scorecardresearch
Friday, March 29, 2024
Support Our Journalism
HomeTalk PointThere is no overwhelming reason why defence deals should be treated with...

There is no overwhelming reason why defence deals should be treated with kid gloves

Follow Us :
Text Size:

The recent muckraking over the Rafale fighter jet deal has seen shots being exchanged between the Congress and the BJP over alleged overpricing and crony capitalism. The deal has a complicated history, starting from a selection by the UPA and a signing by the NDA in 2016. As the debate heats up, we ask: 

Is political debate on defence deals like the Rafale fighter jet necessary for accountability?

A disclosure upfront is apt: for readers, and for my personal ethics and internal moral compass. As a former government official working in the Ministry of Defence when the Rafale deal was underway, and thereby was (naturally) associated, it would be improper on my part to say anything specific about the Rafale deal that may remotely betray my bias. I would rather that I speak about defence deals in generic terms.

Given that ours is a constitutional democracy built on the philosophy of separation of power and with checks and balances embedded in its architecture to ensure rule of law, any curtailment or diminution of debate on public issues on spends from public funds shall tantamount to negation of a functional democratic construct. That wouldn’t be in order.

Defence outlays are humongous and they – like all government-funded schemes/projects – are funded from the taxpayers’ money.

The public has every right to know if their money has been spent well – diligently, after exploring all possibilities – under given circumstances/constraints by public officials on whom they (helplessly though!) repose trust. There can be no ostensible or overwhelming reason why defence deal(s), much like other spends in social sectors, should be treated differently – with kid gloves. Debate is the essence of democracy and a good debate is a sine qua non to keep democracy vibrant and pulsating.

After all, what’s the role of the legislature if not to question and debate the executive’s actions or the lack of it? It’s entirely reasonable for legislators to hold the executive accountable and pillory it whenever the latter goes wrong to ensure accountability. It’s a different matter that the debate, far from being informed and well-reasoned, often degenerates into bitter personal/party dueling, exemplified in subtle shading of the real and selective masking of the truth through specious/ingenious ad hominem insinuations. Post-truth! But that still isn’t reason enough to throw the baby with the bathwater.

I would go a step ahead. Given the whopping defence spends from public funds and the attendant scams that often have visited past modernisation projects, there’s a need to reduce opacity. Secrecy masking technical details and longwinded processes in MoD spawns doubts and senseless debates. How misplaced this is can be gauged were one to mull over this futility by accounting for worldwide technological advancements. How prudent is it then to hog on to this antediluvian practice when secret/classified information selectively (even conveniently) leaked can be better redressed by ratcheting up transparency? How best this can be invoked is, of course, a challenge demanding careful attention. But that’s the way to go, not by stanching debates – political or otherwise.

Sudhansu Mohanty is Former Financial Advisor Defence Services (FADS), Ministry of Defence.

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube, Telegram & WhatsApp

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

2 COMMENTS

  1. Instead of raking up the matter in political public rallies, the matter needs to be debated in very informed manner in parliament and thence if necessary subjected to rigorous scrutiny by select parliamentary committee to vindicate transparency and assure accountability in the deal . In the interim , statutory audit should be carried out by C&A.G.to facilitate select committee of parliamentarians to carry out their constitutional mandate . This is only the beginning ,the problem will start once contract period kicks off. Contract management has been the weakest link in the MO.D..armory and the present contract with 50%set- off clause ( made in India component ) with a tight time schedule is bound to go hay wire , considering the state of preparedness of private Indian collaborators and the requirement of very high precision components matching Rafale’s own specifications. This is not a point of debate for uninformed, inadequately informed public ,but a matter to be seized by auditors of G.O.I. in close and protracted consultation s with aeronautical engineers of national standing .Only with the financial and physical closure of the project Indian informed public will be wise with the final cost of a Rafael jet fighter . One needs to study the fine prints of contract and state of final deliveries from collaborative manufacture , factoring in time and cost overruns to get a fair appreciation of the deal.

  2. Very true. Instead of keeping away from the public gaze there is absolute need for making everything about defence as transparent as possible. It is unjust and undemocratic to keep the defence deals shroudedin mystery in the garb of national interest. The author with his rich experience in Defence finance is the right to bell the cat

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular