Former French President Hollande is contradicting himself. This makes the veracity of his claims very questionable.
A controversy is sought to be created on the basis of a statement made by the former French President Hollande, that the Reliance Defence ‘partnership’ with Dassault Aviation was entered at the suggestion of the Indian Government. In a subsequent statement the former President has sought to suggest that Reliance Defence emerged on the scene after the agreement with the Indian Government was entered into. He has, in a subsequent statement, said that he is ‘not aware’ if Government ever lobbied for Reliance Defence and that ‘the partners chose themselves’. Truth cannot have two versions.
The French Government and M/s Dassault Aviation have categorically denied the correctness of the former President’s first statement. The French Government has stated that the decision with regard to the offset contracts of Dassault Aviation are taken by the company and not the Government. Dassault Aviation itself has suggested that they have entered into multiple contracts with several public sector and private sector companies with regard to the offset contracts and the decision is entirely theirs.
Without commenting on the correctness or otherwise of a controversy in the French media, it may be mentioned that the former French President, Hollande, is countering statement made against him with regard to a conflict of interest in his dealing with the Reliance Defence.
Also Read: Rafale row gets nasty as Rahul Gandhi calls PM Modi ‘a thief’
The accuracy of the statements made by the individuals may be questioned but circumstances never lie. This is evident from the following facts:
There is no ‘partnership’, as suggested by the former President, with regard to the 36 Rafale aircrafts to be supplied by Dassault Aviation to the Government of India. It was a Government to Government agreement under which the complete weaponised aircrafts are to come to the Indian Air Force. No manufacturing is to be done in India. It is, therefore, erroneous for anybody to suggest that there is a ‘partnership’ in the supply of the 36 Rafale aircrafts.
M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd., in February, 2012, had entered into an MoU with Dassault Aviation. This was reported by the PTI on 12.2.2012. This was at a stage when the contract relating to 126 Rafale aircrafts, of which 18 were to be manufactured in France and 108 in India, was at an advance stage of consideration by the UPA Government. Rahul Gandhi’s misplaced criticism could equally apply to the 2012 MoU.
The offset contract ensures investment by the original equipment supplier i.e. Dassault Aviation, in India, in as much as they make purchases from Indian companies to the extent of fifty percent (in this case). The choice of the offset partner under the 2005 offset policy is of M/s Dassault Aviation and they have selected several public and private sector companies to make the supplies.
The offset partner is selected entirely by the Dassault Aviation, the original equipment manufacturer, and neither the French Government and nor the Indian Government has any say in the matter.
It is no coincidence that on 30.8.2018 Shri Rahul Gandhi had tweeted that “Globalised corruption. This #Rafale aircraft really does fly far and fast! It’s also going to drop some big bunker buster bombs in the next couple of weeks.”
The former French President’s first statement rhymes with Rahul Gandhi’s prediction.
The Congress Party’s official handle on 31.8.2018 had carried the tweet of one of its leader “It is evident that Anil Ambani bribed President Hollande through his actor-partner to get the Dassault partnership.” For the Congress Party to allege that a former President had been bribed by an Indian business group and then use him as a primary witness, particularly when he is facing criticism for an alleged conflict of interest within his own country.
The former French President’s first statement that the Indian business group’s name was proposed by Government of India has now been substituted by him to the effect that the suggestion he is ‘not aware’ of the Government of India ever lobbied for Reliance Defence. He further said that the ‘partners’ chose themselves (AFP Report dated 22.9.2018).
Rahul Gandhi has made an absurd suggestion that the interest of Indian soldiers has been compromised with. By whom? The UPA which delayed the acquisition which would have added to the Military’s combat ability or the NDA which expedited the same at a lower cost.
Also Read: Not involved in choice of Indian partners for Rafale deal, says French govt
The conclusion
One Reliance Group was a part of this deal since 2012. It dropped out of defence production. The other Reliance Group was already in defence. They are not partners in the Rafale deal. They have no contract with either Government of India or Government of France. They were not selected as one of the many offset partners by any Government. ‘The partners (Dassault and Reliance) selected themselves’ as former President Hollande now says. This contradicts his first questionable statement which the French Government and Dassault have denied. The facts contradict the same. His second statement in Montreal, Canada to AFP makes the veracity of his first statement even more questionable.
This article was originally published on Facebook.
The ignoramuses in India are barking at the wrong tree, without understanding the real context or without taking a holistic picture as to why Hollande made this statement that it was Modi’s decision. For the French whether Modi influenced the decision to partner with Ambani is of no significance as the damage that will cause to Desalt, a public institution, by this collaboration with a company with no experience and ill reputation.People in the know there see a security risk for Desalt in its partnership with Reliance.They can not allow to happen to such a national asset, Dessault. And they wanted a to find out how and why Reliance was chosen.They suspected it was because the dealings Ambani had with Hollande’s companion in producing the film.And questions were raised accordingly. Hollande clarified the position visa vis his companion’s purported roll. Go through the full text of the report to find out that it was only a one line mention by Hollande that it was Modi’s decision.That is all.Clarification happens to hit hornet’s nest in India. Hollande was not so much concerned about protecting or causing any harm to Modi as much as protecting his partner’s as well as his reputation. The story is not over. Desalt might have chosen Reliance which is its prerogative..Desalt will have to give proper explanation as to why they chose Reliance.Be sure the French public will bring out the full story, for their sake not for India’s.Then the whole picture will be clear.One thing is certain the French, at least the knowledgeable ones think that Reliance is a liability and catastrophe for Dessault, whatever Modi and his cohorts think .
