English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Rafale deal: Congress launches fresh attack, alleges crony capitalism to favour Reliance

Published

on

Rafale deal

The Congress on Friday came out with a fresh set of papers accusing the Modi government of deceiving the country and saying that Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman “misled” the nation on the Rafale fighter aircraft deal.

The Congress focused on award of offset contract to Reliance Defence Ltd and alleged that something was amiss in grant of the contract.

Although the offset contract given to the Dassault Reliance Aerospace Limited – a joint venture between RDL and Dassault – is worth Rs 30,000 crore, the Congress released RIL’s papers which claimed that “a consequent Lifecycle Cost Contract” of Rs 1 lakh crore was also awarded to it.

Congress president Rahul Gandhi tweeted on Friday evening, “Dear Trolls, I apologise for my earlier tweet in which I stated Mr 56’s friend’s JV, received 4 Billion US$’s of “offset” contracts. I forgot to add the 16 Billion US$ RAFALE “lifecycle” contract. 20 BILLION US$, is the actual benefit. So Sorry!! #130000CroreRafaleScam”

AICC communication department head Randeep Surjewala said, “What is surprising is that one of the biggest defence offset contracts went to a company, Reliance Defence Ltd Reliance Defence was incorporated on March 28, 2015, just 12 days before the announcement of purchase of 36 Rafale aircrafts by PM in France on 10th April, 2015. The company Reliance Defence Ltd. did not have the license to manufacture fighter aircrafts at that time.”

Surjewala placed records of the ministry of corporate affairs, RIL’s press releases and company records to make his point that the Modi government had gifted the Anil Ambani-owned company a huge defence contract despite the fact that it neither had any industry experience nor any required assets, said a report in The Wire.

He highlighted a separate contract around the same time of the Rafale deal in which RDL’s sister company, Reliance Aerostructure Ltd benefitted. “Another subsidiary of RIL, Reliance Aerostructure Ltd (RAL), was given the license to manufacture fighter aircraft in 2016 around the same time when RDL got the offset contract in the Rafale deal.”

Surjewala claimed that RAL, which was “given the industrial licence to manufacture fighter aircraft” on February 22, 2016, did not own any land or building when it applied for the licence, reported The Indian Express (IE).

“In its licence application for manufacturing fighter aircraft, Reliance Aerostructure Ltd has given its address and location as ‘Survey No. 589, Taluka Jafrabad, Village Lunsapur, District Amreli, Gujarat’. At that time, these premises were not owned by Reliance Aerostructure. The address belonged to Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering Co Ltd,” the Congress leader was quoted by IE as saying.

Surjewala said 2015-16 annual report of the Reliance Group itself says that “acquisition of Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering Co. was successfully completed in January 2016.”

“Even on the date of license i.e 22.02.2016, Reliance Aerostructure Ltd. did not own the land or building at the aforesaid address. It was Reliance Defence Ltd. that acquired the company only on 18.01.2016 and name was then changed to Reliance Defence and Engineering Limited,” Surjewala was quoted as saying by The Wire.

He cited the company’s annual report 2015-16, page number 5 to substantiate his allegation. Similarly, he said even RAL was allotted 104 acres in Mihan SEZ, Nagpur, Maharashtra on 28 August 2015 for around Rs 63 crore, which was paid only in July, 2017. “So when the RAL was awarded the license to manufacture fighter aircrafts, it technically had no assets of its own. Is the Modi government serious about our country’s security?”

Surjewala also alleged that there were discrepancies in the Defence Ministry’s statement and the annual report of Dassault Aviation. The defence ministry’s statement issued on February 7, 2018 claimed “no Indian offset partner for the 2016 deal for 36 Rafale aircraft has been selected by the vendor [DA]”

But, the 2016 annual report of Dassault Aviation clearly stated Anil Ambani-led Reliance Group will “manage its offsets provided for in the country by the Make in India initiative”.

The Congress further alleged that on February 16, 2017, a press release from Reliance Defence Ltd., the joint venture partner, put the value of the deal at €7.87 billion, or approximately Rs. 60,000 crore, despite the Modi government claiming it cannot disclose it owing to a secrecy clause.

He also quoted a “investor presentation” slide of Reliance Infrastructure which talks about the joint-venture with Dassault Aviation. It talks about the offset contract worth Rs 30,000 crore, and that “life cycle opportunity (is) estimated at Rs 1 lakh crore over 50 years”.

