) I am completely flummoxed by how the English language is being changed to suit the Woke lexicon. Language will always reflect the prevalent values and principles of society, but it should not become hypocritical, biased or evasive of the truth, as the inimitable George Carlin had explained in one of his videos about "politically correct" language. Here are a few examples from the Woke lexicon, make of them what you will:

Heteronormativity ( presumed to be straight unless proved to be otherwise- in an adaptation, presumably, of the legal principle of presumed to be innocent unless proved otherwise!). Other words are just as confounding: nonsumer (a minimalist consumer), greenwash (cheating on environmental brownie points), white feminism ( calling out people who espouse feminism but stay mum on issues that effect less privileged women), slut shame, toxic masculinity, Madonna/ whore complex, Queer baiting, pansexual, gaslighting ( emotional abuse- abuser undermining victim's perceptions and abilities by constant peddling of untruths). 

   Conversely, some words are a no-no because they convey prejudiced ideologies or misogynistic mindsets: headquarters (colonialism), prostitute (looking down on a legitimate profession), sanitary products (implying unclean), expectant mother ( should be gender neutral, as in -people who become pregnant), ethnic minority ( fails to convey the complexity of ethnicity), and so on.

   Are we re-writing the English language in the light of our own, current prejudices ? In this reformist zeal, are we not imposing a new gender ideology in place of the old one (at least the older one was easier to understand!)? Does anything change substantially by merely replacing one word or phrase with another? Can semantics themselves eradicate long held prejudices? While these questions occur to me I am also conscious of the fact that perhaps I'm now too old to appreciate the dynamics of cultural evolution that are at play here, or that my dad forgot to tell me that I was ABDAB (Assumed Brain Dead at Birth). (It took the UPSC to confirm this when I was selected for the IAS in 1975). Maybe all this Wokism is just the new political correctness in changing times. In which case I can't help but recollect the words of Harry Truman, the 33rd President of the United States of America: Political correctness holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end ! Is this, then, a case of the ends justifying the mean(ing)s?

PUBLIC GOODS AND PRIVATE EMPIRES

    

   In my house in a village above Shimla I am treated to an orchestral performance every evening when it rains. The musicians are a myriad of cicadas who have taken up residence in the lush greenery all around. It is a very choreographed show: first the lead cicada starts clicking his tymbals, a rasping sound, which is then taken up by a select few, then a few dozens, and soon there is a continuous buzzing hum like a thousand castanets clicking in unison. It drowns out all other ambient sounds and is quite hypnotic.

   But here's the amazing thing- these days I can hear the same sound right here in Delhi, emanating from our Parliament, where the rampaging Ashokan lions have had to take a back seat to the members of the ruling party doing their own cicada act. They generally burst into angry song whenever Rahul Gandhi says something; the lead tenor or baritone are either Mrs. Smriti Irani or Mr. Piush Goel, depending on who is the sillier soul of the moment. And then the others take up the tune and click-buzz the same refrain- "apologise, apologise, apologise." It drowns out all debate in Parliament. The reference, I learn, is to some talks the Gandhi scion delivered in London last week on the state of democratic values in India.

   If only the BJP orchestra would stop and ponder over what Mr. Gandhi said, they would realise that no wiser words have been spoken by any Indian leader in a long time, with or without a teleprompter. Notwithstanding that I am almost brain dead after 35 years of service in the government, I can recognize insight and perception when I see it. And see it I did, in a phrase used by Rahul Gandhi at a talk in London recently, whose import has largely been missed by most commentators. Speaking about the gradual erosion of democracy in India under Mr. Modi, he emphasised that "Indian democracy is a global public good," and that it must be protected in the interest of the world at large. I have not heard more astute or meaningful words in a long time, for it puts the state of our nation, and its proud democratic history, in a context where it cannot, and should not, be ignored by the mercenary western powers.

   Consider the import of this sentence, break it up into its constituent words. A public good is a commodity or service which is both essential and benefits everyone, it is non-rivalrous and non-excludable, and it is the responsibility of the state to provide it. The concept of "public goods" is an economic one, and by lifting it and placing it in a political space, Rahul Gandhi has broken new ground and given all world leaders ( excluding our own tribe, of course) something to think of. He is forcing them to think outside of their own silos (or ghettos) and to consider the possibility that the whole is indeed the sum of its parts, that there cannot be a whole without its parts.

   Especially a part as big as India- it occupies almost 3% of the planet's land area, but even more important, it comprises 17.50% of the globe's population, is its fifth largest economy, is one of just nine nuclear powers, has the world's second largest army (after China) and is the third largest importer of military hardware. (In pure corporate terms this would give it total control of any company  except, of course, Mr. Adani's !) It should be self-evident, therefore, that the health of such an important stake holder is bound to impinge on the health of the whole world order itself, and that other countries cannot turn a blind eye to it; perhaps they can, but only at their own peril.

   According to the World Forum on Democracies 58% of the world's population lives in liberal/ electoral democracies, and if India were to exit this group (as it is well on its way to doing) this figure would plummet to 41%. That would be terrible news for the free world, where democracy is already on the retreat. The 2022 report of Freedom House states that, with India's downgrading to a Partly Free democracy, only 20% of the world's population now lives in Free democracies. The year 2021 marked the 15th consecutive year of decline in democracy, with 73 countries having regressed on this parameter.

  It does not really require an institute in Sweden or the USA to tell us all this about India: any objective minded person living here would be able to predict that we are well on our way to joining the dishonourable club of 54 NOT FREE countries. Every relevant index is screaming the truth from the rooftops- Press Freedom Index, Human Freedom Index, Democracy Index, Human Development Index, Hunger Index, Inequality Index, Internet shutdown index, etc. The erosion of the rule of law, the undermining of institutions, the daily attacks on the higher judiciary, the misuse of police, the atrocities on minorities, the hounding of liberals and activists, the deliberate suborning of elected state governments, the defenestration of Parliament- all these are the visible signs of the dismantling of the substantive democratic structure of India. If things continue in the current mode, it will take just one more general election to topple our 75 year old democratic edifice, perhaps for ever.

   Rahul Gandhi was spot on in stressing that the responsible and freedom loving elements of the global community should not be silent or opportunistic spectators to the authoritarian take-over of India. For our nation has been an exemplar of freedom throughout its independent history-as a beacon of anti-colonialism, leader of the non-aligned and as an honest broker during the cold war. If India goes under then the whole of Asia is lost to the free world, the vital counter balance to China is removed, smaller Asian democracies will find it harder to survive, the nuclear fuse would be lit at the tri-junction of China, Pakistan and India, a new genocidal epoch would become a distinct possibility. The world would not only become less equitable, it would be a more dangerous place. Democracies in the west/ developed world would find it harder to survive as such. 

   Indian democracy is indeed a priceless global public good, and leaders of the free world (or what remains of it) should ensure that it is not appropriated by any latter day Caesar. For, as Shakespeare said: Arms and Laws do not flourish together.

BOOK REVIEW: THE RAFALE DEAL: FLYING LIES ?

   

                         

THE RAFALE DEAL-FLYING LIES by

RAVI NAIR WITH PARANJOY GUHA THAKURTA

PUBLISHED BY PARANJOY GUHA THAKURTA, 2022

                                              SIGNED, SEALED AND BURIED

    Given our robust eco-system of corruption and the still lingering memories of Bofors, it is inevitable that our increasing purchase of defence equipment/ arms would attract public scrutiny. India is the third largest spender on the military (2021) and the world's third largest importer of arms; I might also add for context that we are ranked 85th out of 180 countries in Transparency International's corruption perception index. This is the background against which we must assess this monumental book by Parnajoy Guha Thakurta and Ravi Nair, two of our finest investigative journalists at a time when most of their colleagues ( and posturing TV anchors) have either crawled into the widening cracks of the "fourth pillar of democracy" or have donned the attire of cheer-leaders of the present dispensation. The writing of this book required not only meticulous research, dogged persistence, careful analysis but also plenty of courage.

