THE FINE PRINT OF THE RAFALE NEGOTIATIONS

The revelation that the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) was involved in parallel negotiations over the Rafale deal has excited furious press and political interest. However, there seems to be a sharp divide over how significant this is. The issue is simple. Is it a serious embarrassment for the government, as the opposition claims, or is it being exaggerated and misunderstood, as the government insists? But to answer that question one needs to start by answering four others. That’s what I want to do today.

First, was the PMO negotiating or simply involved in discussions? In an interview on television, Air Marshal SBP Sinha, the head of the Indian negotiating team, told me that the PMO was directly contacted by the French government after the Indian and French negotiating teams failed to solve the sovereign guarantee issue. The two governments reached an agreement between themselves to accept a letter of comfort instead of a sovereign guarantee and the Indian negotiating team accepted it. Put like that, the PMO’S involvement seems harmless. After all, whenever two negotiating teams can’t resolve a matter it has to be referred to their two respective governments. That’s all that happened.

However, the defence ministry seriously objected to this. So the second question we need to address is: why? Are there good reasons for criticising the PMO’S involvement? The then defence secretary, in a note written in his own hand and sent directly to the then defence minister Manohar Parrikar, said “It is desirable that such discussions be avoided by the PMO as it undermines our negotiation position seriously.” Now you can’t have stronger words than that. And they come from the top civil servant in the defence ministry. But were his worst fears realised or merely theoretical? The MOD note clearly states they were realised.

This is where we need a bit of detail. The defence ministry’s note establishes that the PMO intervened in two areas, over the sovereign guarantee versus letter of comfort debate and by agreeing that “the implementing court for a decision by (the) arbitration tribunal shall not be specifically Indian”. And what did the MOD note say about these two interventions? The outcomes agreed to by the PMO “are contradictory to the stand taken by the MOD and the negotiating team in both these field of constitutional governance and rule of law. The constitutional functionaries are expected to cultivate the understanding of constitutional renaissance by realisation of their constitutional responsibility and sincere acceptance of the summon to be obeisant to the constitutional conscience with a sense of reawakening to the vision of the great living document so as to enable true blossoming of the constitutional ideals. The Lieutenant Governor and the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister are to constantly remain alive to this idealism.”

Another instructive passage is “the LG is expected to honour the wisdom of the Council of Ministers. He is also expected to clear the files expeditiously and is not supposed to sit over it unduly. He’s under duty to bear in mind expediency and urgency of the subject matter of the decisions taken by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), wherever situation so demands. That in fact is the facet of good governance. Likewise, the aspects”. In other words, the PMO’S intervention actually set back India’s interests as viewed by the MOD and negotiating team. This should have alarmed Mr Parrikar. But did it?

To answer that, we need to examine the then defence minister Manohar Parrikar’s explanation for the PMO’S role. Is it convincing or confusing? That’s the third question. Parrikar said the PMO was “monitoring the progress of the issue”. But the MOD note says the PMO agreed to two measures “contradictory” to the MOD and the negotiating team’s stand. That’s clearly not monitoring. In fact, that’s definitely negotiating if not also interfering. And that leads to a fourth question. Was Mr Parrikar covering up for the PMO or did he fail to understand the true significance of the MOD note? This question still awaits an answer.

Seen in the light of the four issues I have raised, there’s a clear need for further explanation by the government. It certainly seems as if matters weren’t handled properly. Whether that suggests corruption is, however, a different matter. As yet, that’s by no means proven. But that, of course, won’t derail the charge that the government has let India down. Nor, unfortunately, is it an effective defence.

ARVIND KEJRIWAL IS NOT THE ONLY POLITICIAN TO MAKE DEPRECATING COMMENTS ABOUT THE JUDICIARY. OTHER POLITICIANS ALSO INDULGE IN THE SAME GAME

executive is also expected to give due deference to the unique nature of the role assigned to the LG in the Constitutional scheme. By and large, it demands a mutual respect between the two organs. Both should realise that they are here to serve the people of NCTD. Mutual cooperation, thus, becomes essential for the effective working of the system.”

These passages have made no impression on chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, who has regrettably attacked the judgment as undemocratic and against the spirit of the Constitution. Kejriwal is entitled to say that the judgment is erroneous and it is open to him to adopt appropriate remedies. But disparaging statements are utterly unbecoming of a chief minister of the national capital territory of Delhi.

To be fair, Kejriwal is not the only politician to make deprecating comments about the judiciary. Politicians belonging to other political parties, including the Congress and the BJP, also indulge in the same game. It is forgotten that an independent judiciary is not a political party.

It is a basic feature of our Constitution, the guardian and protector of our fundamental rights, a role, which, barring some exceptions, it has performed with courage and vision.