Sham Trial of Jadhav: Reticence is no Sagacity

Sham Trial of Jadhav: Reticence is no Sagacity  

Major General Mrinal Suman

Abducted Indian Kulbhushan Jadhav has been declared a spy and sentenced to death by a kangaroo court in a farcical trial held in complete secrecy. True to its past track record, Pakistan remains incorrigible as a devious and antagonistic neighbour.

It is India’s great misfortune that it has been cursed with a neighbour like Pakistan. A nation born out of hatred needs hatred for its continued sustenance. The day Pakistan sheds hostility towards India and adopts a conciliatory stance, it would amount to negating the two-nation theory, the raison d'être for its very existence. Therefore, it will be naïve to expect Pakistan to have a change of heart and be friends with India.

Independent Pakistan started its track record with the betrayal of Kashmir. Thereafter, breaching undertakings given to the US, it surreptitiously used American equipment to launch a surprise attack on Kutch in April 1965. Under the Tashkent agreement, Pakistan gave an undertaking to adhere to the principles of non-interference, only to intensify the proxy war through its notorious secret agencies.

Bhutto gave a solemn undertaking to accept LOC as the de facto border. Instead of abiding by his word, Pakistan redoubled its efforts to create turmoil in India. While the Indian leadership was trying to break ice through the ‘bus diplomacy’ in 1998-99, Pakistani military brass was busy planning the notorious Kargil incursion. Modi’s out-of-the-box gesture of birthday stop-over at Lahore was followed by a fierce terrorist strike at the Pathankot airfield. It has been a saga of treachery and duplicity.

Due to decades of indoctrination and brainwashing, most Pakistanis suffer from an extremely brutal and vicious anti-Indian streak. While dealing with India, a strange sadistic instinct gets aroused that takes control of their behaviour. The treatment meted out to the patrol led by Lt Saurabh Kalia in May 1999 by the Pakistan army puts even barbarians and animals to shame for its sheer cruelty. Contravening all conventions and norms of humanity, they were subjected to brutal torture for 22 days and then shot dead.  

The venom of anti-India feeling is too deeply ingrained in Pak psyche. Pakistan has made India the whipping boy for all its ills. Anti-India propaganda goes to the ridiculous extent of accusing India of extracting electricity from the river waters flowing in to Pakistan, ‘thereby rendering the waters worthless’.

Even a casual visitor to Pak websites and blogs gets shocked to see the venality of comments against India. There is hardly a sane voice that advocates need to promote amity. Anti-India feelings are so pervasive that the whole country lauded the Pak cricket team for conspiring to lose a cricket match during the World Cup to ensure India’s elimination. It reveals sickening depths to which Pakistan can stoop to in its pursuit of anti-India mania.

‘Be patient with a bad neighbour: he may move out’ is a common proverb. Unfortunately, such hopes cannot be entertained with respect to a malevolent neighbouring country. The only way out is its breakup and that is what India should strive for.

Raising of the Balochistan issue was overdue. If Pakistan can cultivate a Kashmiri separatist constituency within India, India can cultivate a separatist Baloch constituency in Pakistan. If Pakistan can dedicate its Independence Day to Kashmir, India can dedicate its Independence Day to Balochistan, Gilgit, Baltistan, and PoK. India should also support independence of other provinces like Sind. Pakistan must be splintered into as many countries as possible.

In addition, India should intensify its efforts to isolate Pakistan internationally. It should not be major challenge as Pakistan has already acquired notoriety as the prime breeding ground of terrorism in the world. Pakistanis are looked at with suspicion the world over.

To start with, diplomatic relations should be downgraded. All concessions like MFN should be withdrawn. Rail and road contacts should be suspended. Cultural exchanges should be stopped. Regional forums like SAARC will be better off without Pakistan. Using its formidable influence, India should have Pakistan expelled from the cricketing world. If South Africa could be debarred for apartheid, why should Pakistan not be banned for promoting terrorism? As cricket is a national obsession, it will hit Pakistani psyche hard.

A proactive policy should be followed to make friends with the countries who feel threatened by the growth of terrorism in Pakistan. Simultaneously, leveraging its enormous economic clout, India must convey its displeasure to countries that help Pakistan pass anti-India resolutions in various comities of nations. No nation that supports Pakistan’s anti-Indian motions can claim to be India’s friend.  It is time India asserts itself.

Unfortunately, a section of Indian intelligentsia continues to claim that a united Pakistan is in India’s interests. These biryani-lapping lapdogs of Pakistan advise India not to mix politics with culture, art and cricket. They echo Pak stance to mislead the Indian public. In their quest to please the Pakistani masters, they deliberately ignore the fact that Pakistan is not playing politics but waging an open war against India and killing Indians. But then, treachery of self-serving citizens has been the bane of India for centuries.

Finally, like a cancerous tumour, hatred for India has made deep inroads into Pakistan’s national psyche and has been devouring its vitals. In its obsession to harm India, Pakistan has chosen the path of self-destruction. It is in India’s interest to expedite the process by triggering the required implosion.

