Critical analysis of Rafale Deal: issues and its impact on governments credibility.

Rafale Deal:

The case of Rafale deal is a huge controversy in the Indian and French media as in both the countries an enquiry is being demanded to probe the Rafale deal against the Charges of corruption and crony capitalism. In 2011, The Dassault aviation of France won the deal of MMRCA and the government entered in contract with the France and Dassault aviation regarding supply of 126 Rafale multi-role combat Jet aircrafts out of which 18 were to be supplied in a flyaway condition whereas the rest were to be produced in India with an offset partner (Kapur, 2012). But in the year 2014, the Air Chief Marshal of Indian Air Force demanded an urgent need of new aircraft pertaining to several accidents of air crash with the obsolete Fighter planes. And owing to urgent need the government entered in a contract with France for procurement of Rafale Jet on urgent basis and the old contract was terminated. The IAF officials visited France and took training and proposed modifications as per need. Everything was going fine until the government response on Pricing of Rafale deal, as in March 2018 government informed that cost of each Rafale would be Rs 670 crore and 36 Rafale jets would be procured. But in September 2018 government stated that prices of Rafale has been revised and as per new deal the price per plane is Rs1600 crore. This led to huge backlash as how prices can rise so much pertaining to modifications. 

Later on, another controversy came wherein it was reported that it is Reliance which is offset partner of Dassault and not HAL. This was something which was not welcomed as HAL which has 100 years of experience in producing a fighter plane was not selected as offset partner. And instead of HAL, reliance group was selected which came into force a few weeks before the signing of the contract. No country would have entered a contract wherein a company which has no experience in producing fighter planes nor technology is going to produce fighter jets. In such cases, the next thing which happens is a high-level enquiry in the deal, and this happened as opposition and various stakeholders demanded a Joint Parliamentary enquiry in the Rafale deal as there were allegations regarding crony capitalism, selection of reliance group and not HAL and corruption. But the government declined and stated that disclosing the information would put the defense of the country on risk and as per official secrets act they can`t do it. 

The government constantly stated that there is no corruption involved in the deal and the decision to take Reliance as an offset partner was that of The Dassault Aviation of France, so the charges levied are completely baseless. But if this is the case then the government should have agreed for Joint parliamentary committee enquiry in the deal but the government has not done so and rather has faced backlash from the contract as an Independent investigation agency in French stated that choosing Reliance as an offset partner was mandatory to obtain the deal. And when the Dassault aviation issued a statement stating that they have chosen Reliance as an offset partner freely and there was no intervention by the government (THE HINDU, 2018). Another controversy was created by Former president of France as he stated that `It was Indian Government which has proposed the name of Reliance Company for the deal and we had no choice”. After the statement government was at back foot and declined to comment on the issue. As the government was not responding, the opposition and various NGO`s filled a PIL in the Supreme Court regarding the issue and Supreme court issued notices to the government to share the details of pricing and decision-making process, the government argued on this issue but the court gave its decision. The government declined to share the details and told all the information is covered under an official secrets act, so the court cannot ask any such information from the government. The court even stated that any confidential information can be placed before the bench and it won`t be shared with anyone but the government even refused to do so. And as a result of this, the government had to file an affidavit in the court mentioning the reasons and objections on sharing the details. If we look from a broader perspective then sharing the matters covered under official secrets act with the higher officials in India like The Chief justice is something which is welcomed. But by refusing to share the information with the court resembles suspicious activity pertaining to deal. Later on, the government stated that Standard operating procedure and DPP (Defence procurement procedure) was followed and approval of Cabinet Committee on Security was taken. But in the Supreme Court government stated that Defence acquisition council met only in May 2015 and not prior to that, then the question arises how Prime minister can announce a deal in April 2015 without approval of Defence acquisition council and even some bureaucrats were shocked as they were yet not informed about the new deal (Rajgopal, 2018). This clearly proves that something suspicious has happened in the deal and if the majority of decision makers (Bureaucrats, Members of Defence acquisition council) were not involved than how the decision was taken in the deal. 

Another instance where a new controversy was created by the government was that the announcement of getting sovereign guarantee letter from France oversupply of Rafale Jet aircraft but in the Supreme Court the government submitted that there was no guarantee by the France government and France only gave Letter of Comfort. Usually in defence deal worth thousands of crores the partner company provides sovereign guarantee and then only deal is done but in the case of the Rafale, there was no such guarantee and government proceed with the deal (Rajgopal, French govt. didn`t guarantee Rafale deal, Centre tells SC, 2018). Also, the acceptance of the Letter of Comfort is a controversial thing as it has no legal validity in India (Sinha, 2018).

.

Conclusion:

At every stage of the deal government has made controversial statements by diverting the attention of people from the deal by making false statements and in the Supreme Court submitting the statements which were entirely different. For instance, statements pertaining to letter of sovereign guarantee and letter of comfort, statements pertaining to claiming Defence procurement procedure and denying of any such meeting prior to deal and statements pertaining to the price of aircraft Rs 670 crore versus Rs 1600 crore. The question arises that which statements to be relied on, why the government made different statements pertaining to deal and why the government has not accepted the joint parliamentary enquiry request. There are several constitutional provisions wherein the deals covered under official secret acts can be discussed with the Members of parliament under the special session of parliament wherein no telecast happens. Alternatively, details can also be disclosed to the leaders of the opposition and other Members as summoned by the leader of opposition in a secret room (Mitra, 2018). Whatever the case may be, the Supreme Court final verdict will decide the fate of INDIAN AIR FORCE and the RAFALE deal.