Targeting defence minister Nirmala Sitharaman, Surjewala said that the ministry of defence had issued a press release on February, 7, 2018, which said, “…no Indian Offset Partner for the 2016 deal for 36 Rafale Aircrafts has been so far selected by the vendor (Dassault Aviation) because as per the applicable guidelines, Dassault Aviation is free to select the Indian Offset Partners and provide their details at the time of seeking offset credits, or one year prior to discharge of offset obligation”.

However, he said that RIL had issued a press release a year earlier on February 16, 2017, to announce that it had secured the offset contract in the Rafale deal. “Even Dassault Aviation in its Annual Report 2016-17 has claimed that ‘offset contract’ is being executed by Reliance.” Surjewala said.

Surjewala asked, “The simple question is, who is lying: the Defence Minister or Reliance/Dassault Aviation?”

He further said that if Dassault was free to choose its offset partner, as the defence ministry claims, it would be a clear violation of guidelines in such matters.

He said that the Defence Offset Contract Guidelines issued by the Defence Offset Management Wing (DOMW) of the Defence Ministry stipulates that all offset proposals will be approved by Defence Minister and approved by the Acquisition Manager. The guidelines, he said, also says the vender will submit six-monthly reports and that an officer of DOMW may conduct an audit to verify the actual status of implementation.

“The defence offset guideline warrant and mandate that every offset contract has to be approved by the Defence Minister. Did she approve it? If she did not approve it, how did she permit Dassault Aviation to handover the contract to a private company superseding a Government company? It only shows that the national interest was being compromised by the Prime Minister and Defence Minister of India,” he said.

The Congress alleged that the Modi government cancelled the UPA government’s deal that mandated government-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. only to suit a private company.

“The culture of crony capitalism is the DNA of the Modi government. It is truer than ever in case of the Rs. 60,145 crore Rafale deal …. Does the Prime Minister represent the interest of private companies and private industrial houses or is his duty and obligation to protect an existing signed contract between an experienced government company,” asked Surjewala.

India News

Students have eyes too: Rahul Gandhi hits back at Rijiju over protest injuries

Rahul Gandhi challenged Kiren Rijiju’s claim that no serious injuries occurred during the July 20 student protests, alleging brutal police action.

Published

on

Rahul Gandhi on Tuesday hit back at Union Minister Kiren Rijiju over his claim that no student suffered serious injuries during the student protests in Delhi last month, saying he had personally met injured protesters.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha also alleged that police used pellet guns and lathis studded with nails against students during the July 20 march towards Parliament.

Gandhi shared a video of Kiren Rijiju’s remarks on X and questioned the government’s account of the police action during the protests.

“Ministers of the Modi government are saying that ‘the Delhi Police should be praised’. Half a kilometre from Parliament, pellet guns were fired at peaceful students, lathis studded with nails were used, one child’s eye was lost, one girl’s ear was severed. Should we praise this brutality?” Gandhi said in his post.

The Congress leader said he had met several injured students himself and claimed that videos of the police action had been widely viewed.

Rahul Gandhi attacks Centre over student protests

Gandhi accused the government of trying to deny what protesters allegedly experienced during the July 20 demonstration.

“The fundamental mantra of this government is untruth and violence,” he alleged, adding that attempts to deny the injuries would not change what had happened.

He further said, “Don’t lie to the children of this country. They have eyes and memories too.”

The July 20 protest involved students marching towards Parliament while demanding the resignation of then Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

What Kiren Rijiju said about the protests

Rijiju, who holds the Minority Affairs and Parliamentary Affairs portfolios, defended the handling of the protests and said the Delhi Police and administration deserved praise.

During an interview with a news agency, Rijiju said no person had died during the protest and claimed that no protester suffered a broken bone or was admitted to hospital with a serious injury.

“Not a single person died, not a single person suffered a broken bone. Not a single protester is admitted to the hospital with a serious injury,” he said.

Rijiju also alleged that people associated with various political groups had joined the protest and contributed to tensions.

He said the police acted only when protesters attempted to march towards Parliament and maintained that the administration handled the situation peacefully.

“In this case, one ought to praise the Delhi Police and the administration,” the minister said, arguing that no death or serious injury had occurred despite the scale of the demonstration.

Rahul Gandhi questions police action

Responding to Rijiju’s remarks, Gandhi questioned how the police action could be praised while alleging that protesters had sustained serious injuries.

His allegations about pellet firing, nail-studded lathis and specific injuries were presented by him as part of his criticism of the government’s account of the protest.

Rijiju, however, maintained that the Delhi Police did not use lathis during the protest and rejected the suggestion that the police response resulted in serious injuries.