  The subject was always going to be a formidable challenge, spanning as it does eight years, two governments, national security, obsessive secrecy, bureaucratic obfuscation, judicial ambivalence and political manoeuvrings. The Rafale deal consists of two parts: Rafale 1 relates to the first RPF floated in 2007 by the UPA (Manmohan Singh) govt., and Rafale 2 (which scrapped the 2007 RPF and substituted it for a "fly-away" order in 2015) belongs to the NDA (Modi) era. There are questions concerning both and the authors raise these questions, not lightly or with any obvious bias, but armed with documentation, authentic references, interviews and plain logic. It makes for engrossing, if disturbing, reading.

  The authors reveal that Rafale 1 (18 jets in fly-away condition and 108 to be manufactured by HAL over 11 years) apparently lacked clarity on certain points, the main ones being the final cost, Dassault's reluctance to stand guarantee for the jets manufactured by HAL, the India specific modifications/additions. But the records show that these were not deal breakers, just grey areas, and there were no questions about its probity and rectitude, or whether it served the national interest. In fact, the deal was even put on hold for a few months by the then Defence Minister, AK Antony, when Mr. Subramaniam Swamy complained about Mrs. Sonia Gandhi trying to "influence" the decision. An investigation was carried out by the CVC ( Central Vigilance Commission) and Rafale was declared the successful bidder only after the CVC found no fault with the entire decision making process. 

  In sharp contrast, the Modi era Rafale 2 is riddled with more holes than Emmentaler  cheese, and is shown to be as transparent as a block of granite. The book follows the trail of this deal from the date of its precipitate announcement in April 2015 by Modi in France, through the "selection" of an Anil Ambani company as the default partner, the various stages of ex post facto approvals (the govt. admitted in the Supreme Court that all approvals were obtained AFTER Modi's announcement), the public uproar, the questions in Parliament, the accusations by Opposition leaders, particularly Rahul Gandhi, the midnight coup in CBI when it appeared that its  Director might start investigating the case, to the farcical "clean chit" delivered by the Supreme Court and the equally risible report of the CAG.

  The authors point out the violations, inconsistencies, contradictions and even illegalities that permeate this contract in a responsible manner, in the best traditions of investigative journalism: every point is analysed with the help of documents, media reports and articles, official statements, Parliamentary record, interviews with important players in the transaction (some off the record/unnamed for obvious reasons but reliable nonetheless). They raise many questions, which are yet to be satisfactorily answered by this govt. even after seven years. The most important of them are:

* What were the reasons for scrapping the 2008 deal for the purchase of 108+18 Rafale fighters seven years later, even though 95% of the issues had been resolved and it was almost ready for signing ?

* Given that the IAF was short of 12 squadrons and needed at least 6 urgently, did the reduction of number of aircraft from 126 to 36 not jeopardize the country's defence capability? How does this gell with the govt's claim that this was an "emergency" purchase, considering that under the new deal all 36 aircraft would be delivered in phases only by the end of the seventh year, whereas under the older RPF the IAF would have received 18 fighters by the fourth year itself ?

* What were the compelling reasons for side- stepping the comprehensive protocol for purchases as laid down in the DPP (Defence Procurement Policy) and for amending it in 2016 to favour a particular party?

* What were the reasons for overruling three official members of the INT (Indian Negotiating Team) in the matter of pricing, and the Law Ministry on issues relating to lack of a sovereign guarantee, escrow account and venue of arbitration ? Why were these three dissenting officers transferred out of the Ministry within months ?

* Was there a connection between the midnight sacking of the CBI Director Aloke Verma on the night intervening 23/24 th October 2018 and the complaint submitted to him by Prashant Bhushan, Arun Shourie and Yashwant Sinha ?

* Has the govt. been less than honest in steadfastly refusing to reveal the price of the aircraft, quoting a secrecy clause in the 2008 RFP which expired in January 2018 ? Is this clause even attracted in this matter since it relates to technical and operational parameters and not to pure commercial aspects ?

* All available evidence (including some intelligent reading of the CAG report) suggests that the price of 36 aircraft under Modi's new deal was Rs. 61,892 crore, which works out to Rs. 1719 per aircraft; the price tag for 126 fighters under the old UPA era deal was Rs. 127,000 crore or Rs. 1000 crore per fighter. How is this 40% escalation explained when all parameters and configurations were the same ?