Pakistan cannot be allowed to get away with the sham trial of Jadhav. It is a defining moment for India and the government cannot fail the nation. The only language that rogue countries like Pakistan understand is of strength and retribution. In world affairs, reticence is considered a sign of impotence and not sagacity. 

Is Bollywood out of sync with Indian soldiery?

Is Bollywood out of sync with Indian soldiery?

By Sudip Talukdar

Bollywood has now latched on to surgical strikes and military campaigns as a way to garner popularity and box office successes, having practically exhausted the staple of love stories, song and dance sequences, sex and sleaze. In its long journey, the film industry has neither developed the will nor the capacity to make credible war movies. Scores of eminently forgettable productions have trivialized the image of ex-servicemen as loud characters who also double-up as the butt of jokes. He is usually a hot-headed, trigger happy retired colonel or brigadier, with an outsized moustache and several oddities. The veteran's reel life stereotyping as a cigar-puffing and whisky imbibing character is far removed from his real-life persona, who actually conducts himself with dignity and decorum in private and public life. 

The notable exceptions are Haqeeqat, Prahaar and Lakshya, which not only remain imprinted on the public psyche for their realism and portrayal of the fauji but also stand as benchmarks for others to follow. But the first is not without some notable flaws which detract from the gravity of the subject. For instance, the protagonist’s utterly pointless romancing of a hill woman and her battling the Chinese hordes by his side, until the end. What redeems the movie, however, are some of the most iconic scenes such as the one in which Balraj Sahani, as a major and company commander, shares cigarettes with his NCOs, before briefing them by the light of a kerosene lantern in a tent, amid the foreboding gloom and darkness. Or of the steely determination of exhausted and hungry jawans, who ford icy streams with the help of a rope or scale sky-high rock faces, even on the verge of physical collapse.

Nothing could have conveyed the subhuman conditions under which the Indian Army fought the Chinese in freezing temperatures more evocatively than these stark images in black and white, which linger long in memory. On the other hand, Prahaar demonstrates how and why soldiers develop such extremes of endurance, even if it be through a mode of punishment. For instance, the instructor imposes a stiff penalty on a trainee for making catcalls in a girl’s presence. The ‘guilty’ subaltern, midway into a punishing exercise, is made to heft a fellow officer on his back, along with the weight of their combined kits and rifles. Exhausted and gasping for breath, he cries for water. The roles are instantly reversed when the instructor catches the piggybacking officer red-handed in the act of emptying the contents of the water bottle into his carrier’s mouth. The entire sequence is so realistically done that the moviegoer ends up believing that the slightest of transgressions can invite the severest of penalties, which is what the Army does to keep everyone fighting fit.

Thankfully ‘Lakshya,’ which has been shot on a much bigger scale and focuses on Kargil, brings a verisimilitude seldom showcased in India, imparted by a Hollywood A-Team which undertook the cinematography. Not only does the movie ample justice to the training at the Indian Military Academy, the drills, weapons handling, the classrooms and the passing out parade, down to the close cropped hairs and correct uniforms, it is also about how well the officers and men bond together on and off the battlefield. The detailed combat sequences, beginning with an artillery barrage that light up the night sky, come alive with an immediacy rarely experienced on the big screen. What is more, ‘Lakshya’ even features a regimental medical officer for the very first time, recognizing his worth as a healer and the last resort of the dying and wounded men.

Even though the public has watched enough of hardships that soldiers underwent in Kargil and continue to do so in Siachen, thanks to a surfeit of TV documentaries, they have no idea about how faujis have to struggle every inch of the way up sheer cliff faces, using all the skills and strength at their command and vanquishing the harsh side of nature. Never before has this been showcased  more graphically on the big screen than the sequence  in ‘Lakshya’ in which men from 13 Punjab climb a dizzying, thousand foot high rock face, to dislodge Pakistani intruders sitting at the top and cutting off our supply lines with impunity. Midway, the protagonist manages to get atop a ledge, using his hands and feet with amazing dexterity. Once the team reaches this space, the leader ascends higher and fixes the rope, from which he swings like a pendulum, dangerously, to fasten himself to an inaccessible, perpendicular crevice further away. He finally makes it on the third attempt. The edge-of-the-seat sequence is one of ‘Lakshya’s highlights. Yet none of the critics has taken any notice of the movie’s genuine efforts to break out of Bollywood stereotypes, instead lavishing their praise on the likes of overly dramatized ‘Border’ and the ‘LoC,’ completely out of sync with war genre. 

It is easy enough for actors to pose as Para Commandos and strut about in a show of flamboyance, complete with an array of ribbons and medallions pinned on their combat fatigues, especially in movies like Pukaar, Zameen, Madras Cafe, Baghi 2 and lately Uri. Should they not be humbled by the fact that only a few out of a hundred qualify for the coveted Purple Beret, which these ‘stars’ take so lightly. Uri, the movie most hyped by the media, showcases the last surgical strike with all the bravado and make believe that Bollywood could muster. There is something radically wrong with the image of the bearded hero as he swaggers through a passageway in combat fatigues, a scene repeatedly flashed on television during promos. His zombie-like posture and greyish shade of uniform unmistakably convey the impression of a security supervisor out on his rounds, not that of an infantry officer, let alone a Para Commando!