The two accounts remain sharply at odds over the nature and severity of injuries suffered during the July 20 student protest.

Continue Reading

India News

Book Mahatma Gandhi Too: Kharge on Sonia, Rahul Vande Mataram complaint

Mallikarjun Kharge questioned the complaint against Sonia and Rahul Gandhi over the Vande Mataram rendition row and defended the Congress’s position.

Published

on

mallikarjun-kharge

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge on Tuesday questioned the basis of a complaint filed against Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi over an alleged attempt to disrupt the singing of Vande Mataram at the party headquarters.

Kharge argued that if singing the version of Vande Mataram performed by the Congress was considered a crime, then similar complaints should also be made against Mahatma Gandhi and former prime ministers Jawaharlal Nehru and Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

The remarks came amid a political row over the rendition of the national song during the Congress’s Independence Day celebrations at its headquarters on Saturday. BJP leaders had alleged that Sonia Gandhi signaled for the full rendition to be stopped.

The Congress has rejected the allegation. Party leader Udit Raj said Sonia Gandhi’s gesture was related to arranging a chair for Kharge, who, according to the party, was unable to stand for a long period.

Kharge questions complaint against Sonia, Rahul

Kharge said the Congress had been singing the same version of Vande Mataram for years and questioned why the party’s leaders were being targeted over it.

He referred to the use of the same version by Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru and also cited the period when Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s government was in power.

Kharge said that if the rendition amounted to a crime, then those who had previously sung the same version should also face complaints. He also said the Congress had passed a resolution concerning national songs before many of its current critics were born.

What Congress said about Sonia Gandhi’s gesture

The controversy began after the Vande Mataram rendition at the Congress headquarters during the Independence Day event.

According to the allegations, Sonia Gandhi noticed that the singers were continuing with the full version and appeared to gesture towards Kharge before communicating with the singers.

The Congress disputed this interpretation. Udit Raj said Sonia Gandhi was instead gesturing about arrangements for Kharge, who had been standing for a considerable period.

Complaint filed against Sonia, Rahul Gandhi

A complaint was filed with the Delhi Police on Monday against Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. The complainant sought registration of an FIR over the alleged attempt to disrupt the singing of Vande Mataram at the Congress headquarters.

The controversy continued on Monday when Kharge participated in a Vande Mataram rendition in Goa ahead of a Congress convention. The version sung there included the first two stanzas.

The row comes after the Centre made singing Vande Mataram in its entirety mandatory at public gatherings, schools and official government functions, among other places. Parliament has also passed legislation making intentional obstruction, disruption or prevention of the singing of Vande Mataram a criminal offence, according to the report.

Continue Reading

India News

Champat Rai, Anil Mishra get clean chit in Ram Temple donation theft case 

The SIT probing alleged donation theft at the Ayodhya Ram Temple has cleared former Trust general secretary Champat Rai and former member Anil Mishra.

Published

on

The Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing alleged irregularities in donation management at the Ayodhya Ram Temple has cleared former Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust general secretary Champat Rai and former Trust member Anil Mishra.

The Uttar Pradesh Home Department on Monday handed over the SIT’s final report to the Trust, which will now take further action based on the findings.

Rai and Mishra had resigned from their positions on June 27 after allegations of donation theft emerged. The two former Trust members were subsequently questioned by the SIT about the temple’s donation management process.

Champat Rai denied involvement in donation theft

According to sources, Champat Rai told investigators during questioning that he had no role in the alleged theft. He reportedly said that the suspects were arrested following his complaint.

Rai also told the police that ensuring there were no irregularities in donation collection was part of his responsibility and that he acted after learning about the alleged wrongdoing.

SIT was formed before Supreme Court intervention

The three-member SIT was constituted by the Uttar Pradesh government on June 13 at the request of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust.

Lucknow Divisional Commissioner Vijay Vishwas Pant headed the panel. Range Inspector General Kiran S and Special Secretary (Finance) Neel Ratan Kumar were the other members.

The SIT submitted its preliminary report to the state government on June 23 and made several stringent recommendations.

Following the preliminary report, Trust member Krishnamohan filed a written complaint at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi police station. An FIR was subsequently registered on June 25.

Eight people named in FIR

The FIR named Avinash Shukla, Anukalp Mishra, Lavkush Mishra, Manish Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pandey, Ramashankar Mishra, Subhash Srivastava and Ram Shankar Yadav, alias Tinnu, along with other unidentified individuals.

According to the provided report, all eight named accused were arrested and booked under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The SIT’s preliminary findings also formed the basis for subsequent FIRs and arrest-related action in the case.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com