* If the 2016 deal was a new transaction  (after scrapping of the old one) why were fresh tenders/ RFP not floated as prescribed by the DPP ? If, on the other hand, it was considered an extension of the old one, then why was the far cheaper offer of EADS ( the European consortium manufacturing the Eurofighter Typhoon) not considered ( it was already shortlisted, along with Dassault)?

* If an agreement for 126 MMRCA had already been hammered out with Dassault in 2014, why were fresh tenders floated for 110 MMRCA again in 2018 , involving as they would higher prices and another waiting period of 8-10 years ? Would this not further compromise the operational effectiveness of the IAF ?

* Why was HAL ( Hindustan Aeronautics Limited) removed as the offset partner of Dassault even though it had already signed a workshare agreement with Dassault in March 2014 ? Even more mystifying, how was the new offset partner ( Anil Ambani's Reliance Defence Limited / Reliance Aerostructure, a two week old company with zero experience in defence manufacturing) deemed to be more suitable than HAL, the largest defence PSU in the country with 20 production divisions and experience of having manufactured 29 different types of aircraft/ helicopters, including the Sukhoi 30 ?

* Did Prime Minister Modi not violate the sanctity of the DPP by making a unilateral announcement of the 36 Rafale purchase in France in April 2015, without consulting either the MOD or the IAF, or obtaining the consent of the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) or the Cabinet Committee on Security (CSS), as mandated?

* Why was Dassault exempted from providing either a sovereign guarantee or a bank guarantee, and allowed to get away with a simple "letter of comfort" which, according to the objections of our Law Ministry, offered no legal protection ? The Law Ministry had also objected to the venue of arbitration proceedings being kept at Geneva, instead of the usual practice of locating it in New Delhi: it was over-ruled on this too. Why?

* What were the compelling reasons for deleting from the final Agreement the "Integrity Pact" or anti-corruption clause, a standard provision which had been incorporated into all defence purchase contracts after the experience of Bofors ?

* Did the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) conduct clandestine parallel negotiations with Dassault even while the IMT was holding regular talks within the MOD with the company? This was the charge made by three senior officers of the IMT in a note dated 24.11.2015 submitted to the Minister. Did this weaken the IMT's negotiating position and leverage?

  The book devotes a whole chapter to the controversial selection of Anil Ambani's Reliance Aerostructure as the offset partner. The authors subject this decision to intense interrogation on the basis of facts in the public domain and extensive interviews with people in the know. There is also the public statement of the then French President Hollande who had affirmed that Ambani's firm had been suggested by India, that he had no choice in the matter and that it was a business trade-off! That Ambani was conferred a huge favour and that HAL had been knifed in the back by its own Govt.- of that the authors' findings leave no doubt at all. 

  The case ends up in the Supreme Court, as most govt. decisions do these days. The book analyses the SC judgment of 14.12.2018 which dismissed all petitions against the deal and refused to order any CBI investigation into it. Strangely, the Court limited itself to examining only the procedural aspects of the deal and did not go into the merits. But even in this the Court, according to the authors' analysis, chose not to look at the procedural violations of the DPP or the issue of pricing. The judgment is laced with factual inaccuracies, contradictions, assumptions ; it relies heavily on unsigned notes submitted by the govt. in sealed covers which were never shared with the petitioners, and some of which were subsequently proved to be fallacious. The most shocking error in the order was the finding that the deal had been examined by the CAG, who had found it be in order, and had forwarded it to the Public Accounts Committee( PAC) of Parliament: this had never happened (!) but it was made an important reason for dismissing the petitions. The "clean chit" to the govt. was totally opaque and unconvincing, but it served the purpose of taking the heat off Mr. Modi and his govt.

  The authors go on to examine the CAG report which was laid in Parliament on 13.2.2019, heavily redacted on the pricing portions (a first in the history of India). The authors find that the report is essentially an effort to "justify the govt's arguments and its decision for the withdrawal of the [earlier] RFP and cancellation of the negotiations." It did, however, confirm some of the charges, mainly that no sovereign guarantee or bank guarantee was taken from Dassault. As a cover up exercise it was successful but it does not cover the office of the CAG with glory.