Thank you
Modi will not talk.So the least he can do is to issue a simple statement that Hollande is lying when he says that it was Indian government’s recommendation that reliance should be the off set partner.if lying is too harsh a word can he state categorically that Hollande was not speaking the truth
Mr. Jaitely is absolutely right. Firstly, in just one article he exposed that Rahul Gandhi’s theory about price variance was just an hoax. Thereafter, RG stopped talking about price variation and has focused on the offset arrangement, even without understanding what the offset arrangement means. Essentially, all defence purchases involve a big outgo of foreign exchange. To offset this outgo the seller agrees to purchase some products from the buyer country. This purchase, though caused by defence purchase need not have any relation with the original purchase. Here, in case of Rafale purchase, the seller Dassault Aviation has agreed to purchase goods worth ₹.30,000 crore for its future needs. Being an aviation company this will be in the form of components and parts for its products, not necessarily for Rafale aircrafts. Due to difference in time scales, none of these parts and components are likely to be used in the 36 planes to be delivered by Dassault. So, how this help our defence preparedness? Except for receipt of 36 aircrafts, none whatsoever. Then what does our country gain – Exports worth ₹.30,000 crore, employment and availability of a foreign technology. Should this be restricted to Public Sector HAL? Not necessarily. Even if the Dassault ties up with a private sector entity, the benefit will no less. Now why Anil Ambani? As per available information, the export orders will distributed amongst many Indian entities including HAL. Should the government have pushed Ambani’s name? Well, we don’t know. Mr Hollande has prevaricated and changed his version. Should the government push names of private sector companies for getting export orders? Certainly yes. If France can go to the extent of signing a deal with India so that it’s private sector entity Dassault gets an export order for supply of planes, does it mean that French government has indulged in corruption? Corruption can only be established if there is an evidence of quid-pro-quo between Anil Ambani and Narendra Modi. Where is the quid-pro-quo Mr.Rahul Gandhi?
“..Corruption can only be established if there is an evidence of quid-pro-quo between Anil Ambani and Narendra Modi..”
Quid pro quo need not always be of TANGIBLE nature. A favor can also be done strictly for EGO SATISFACTION. If that is what gives a person a feeling of fulfillment, then that is a GRATIFICATION OBTAINED by virtue of one’s position. That, in common parlance is “corruption”. If I was the medium through which you gained that sense of happiness or satisfaction or fulfilment, then I GAVE YOU SOMETHING which you couldn’t have gotten by yourself. You were clean in your aloofness, I came and CORRUPTED you by making you misuse your power or influence.
Mr Patil, you argument about government pushing private firm for exports is completely flawed – no law will ever allow you to do. No self-respecting individual will ever do it – if he or she is honest. Government does not push individuals, it creates a policy environment where individuals (and companies) compete with each other to win. Pushing individuals is called cronyism – same ways as the ‘phone banking’ – referred by Modi himself. Why then one rule for himself and other rule for the rest?
A debt laden company with no defence experience winning a contract to be defence supplier to a world leading manufacturer – what does it tell you? Let us not get blinded by the silly arguments that are being thrown at us by self-serving politicians. Mr Ambani called Mr Modi a “king of kings’ – which world are we living in? Is it a democracy or a medieval age where people suspended the use of their brain on praise by others. Mr Modi decided the deal without consulting anyone and without following the due process. What does he think? Is he God or the King? Why do we need get fooled?
The confusion is being caused by the continued use of the name, RELIANCE even when the two sons of Dhirubhai Ambani, Mukesh and Anil have parted ways, and now head two DIFFERENT sets of companies which are vastly different in financial strength.
Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance industries was in the picture when the Rafael deal was being talked about by the UPA government. THAT Reliance company was financially very strong, but UPA’s discussions couldn’t be brought to fruition, so the matter ended there.
Now in the second version of the same discussions the protagonists from Indian side have changed: government has changed from UPA to NDA, and Mukesh Ambani has been replaced by his younger brother Anil Ambani who too runs a company called “Reliance” (Infrastructure Ltd.), but which is a dwarf in financial strength compared to Mukesh’s company by the same name.
And this is what everyone is crying foul about. In a lighter vein, it’s like showing the picture of one brother for marriage and actually sending the other brother for the actual ceremony!
The Dassault-Reliance manufacturing facility that was inaugurated on 27 October 2017 was IN THE PRESENCE of the current Dassault chairman and Anil Ambani, and after the deal had been signed. Mukesh Ambani, the owner of the SOLID Reliance was, and is, no where in the picture.
The moot point therefore is, “Is Mukesh Ambani UNDERWRITING the ambitious venture of his younger brother?”
To the best of everyone’s knowledge, NO. That’s why common men and politicians alike are asking this question — “why overrule an EXPERIENCED HAL in favor of a company that knows not even the ABC of plane manufacturing, let alone a state of the art fighter jet?
The present NDA government is going to great pains to say that the offset partner had been chosen by Dassault itself. That well might be true. But the question then arises is, knowing the “reality” of Mr Anil Ambani’s Reliance, why didn’t the NDA government caution Dassault — why did it NOT VETO THAT ALLIANCE in national interest?
What is the great genius involved in making this statement, Sir. Tell us what the truth is without hiding behind national security and without putting out silly arguments about confidentiality – 1. how can price be confidential and 2. How are some retired services officers defending the self-serving politicians with details that should not be public domain? I am sure that you are intelligent enough to know that an average Indian is not foolish.