Rafale deal involved 'major and unprecedented concessions', says The Hindu. But sources say government allowed to take decisions in country's interest.
An editorial published in Shiv Sena's mouthpiece Saamana said that the PM was directly involved in Rafale deal, and will have to answer the allegations.
Parallel negotiations for purchase of Rafale fighter jets were believed to have been conducted by the Prime Minister’s Office, The Hindu report reveals.
The reasons for both sides preventing any escalation lie in the political and military context of the strategic situation in West Asia within the larger global geopolitical framework.
Economists say there are weaknesses in India’s GDP data. But statisticians claim the accusations are based on flawed understanding, saying while GDP has problems, the economists are looking in the wrong places.
Coaching centres for Army aspirants in Jhunjhunu are shutting down due to plummeting admissions in the face of a lack of job guarantees under Agnipath Scheme.
No JPC and an unjust SC.The sharp and pointed disclosures of govermental wrong doing is in the open.A cute liberal generation asks only for an apology for that is presumed ad statesmanship.Democracy and Constitution is in the hands of its worst enemies.Public monies can be spent or disbursed at will.Files can be reconstructed once the Supreme Premier only winks.India lies supine and trampled.
Yes , SC must reopen this case on priorty , & also punish the officer who mislead the H Sc . And save the credibility of SC & nations faith on judiciary .
The positions presented focus on the Rafales affair. But the real question : is justice really independent? Should the Supreme Court not be reformed? Should not its independence be assured? Should not the judges who make up this institute be above suspicion? The error is human indeed. But in recent times decisions have been made leaving a doubt about the independence of this institution.
Yes, there is no harm in the Apex Court revisiting the case. Review petition is already pending with SC. Instead of writing articles, let the critics argue these points in the court. However, there cannot be prejudgment of the SC verdict and presumption of a scam or corruption, when no evidence therefor exists.The CAG report is likely to be submitted soon. Let us also wait for their findings. One has to understand that insisting on sovereign guarantee and such other requirements as escrow account, inclusion of anti-corruption clauses as inviolable conditions of contract had its own costs. Due to protracted delay and indecision by the UPA government, India was at a weak bargaining position. Doing away with the French contract would have meant re-bidding and further delay in acquiring fighter air crafts. What about the cost of such delay? There is no such thing as zero risk in any decision making. One has to consider available options if India had to forgo contract with Dassault Aviation. We had only one real option – Eurofighter planes manufactured by a consortium of four nations- UK, Germany, Italy & Spain. Forget sovereign guarantee & escrow facility, even Inter-Government Agreement was not feasible in case of Eurofighter planes. Moreover, what stand these nations would take in the event of escalation of conflict between India and Pakistan is an imponderable. What about these risks?
That kind of sounds nice. So you are saying that the government wanted to quickly get the fighter aircrafts on the ground for IAF. Cool! However, as it turns out, its 2019, 4 yrs since Modi Sahab signed the deal and have you seen a single Rafael in the Indian skies? Answer is a big No, so there goes the urgency aspect of the excuse. It will still take 2 more years before we get a plane. Secondly, the IAF wanted 126, but is getting 36. Brilliant thinking? Hardly! They still need the numbers and will need to “restart” the whole process to buy the planes from scratch!
According to the UPA deal, it could have taken 11 years for complete delivery of all the planes, i.e. not considering possible time escalation and delays at HAL, which is a usual feature. Please don’t think that fighter aircrafts are available off the shelf- you swipe credit card and get delivery via Amazon. Three to four years is the minimum period required for any supplier. By the way please also read section 71 of DPP 2013, which stipulate that inclusion of standard clauses in case of IGA is not mandatory. Justification released by the government also needs to be taken into account. My contention is simple – inclusion or exclusion of such conditions are a matter of opinion, depending on the circumstances of each case. It need not be a scam. Still, if you scent a scam, go to Supreme Court. No point engaging in futile and wasteful debate.