  The unanswered questions persist, notwithstanding the whitewashing by the govt., CAG and the Supreme Court, and the issue appears to have reached a dead end in India. An investigation of sorts has been started in France by PNF, the public prosecution service, on a complaint by Sherpa, an NGO. But govts. across countries are the same everywhere, and it is not likely to result in any revelations: the French law and defence Ministries have already refused to declassify/ release any documents relating to the deal.

  This is a fascinating book, full of details and annexures, and not an easy read. But then, it is tackling an extremely complex and labyrinthine subject, the biggest defence deal in India's history and perhaps also the most opaque; it investigates an establishment that covers up and dissembles at every step. It is the most comprehensive and complete account of the purchase contract so far, and will, in time, become important archival material. It may also provide invaluable inputs if ever an independent and fair enquiry is allowed to be carried out into this display of the arrogance of power. For the moment, all one can do is repeat the words with which the authors hopefully conclude this book: SATYAMEV JAYATE.

SITTING ON THE FENCE CANNOT BE A SUSTAINABLE FOREIGN POLICY

   We did it again last Thursday- for the seventh time India abstained on a UN vote that asked Russia to cease hostilities and vacate its invasion of Ukraine. It was, of course, not unexpected, because under Mr. Jaishankar fence sitting has become an essential ingredient of our foreign policy, thinly disguised as "national interest." We are doing the same thing on China, Myanmar and Afghanistan but it is our position on Ukraine which makes me sick to my stomach.

   Cutting through all that NATO and "sphere of influence"  and "India's strategic interest" jargon, even Mr. Jaishankar will admit that Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine: it was Russia which sent in its troops and tanks into Ukraine on the 24th February 2022, not the other way round. Ukraine responded militarily. So far, so good: two armies fighting each other, a complex historical background, absolutely no reason for India to take sides till this point, let NATO-Russia-Ukraine sort out a problem of their own making.

   But then Russia changed the nature of the war: on the military backfoot, it started targeting towns, civilian infrastructure like hospitals, apartments, power stations, even schools, and continues to do so even today. This is in complete violation of Geneva conventions and international laws and conventions. It is no longer just fighting the Ukrainian army, it is systematically destroying a country, decimating its population and obliterating it from the map. It can do so with impunity because Ukraine does not have the military capability and hardware to strike within Russia, and its civilians are sitting ducks in a firing range.

  The price which Ukraine is paying is humungous; according to the UNHCR at least 8000 Ukrainian civilians have died so far, but it concedes that this is a gross under estimation; (the Ukrainian Prosecutor for War Crimes puts the toll at 100,000 killed and wounded); 18 million people are in dire need of humanitarian assistance , without homes, power, water and food; 14 million have been displaced internally; 5 million have had to flee the country. Russia is not fighting a war, it is waging genocide.

   We don't need to even go into the merits of the dispute to acknowledge that what Russia is doing is a war crime: fight the Ukrainian army by all means but why target civilians ? But Mr. Modi and Mr. Jaishankar are unable to see this dimension, or (more likely) are aware of it but cynically see it as an opportunity to further their political and economic objectives- compassion, morality, humanitarianism be damned. And the deepest cut is that they are dressing up their mercenary position as "neutrality !" 

   This is patent hogwash and dissembling, it is the kind of neutrality which has put us in the company of countries such as China, Iran and North Korea in the UN on this issue, a far cry from being the leader of a non-aligned movement. For, as Theodre Roosevelt once said: "To be neutral between right and wrong is to serve wrong." And we will also do well to remember the wise words of Bishop Desmond Tutu:

" If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." I am sure that Mr. Jaishankar will not have forgotten these words, notwithstanding his recently acquired pulpit skills.

  MEA's (Ministry of External Affairs) pathetic attempts at justifying this self seeking position is not only ridiculous, it is also contradictory. Here are samples of some of our statements at the UN to defend our abstentions:

* We believe in the importance of "respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states." [Really?]