The rot started with Major Saab, as a bearded Bachchan, a company commander, goes about heckling cadets at the National Defence Academy (NDA). The movie justifies the display of beard by inserting a line that the practice was not followed in the Army. However, Major Saab glorifies rebellion, insubordination and vandalism, sacrilege in a soldier’s code, projecting an extremely distorted version of life at the Academy. Can “gentlemen cadets” who breach discipline, harangue the instructor, stage frequent escapades or settle scores with the underworld or indulge in love affairs, be fit enough to lead the Indian Army. Yet this is what has been postulated in ‘Major Saab.’ “An officer of the rank of Major was shown living in a huge house which in fact is the official residence of the Commandant of the NDA," (a serving Lt General), writes strategic expert and blogger Maj Gen Mrinal Suman. "The whole movie was a very poor projection of the military ethos, culture and functioning and showed it as a law-flouting organisation,” he concludes.

Significantly, the protagonist in Uri has admitted being inspired by movies like Border, Prahaar and Saving Private Ryan. One fails to fathom how a pot-bellied extra in Border, sporting an ill-fitting jungle hat and even a tighter uniform and miscast as the battalion’s commanding officer, could serve as an inspiration! Unfortunately, the movie’s male lead, hurling abuses at the enemy’s armoured columns, behaves more like a local tough rather than a responsible military commander. On the other hand, Prahaar turns the spotlight even more intensely on the soldier's psyche and his dilemmas, actuated by the harsh real world, which neither seem as uncomplicated nor as ordered as his past life in uniform. The soldiers, their uniforms and training look so real in Prahaar that nobody can assert that they are not army men, unlike some cardboard cut-outs that win mainstream media's instant approval. It is doubtful whether any of this has rubbed off on Uri.

Lastly, Saving Private Ryan, easily the most graphic and realistic portrayal of war in entire cinematic history, represents a paradigm shift in how these movies are conceived, visualized and shot. It has inspired hundreds of movies worldwide, with varying degrees of success, but hardly any in India, with the possible exception of Lakshya. Spielberg had his technical team even shoot at animal carcases to register how a bullet impacted flesh. Tom Hanks and the supporting cast too have performed so convincingly after undergoing only a week of boot camp under a retired Marine officer that it speaks volumes about their commitment and Spielberg's cinematic genius. On the other hand, producers of Uri claim that their cast went through six or seven months of 'rigorous training' in Mumbai, none of which is visible in the movie, except in scenes featuring parades, paying homage to martyrs and crying "How's the josh. It's high sir."

Despite all the fireworks, combat sequences in Uri appear too mechanical and contrived to be convincing! Compare it with the Chinese movie Assembly, which exposes viewers to the horrors of close combat, as bullets and shrapnel rip into human flesh. The movie, matching the best in Hollywood, is dozens of notches more real than the likes of Uri. Chinese film makers have learnt their lessons diligently, but Bollywood lags way behind. The distinction between appearance and reality is also blurred in the final sequence of ‘Saving Private Ryan,’ when a close-up of a stocky figure on a lead Tiger tank appears on the screen, huge sunglasses wrapped around his peaked cap. The image immediately clinches his identity as Field Marshal Rommel who led from the front. The cameo, linking the legendary Desert Fox with the fate of US Rangers, is a prime example of artistic licence plausible enough, even if historically inaccurate.  

Can the world’s largest film industry, churning out scores of big-budget movies annually, wash its hands off the real world? This might pass muster in the name of mass entertainment because a formula-driven set-up can blithely dispense with authenticity or verisimilitude. But when film-makers overlook these factors in themes based on war or military operations, they unwittingly step into a minefield of faux passes.  For instance, Georgette patches, introduced in 2004, make their appearance on the collars of a brigadier in Haider, set in 1995. Junior artistes, in various stages of obesity, parlayed infantry officers. The movie questioned AFPSA’s role in Kashmir. If the Army bore such ill will towards the state, will someone explain why it mounted unprecedented rescue operations to extract hundreds of thousands from the jaws of death, during the floods there. 

Filmmakers might argue that a factual presentation might put off cine-goers, so they have to sweeten movies with layers of make-believe or fantasy. But then how it is possible for movies like Saving Private Ryan,‘The Thin Red Line, A Bridge Too Far, Assembly and TV serials like Band of Brothers, Generation Wars  to succeed beyond expectations. Significantly, Europe and China are far ahead of Bollywood in terms of cinematic excellence and production values, besides assimilating the latest in technology. For instance, Generation Wars, a German TV serial based on World War II, won accolades in the US for its thematic brilliance and graphic realism in combat sequences, after being released as a two-part movie!  Chinese and Korean filmmakers are also catching up with their Hollywood counterparts.   

-----------------------------------------------------------

---Sudip Talukdar is an author and strategic affairs columnist

Courtesy: Indian Defence Review

Unravelling the Mystery of Vicious Anti-Rafale Campaign

Unravelling the Mystery of Vicious Anti-Rafale Campaign

https://swarajyamag.com/politics/why-rafale-politics-may-compromise-indias-defence-potential

(20 January 2019)

Major General Mrinal Suman

Hollowness and stridency of the anti-Rafale campaign has surprised all for its sheer brazenness and inconsistency. The government answers one point and the critics invent a new one to keep the pot boiling. Sample the shifting sands – due process was not followed; price paid is much more than that of the non-deal; number of aircraft has been reduced from the earlier 126 to 36; Ambani has been favoured by denying orders to HAL; Ambani has no experience in manufacturing aircraft; payments to HAL are being withheld to force engineers to quit and join Ambani company; and so on.

Before discussing the issue further, four facts need to be flagged here. One, Rafale’s selection cannot be questioned as it emerged winner after gruelling technical and commercial evaluations under the previous government. Two, the current order was placed through a government to government deal with no middleman/agent. Three,  no act of corruption or trail of slush money has been reported. Finally, even the Supreme Court has expressed its satisfaction with the correctness of the deal. If that be so, why this continuous baying and unseemly mud-slinging? This write-up endeavours to unravel this mystery.

A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued in August 2007 for the procurement of 126 fighters – 18 to be bought in fully built up condition while the balance quantity of 108 was to be manufactured in India by the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) under transfer of technology. Six manufactures submitted their proposals. After extensive trials, two platforms were found technically acceptable – Dassault’s Rafale and European Consortium’s Eurofighter. Finally, Rafale emerged winner (L1) due to its lower life-cycle cost and an announcement to that effect was duly made on 31 January 2012.

Shortly thereafter, negotiations commenced with L1 in due earnest. However, even after prolonged meetings, the deal could not be concluded. By 2014, talks had reached a total impasse with no signs of breakthrough. It became clear that the deal was dead for all purposes. The then Defence Minister Antony admitted so publicly. IAF was a worried force and made its disquiet known to the new government in no uncertain terms. While on a tour of France in April 2015, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced India’s intent to place an order for 36 ‘ready-to-fly’ Rafale fighter jets to meet emergent requirements. It was to be a government to government deal and at terms better than those offered earlier. IAF heaved a sigh of relief as it was a desperate measure to boost its diminishing strength. After detailed negotiations, the deal was concluded in September 2016.

No questions were raised by anyone when the government terminated the stalled deal or when an intent to buy 36 aircraft in fly-away condition was announced or even when the contract was concluded in September 2016. The environment appreciated the urgency and found the government to government deal to be the best way forward.

Reasons for Non-conclusion of the Earlier Deal

It remains a mystery as to why a deal so very critical to India’s defence potential could not be concluded even after 28 months (Jan 2012 to May 2014) of intense negotiations. Nevertheless, a number of reasons are being cited in the media – Dassault’s reservations regarding HAL’s capability to absorb high technologies; refusal of Dassault to stand guarantee for the aircraft manufactured by HAL; and requirement of excessive man-hours by HAL, thereby escalating cost and delaying production schedule.

In addition, in early February 2014, the then Defence Minister Antony dropped a bomb by announcing, “There are complaints about the procedure of calculating the Life Cycle Cost and that issue is not yet settled”. He further added that the government had no funds to buy the fighters. Both the reasons were bizarre, to say the least. Rafale was declared L1 in January 2012 and no one questioned the methodology at that time. Why this belated reaction? Why was the farce of finalising contractual provisions (including transfer of technology to HAL) continued with Rafale for two years when the very basis of selecting Rafale was suspect? As regards non-availability of funds, no procurement proposal is ever initiated without assured availability of funds. Financial support is a pre-requisite. One wonders as to how could a sovereign nation carry on negotiations with a foreign defence manufacturer without committed funds. Was it just a sham exercise?

   

The latest press reports reveal that considerable pressure was being exerted by the losing competitor Eurofighter. Reportedly, a strategy paper for its promotion has been recovered that indicates involvement of Christian Michel and Guido Haschke. Many fear that the fighter deal was scuttled by vested interests who did not want India to buy Rafales. They wanted the case to be aborted and fresh bids invited. It is time-tested ploy used by many losing competitors. 

As a last-ditch effort, Eurofighter submitted a fresh unsolicited bid to the Modi government on 04 July 2014, reducing its earlier commercial quote by 20 percent, making it lower than that of Rafale. However, there was no way a revised bid could be accepted by the government. The Defence Procurement Procedure does not permit it at all and rightly so. No deal can ever be finalised if the competing parties are allowed to keep underbidding each other after the commercial quotes are opened.

The Probity Angle

In early 2007, in an article by this author in the Indian Defence Review, the contours of the vulnerability map of India’s defence procurement procedure had been identified. This sort of mapping is considered crucial to identify stages where the system could be subjected to external influences and to indicate the degree of such vulnerability.