That’s precisely the point, that they are not orderable like Amazon. Sahab changed the deal and the first batch of 18 aircrafts which would have been fully inducted by next year now gets delayed by another 4 years. Secondly, getting planes in batches from HAL is much much better than starting new MMRCA, for which the technical evaluation itself by IAF will take at least 5 years. On top of it , there will be a big headache for IAF in terms of maintaining the small set of Rafael’s. You need the complete supply chain behind each aircraft to keep it in flying condition. Anyways you look at it, this 36 aircraft deal doesn’t make sense.
The apex court’s judgment does not bring a sense of closure. Nor does the CAG report, since it has been unable to address the issue of pricing.
No JPC and an unjust SC.The sharp and pointed disclosures of govermental wrong doing is in the open.A cute liberal generation asks only for an apology for that is presumed ad statesmanship.Democracy and Constitution is in the hands of its worst enemies.Public monies can be spent or disbursed at will.Files can be reconstructed once the Supreme Premier only winks.India lies supine and trampled.
Yes , SC must reopen this case on priorty , & also punish the officer who mislead the H Sc . And save the credibility of SC & nations faith on judiciary .
The positions presented focus on the Rafales affair. But the real question : is justice really independent? Should the Supreme Court not be reformed? Should not its independence be assured? Should not the judges who make up this institute be above suspicion? The error is human indeed. But in recent times decisions have been made leaving a doubt about the independence of this institution.
Yes, there is no harm in the Apex Court revisiting the case. Review petition is already pending with SC. Instead of writing articles, let the critics argue these points in the court. However, there cannot be prejudgment of the SC verdict and presumption of a scam or corruption, when no evidence therefor exists.The CAG report is likely to be submitted soon. Let us also wait for their findings. One has to understand that insisting on sovereign guarantee and such other requirements as escrow account, inclusion of anti-corruption clauses as inviolable conditions of contract had its own costs. Due to protracted delay and indecision by the UPA government, India was at a weak bargaining position. Doing away with the French contract would have meant re-bidding and further delay in acquiring fighter air crafts. What about the cost of such delay? There is no such thing as zero risk in any decision making. One has to consider available options if India had to forgo contract with Dassault Aviation. We had only one real option – Eurofighter planes manufactured by a consortium of four nations- UK, Germany, Italy & Spain. Forget sovereign guarantee & escrow facility, even Inter-Government Agreement was not feasible in case of Eurofighter planes. Moreover, what stand these nations would take in the event of escalation of conflict between India and Pakistan is an imponderable. What about these risks?
That kind of sounds nice. So you are saying that the government wanted to quickly get the fighter aircrafts on the ground for IAF. Cool! However, as it turns out, its 2019, 4 yrs since Modi Sahab signed the deal and have you seen a single Rafael in the Indian skies? Answer is a big No, so there goes the urgency aspect of the excuse. It will still take 2 more years before we get a plane. Secondly, the IAF wanted 126, but is getting 36. Brilliant thinking? Hardly! They still need the numbers and will need to “restart” the whole process to buy the planes from scratch!
According to the UPA deal, it could have taken 11 years for complete delivery of all the planes, i.e. not considering possible time escalation and delays at HAL, which is a usual feature. Please don’t think that fighter aircrafts are available off the shelf- you swipe credit card and get delivery via Amazon. Three to four years is the minimum period required for any supplier. By the way please also read section 71 of DPP 2013, which stipulate that inclusion of standard clauses in case of IGA is not mandatory. Justification released by the government also needs to be taken into account. My contention is simple – inclusion or exclusion of such conditions are a matter of opinion, depending on the circumstances of each case. It need not be a scam. Still, if you scent a scam, go to Supreme Court. No point engaging in futile and wasteful debate.
That’s precisely the point, that they are not orderable like Amazon. Sahab changed the deal and the first batch of 18 aircrafts which would have been fully inducted by next year now gets delayed by another 4 years. Secondly, getting planes in batches from HAL is much much better than starting new MMRCA, for which the technical evaluation itself by IAF will take at least 5 years. On top of it , there will be a big headache for IAF in terms of maintaining the small set of Rafael’s. You need the complete supply chain behind each aircraft to keep it in flying condition. Anyways you look at it, this 36 aircraft deal doesn’t make sense.