* The international community should focus on "cessation of hostilities and on urgent humanitarian assistance." [ This is exactly what we are not supporting]

* UN should "promote dialogue and diplomacy." [ It's trying to do that, without our support].

* " No solution can ever arrive at the cost of human lives." [ Then why not condemn Russian attacks on civilians?]

Each one of the averments above is unexceptionable and encapsulates many universal principles. But we are not abiding by a single one of them in consistently refusing to condemn Russia's attack on civilians and civilian infrastructure, even if we do not ask it to roll back its invasion. (Which also we should be doing). Our position is not only hypocritical, it is also indefensible in any civilised world order. It may also be unscrupulously avaricious.

  For the fact is that we are profiting (if not profiteering) immensely from this war, and the longer it goes on the more we reduce our current account deficit. Our support (there is no other word for it, no matter how we guild it) for Russia has enabled us to buy cheap Russian oil at less than half the pre-war prices. and considerably below the $60 cap set by the West. Consequently our oil imports from Russia have shot up to about 1.50 million barrels a day as against the earlier 68000 barrels. The Indian govt. is estimated to have reduced its oil import bill by about $ 3.50 billion so far. This, in simple terms, is the "national interest" Mr. Jaishankar goes about preaching to an increasingly disapproving global community. As if national interest is merely the sum of the money saved.

   But we are not even being given a fair share of this opportune largesse. At these rates of purchase the domestic prices of petrol, diesel and gas should have come down  by at least 40% but we continue to pay for petrol and diesel at roughly Rs.100 per liter, and the gas cylinder still costs us Rs.1150 or thereabouts. All the windfall profits are being pocketed by the govt. and private refiners, who are even exporting the finished product to other countries! ( About 60% of the country's refining capacity is with the private players like the Ambanis). It is difficult to see any "national interest" in this institutionalised hypocrisy when the common citizen does not benefit from this policy in any way. The profits are simply blood money, as a Ukrainian Minister had said some time back. By shoring up Russian revenues, India is also helping to prolong the war and the sufferings of the Ukrainian people.

   The diplomatic dimension of this chicanery on India's image is equally damaging, as Shashi Tharoor pointed out in an interview with Karan Thapar on 27th February. Firstly, we are demonstrating to 

the world at large that we lack the courage of our convictions in refusing to call out Russia, (if not for the military engagement, at least for the attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure). Secondly, we fail to see the inherent contradiction in siding with a Russia which has now become "a junior partner of China, our main adversary." And finally, according to Tharoor, we "have locked ourselves into a corner which is less and less favourable for our strategic posture."

   This is bound to adversely impact our international stature in the long run, even if the picture looks rosy- saffron?- in the short term. We shall lose credibility, reliability and influence. The Lowly Institute Power Index 2023- the capacity of a country to shape its external environment- gives us a score of only 36.3 out of 100 (China, by comparison, is more than double this at 75.3). Our fence sitting and equivocation on the Russia-Ukraine issue shall, in all likelihood, further lower this rating in the days to come. And, as Shashi Tharoor pointed out in the interview, the first signs of this may already be evident in the recently concluded meetings of G20 Finance Ministers and Foreign Ministers. Our stewardship of the G20 has been dented right at the start of our Presidency by the failure to adopt a joint communique in either of these meetings. The reason? The majority of members wanted to condemn Russia's aggression, to go by the wording of the Bali resolution of last year, but we failed to persuade Russia and China. We did not even want to use the word "war" to describe what is happening on Ukrainian territory, and instead insisted on the term "crisis" ! At one point the French Minister even threatened to walk out ! This is unprecedented and has to be seen as India's failure, especially in the context of our Vishwaguru aspirations to play mediator in the conflict. It may also be the first portent of the fact that other countries may be running out of patience with our dissembling and double dealing. They are giving us a long rope presently because of other geo-political/economic considerations, but those can change any time. The strength of that rope can be tested any time, say by a belligerent China on our northern borders, and we may then find ourselves isolated.

   It does not pay to be too clever by half. And you can't sit on the fence for ever.