Here is a summary of the findings. Stages where the procedure was found to be vulnerable to unfair manipulation included initiation of proposal and allocation of priority; formulation of qualitative requirements; field trials; staff evaluation; determination of lowest bidder; acceptance and implementation of offset obligations; and grant of final approval. For various stages, degree of vulnerability to corruption was graded as least, moderate, considerable and maximum. Most revealingly, ‘grant of final approval’ was the only stage that got graded ‘maximum’, implying that it was most vulnerable to corrupt practices. Let me elaborate.

After concluding negotiations with L1, the Contract Negotiation Committee submits its report to the Defence Minister for acceptance by the competent financial authority (CFA). No deal can be concluded unless CFA accords sanction. CFA can hold-up a proposal indefinitely or raise incessant queries. He can even let a case lapse. Having gone through agonizing technical and commercial evaluations, the stakes for L1 are exceedingly high at this stage. The deal is within his reach. Consequently, he is extremely susceptible to arm-twisting and can be coerced to shell out bribe money. Environment is aware that huge amounts have to be paid to ‘buy’  CFA sanction and hence most vendors factor it in their initial commercial bid itself. Such bribes carry the taxonomy of ‘facilitation money’.

The fighter deal followed a similar path. Rafale was declared L1 on 31 January 2012.  It is apparent that the real reason for not signing the contract was either Dassault’s failure/refusal to oblige or gratuitous intervention by the Eurofighter. Hence, it was belatedly ‘discovered’ that the methodology adopted to determine L1 needed a relook, that too after discussing contractual minutiae with Rafale for over two years, Can there be a more ludicrous excuse to stall the case! Interestingly, the Eurofighter is already facing allegations of misdemeanour in its sales to many other countries.

Timing of the Criticism

As stated earlier, there was no criticism when Modi announced India’s intent to buy 36 aircraft nor when the deal was concluded in September 2016. On the contrary, many observers called it a masterstroke to meet emergent requirements of the Air Force. Suddenly, in November 2017, the deal came under flak and was termed a scam for non-adherence to procedure, escalated cost and promotion of a private company at the cost of HAL.

Timing of the anti-Rafale campaign is revealing. Two related developments need to be recounted here. First, there were reports in a section of media that the Air Force was considering procurement of two more squadrons of Rafale in a fly-away condition as an interim measure as the fresh case for 110 fighters would have taken unacceptably long to fructify. Incidentally, both Rafale and Eurofighter figure in the list of six vendors who have responded to the new Request for Information (RFI) wherein 15 percent fighters are to be bought in fully built condition and the balance to be indigenously manufactured through a Strategic Partner.

Secondly and more importantly, in January 2017, the Indian Navy issued a RFI for purchasing approximately 57 multi-role fighters for operation from aircraft carriers. It was hinted that the contract could grow bigger with additional procurements through the option clause. Four manufacturers have shown interest; Rafale is reported to be one of them. For India, it makes sense to opt for Rafale, provided it emerges the lowest technically acceptable bidder. Synergy of operations and commonality of infra-structural facilities will prove immensely beneficial.

The anti-Rafale campaign has become more strident of late. The sole aim is to prevent Rafale from bagging further orders. Some planted articles have gone to ridiculous limits, questioning suitability of Rafale for India. According to some presstitutes, Rafale is the wrong choice. Rafale was invited to participate in trials in August 2007 – wonder why it has taken these ‘learned people’ over a decade to get ‘enlightened’ about the unsuitability of Rafale!

In Conclusion

Let us look at some interesting aspects of the whole conundrum. Rafale is an excellent fighter aircraft. It has proved its mettle in wars. The Air Force selected it after gruelling competitive trials in which it emerged the winner.  India is purchasing it duly configured with latest add-ons as per its operational requirements. Purchase of two squadrons in a fly away condition was the quickest way to cover critical gaps in India’s air capabilities till a fresh case fructifies. The deal was a government to government contract with no middleman and decidedly on terms more favourable to India than those offered in the aborted case. There is no slush money.

Yet the criticism goes on unabated, albeit with newer allegations concocted at regular periodicity. Even when an allegation is duly rebutted with facts, the critics decline to debate the replies but keep harping on newer allegations. The sole aim is to keep throwing mud, in the fond hope that some of it would stick. Subjective stories are planted by the purchased media to raise questions about the sanctity of the procedure followed. Some of the media persons start casting aspersions on the quality of the system being procured. How low can one stoop!

Corruption must be exposed but it is anti-national to stall modernisation of the armed forces by resorting to witch-hunting with wild accusations to settle political scores. The decision-makers (political leaders, bureaucrats and the military brass) get deterred by  such a scenario. They consider it safer not to conclude any defence contract during their tenure lest they get hounded later in life for the decisions taken in good faith. Defence potential of the country should never be allowed to fall prey to political slugfest. That shall prove perilous.*****

Anti-Rafale Campaign: Press Stoops to Abysmal Depths

Anti-Rafale Campaign: Press Stoops to Abysmal Depths

https://swarajyamag.com/defence/the-anti-rafale-campaign-would-go-down-as-one-of-the-lowest-points-of-indian-media

Major General Mrinal Suman

For the evolution of healthy democratic practices, it is essential that the opposition keeps the government on its toes through unrelenting questioning of the policies and performance. However, such criticism should be objective and based on truth. False accusations invariably backfire and show the critics as unscruplous and untrustworthy entities. They lose their credibility and the public starts considering them to be ‘moles and plants’ of adversarial interests. Such a development does immense damage to the body politic and psyche of the nation. Two recent incidents are recalled here.

Alleged Waiver of Anti-Corruption Clauses in the Rafale Deal

Headlines of a newspaper dated 11 Feb 2019 screamed that the government made unprecedented concessions with regard to critical provisions for anti-corruption penalties and making payments through an escrow account in the Inter Government Agreement (IGA) signed between India and France on 23 September 2016.

The paper claims that the provisions of the Defence Procurement Procedure-2013 (DPP) were violated by not adhering to the mandatory Standard Contract Document, given at Chapter V of the procedure. It goes on to accuse the government of dropping clauses on “Penalty for use of Undue Influence, Agents/Agency Commission, and Access to Company Accounts” in the Supply Protocols which form part of the Standard Contract Document.

One does not know whether to pity the said newspaper for its sheer ignorance of the procedure or to slam it for malicious and unethical reporting. The paper has most dishonestly omitted to inform the readers that the Standard Contract Document is not applicable to IGA. It is yellow journalism and scandal-mongering at their worst. 

Para 60 of DPP unambiguously states, “The Standard Contract Document at Chapter V indicates the general conditions of contract that would be the guideline for all acquisitions.... However, for single vendor procurements, if there is a situation where Govt of India has entered into agreements with that vendor/country regarding specific contractual clauses, then the terms and conditions of such agreements would supersede the corresponding standard clauses of DPP 2013.”

Para 71 of DPP specifically refers to procurement proposals under IGA. It reads, “There may be occasions when procurements would have to be done from friendly foreign countries which may be necessitated due to geo-strategic advantages that are likely to accrue to our country. Such procurements would not classically follow the Standard Procurement Procedure and the Standard Contract Document but would be based on mutually agreed provisions by the Governments of both the countries.”

It needs to be recalled here that India has been buying defence equipment on government to government basis from Russia for decades. Similarly, starting with the purchase of AN/TPQ-37 Fire Finder counter-battery artillery radar sets in 2002, India has signed many major deals with the US government. No IGA has followed the Standard Contract Document and the agreements do not contain any so-called anti-corruption clauses. The foreign governments consider it an affront. They resent Indian government trying to occupy the high moral ground of being the paragon of honesty and treating other parties as devious connivers who need to be kept under the leash of anti-corruption clauses.

IGA is a solemn commitment between the two sovereigns, based on mutual trust. The very idea of one government asking the other to give undertaking on integrity issues is an anathema to international relations. Similarly, the point raised about sovereign guarantee is totally misplaced. No country gives that. It must be appreciated that the French government went out of its way to give a letter of comfort to satisfy Indian sceptics. 

The Case of the Infamous Note

A note initiated by Dy Secy (Air II) on 24 November 2015 has been published by the said paper to claim that PMO’s Office had been having parallel parlays on the Rafale deal. The note throws up many disturbing issues.

Why did Dy Secy (Air II), who had nothing to do with the Rafale deal initiate such a note? As shown in the organisation tree below, there are three well-defined verticals in the Department of Defence of the Defence Ministry, each under an Additional Secretary level officer.

Addl Secy-I deals with revenue expenditure and routine administrative matters of the three services. He has nothing whatsoever to do with capital procurements, not even remotely. Dy Secy (Air II) comes under JS (Air). His channel of reporting is through JS (Air) and Addl Secy-I. Indian bureaucracu is notorious for guarding its turf aggressively and brooks no interference from intruders. Why was Dy Secy (Air II) allowed to meddle in capital procurements?

The Acquisition Wing under DG Acq is the executive arm of the Defence Acquisition Council and is responsible for the acquisition of new weaponry and defence systems. Contract Negotiating Committee (CNC) is constituted under the aegis of DG Acq. As per Appendix B of DPP-2013, the standard composition of CNC consists of Acquisition Manager, Technical Manager, Finance Manager, Advisor (Cost), Quality Control Officer,  User Representative, Repair Agency Representative and Representative of Contract Management Branch at the Service Headquarters. Most members are of Jt Secy level. There is no representative of Addl Secy-I.

Normally, Acquisition Manager heads CNC. However, DG Acqn may nominate a service officer to head CNC with the approval of the Defence Minister. In the case of the Rafale deal, Air Marshal SPB Sinha, an officer with outstanding credentials and impeccable probity record was hand picked to head CNC. The country could not have selected a more suitable officer.

The question arises as to what prompted Dy Secy (Air II), a much too junior an officer, to meddle in the matters that did not concern him at all? Was it done at someone’s behest? Was it a part of a well-orchestrated campaign to derail the Rafale deal?

Further, why did Dy Secy (Air II) not follow the laid-down chain of correspondence? Why did he bypass his own Jt Secy and Addl Secy-I to address the note directly to the Jt Secy of the Acqn Wing with whom he had no dealings whatsoever?

More importantly, why did the Acq Manager, DG Acquisition and Def Secy not question Dy Secy (Air II) for his locus standi in the matter? Was this issue beyond the competence of these bureaucrats or were they a party to the malicious plot or did they lack courage to tick him off for interfering in matters that did not concern him. Instead they took serious cognizance of the note.

Surprisingly, quite unlike the functioning of the lethargic Indian bureaucracy, the note moved with abnormal speed. Jt Secy of the Acqn Wing and DG Acqn saw the note on the day it was initiated, i.e 24 November 2015. What was the hurry? Was any higher-up overseeing and expediting the move of the file?

Perhaps the most strange aspect of the whole affair is the fact that a junior officer in MoD could have the audicity to fault the functioning of PMO’s office and accusing it of weakening the negotiating position of MoD. India bureaucracy is notorious for its spinelessness and sycophancy. No junior officer will ever dare to use such harsh language for PMO’s office. Something is certainly amiss.

Finally

It is apparent even to the laypersons that a deliberate and concerted campaign is being carried out to tarnish the image of the government and to prevent it from placing repeat orders on Dassault. The schemers pretend to smell a rat where none exist. In fact, they are attempting to plant a rat to discredit the Rafale deal. It becomes worse when a reputed media house is seen as an unprincipled, unethical and villainous rogue, masquerading as a champion of probity in public affairs.

It must be conceded that in a major procurement of this nature, all officials involved tend to offer their considered opinion and advice to make the deal rock solid. It is their duty and they are fully justified to suggest various safeguards. The final decision making powers lie in the hands of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS). It is for CCS and other empowered entities to weigh all suggestions and take the final call.

India bureaucracy is like a quagmire. Every bureaucrat has mastered the art of playing safe by putting up incongruous and infructuous notings on files that can stall the process for ever. If the decision makers get cowed down, no proposal will ever fructify. As the Rafale deal shows, only a strong leader like Modi could have overcome the impediments created by the vested interests and the grossly spineless bureaucracy. 

  

To criticise and fault the government is fully justified provided the facts support allegations. It is grossly unfair to invent wild allegations, in the hope that some accusations may stick. There has been no trail or even a hint of any sleaze money in the Rafale deal so far. There were no middlemen or agents. In fact, it should be considered a master stroke by the Indian government to make up critical deficiencies of the Air Force in an expeditious, diligent and far-sighted manner.*****

Cricket with Pakistan: a Highly Seditious Proposition

Cricket with Pakistan: a Highly Seditious Proposition

Major General Mrinal Suman

During our recent visit to Abu Dhabi, while awaiting our turn to enter the Grand Mosque,  we got talking to a group of Pakistani youth. After the exchange of pleasantries, the conversation veered off to the cricketing relations. It was like touching a raw nerve. Without mincing words, all of them blamed India for the current wretched standing of  Pakistan in the cricketing world. Their bitterness was palpable. According to them, India’s refusal to have bilateral series with Pakistan was the trigger that started showing Pakistan in poor light as an unsafe playing destination.

They rued the fact that  foreign teams decline to visit Pakistan and they are forced to host them in the gulf countries. “It is like inviting your guests for meals to a friend’s house because they decline to come to your house. We feel insulted and it hurts the whole nation immensely,” alleged a jean-clad man. Another Pakistani was quick to add, “We have been craving to see cricket matches on our grounds butare being shunned due to India. Your country has been very unfair to us.” It was an emotional outburst. Fortunately, the ushers asked their group to enter the mosque and the conversation ended abruptly. 

It was a revealing experience. We always knew that cricket was an obsession with Pakistan but were amazed to realise the severity of the impact of the refusal of foreign teams to play in Pakistan. It has dented the country’s self respect and affected their national psyche.

In the wake of the loathsome Pulwama massacre, the issue of boycotting cricketing ties with Pakistan is being hotly debated in the media. India is scheduled to play Pakistan on June 16 during the World Cup. Whereas most countrymen want India to decline to play cricket with Pakistan, two sets of people are opposing the boycott – biryani-eating apologists for Pakistan and the mercenaries who can sell their soul (and even the country) for easy money. 

Biryani-Gorging Apologists

Pakistan has been able to cultivate many influential Indians through what is commonly referred to as ‘biryani-diplomacy’. The assortment consists of political leaders, intelligentsia and media personnel. They are frequently taken on fully-paid trips to exotic locales the world over, ostensibly for seminars and group discussions. Lavish hospitality generates bonhomie, providing ideal setting for Pak operatives to establish personal rapport with the Indian guests. Soon, such Indian friends of Pakistan start suffering from, what is derisively referred to as ‘Biryani Loyalty Syndrome’. Masquerading as intellectuals with liberal views, they are a bunch of anti-national elements, coming together with the sole objective of undermining the country to curry favour with their mentors in Pakistan by portraying it as a reasonable and peace-loving country.

These Pak-loyalists tell us that the Pakistani public loves Indians and only a handful of misguided elements are creating all the mischief. It is an outrageous lie. Anti-India feelings are so pervasive that even a casual visitor to Pak websites and blogs gets taken aback to see venality of comments against India. There is hardly a sane voice that advocates need to promote amity. Strangely, India bashing invariably degenerates into Hindu bashing by painting every issue with communal colour. 

 

A few years ago a group of Indian ladies visited Pakistan under a social exchange programme. One of the ladies sustained a wrist fracture in an accidental fall and was taken to the nearest medical facility. The wrist was duly bandaged. During the small talk, the lady tried to sound polite and friendly. When she referred to the commonality of Indian and Pakistani cultures, the doctor flared up and blasted the lady for her ‘flawed views’. “What is common between us? We eat cows and you worship them. We asked for a separate nation only because we are totally different in all respects. I suggest you Indians should stop fooling yourselves”, he thundered.

The above incident has been recalled here to show the effect of decades of indoctrination and brainwashing. If the mind of a well-educated doctor can be poisoned so very viciously, the severity of impact on general public can well be gauged. All Pakistanis suffer from an extremely brutal and inhuman anti-Indian streak. While dealing with India, a strange sadistic instinct gets aroused that takes control of their thinking and behaviour. The treatment meted out to the patrol led by Lt Saurabh Kalia in May 1999 by the Pakistan army will put even barbarians and animals to shame for its sheer cruelty.

Self-Seeking Champions of Sporting Ties

The second set of people who want to continue cricketing ties with Pakistan are those who are more concerned with their commercial interests than the national feelings. A legendry cricketer has expressed his support for Indo-Pak matches. Apparently, he wants to earn money as a commentator even if Pakistan keeps killing Indian soldiers and citizens. Would he have been equally keen, had his own son become a casualty in a terrorist strike? Has shamelessness no limit? One expected Tendulkar, holder of an honorary rank of group captain in the Indian Air Force, to show solidarity with the soldiers by extending unequivocal support to boycotting match with Pakistan rather than talking about two-points loss. 

Dreading loss of revenue, many egotistical entities demand that Indo-Pak sports ties should not be held hostage to politics. It is a perverse and outlandish argument. They deliberately ignore the fact that India is fighting a sub-conventional war and not playing quiescent politics. India has lost more lives due to Pak-sponsored terrorist activities than all the armed conflicts fought after the Independence. If it is not war, pray what is it?

By asserting that the sporting ties can improve relations between the two countries is all baloney and hogwash. It is a smokescreen to justify their demand to make money under the euphemism of sporting ties. Such selfish entities are least concerned about the loss of Indian lives due to Pak hostilities. Their masquerading as ambassadors of friendship is a façade to fill their own coffers.  

Finally

Let us all be clear about one fact. Pakistan was born on anti-India plank and it is its only identity. The day Pakistan sheds hostility towards India and adopts a conciliatory stance, it would amount to negating the two-nation theory, the very raison d'être for its existence. Therefore, Pakistan cannot afford to shed its antagonism towards India. Kashmir is merely a manifestation of Pakistan’s infinite hostility towards India. Were India to hand over Kashmir to it on a platter, Pakistan will invent newer issues to keep the pot boiling. Discord and acrimony would continue as always.

One may not fully agree with former Australian Test umpire Darrell Hair’s description of the Pakistani cricketers as ‘cheats, frauds and liars’. But the fact is that the whole world considers Pakistan to be an untrustworthy and deceitful nation. Rogue countries like Pakistan do not believe in international conventions and shamelessly flout them.

Soldiers’ dedication to duty, loyalty to the nation and willingness for the supreme sacrifice are driven less by material considerations and more by an overwhelming urge to earn love and respect of their countrymen. However, they feel betrayed when the some countrymen want to shake hands and play cricket with the perpetrators of carnages, simply because the world cup with associated earnings is far more important to them than the tears of martyrs’ widows and orphans.

Finally, playing cricket with a country whose avowed aim is to destroy India can never be justified. Not only is it an insult to the memory of the thousands of Indians killed by Pakistan, but an anti-national act of serious proportions. Following the example of the successful boycott of apartheid South Africa, India should leverage its enormous clout with the world cricket body to have Pakistan expelled from the cricketing world for its sponsorship of terrorism the world over. It will hit Pakistan hard.

In case the above is not possible, the least India can do is to refuse to play cricket with Pakistan. If India cannot cut off all ties with Pakistan, it cannot expect other countries to shun Pakistan. It will deal a fatal blow to India’s campaign to isolate Pakistan globally. Cricket is Pakistan’s Achilles heel and boycott by India will be the most painful blow to its psyche. What better way to demonstrate solidarity with the martyrs families and to express national fury at the brutal killing of Indian brave men at Pulwama!*****