English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Rafale deal controversy: French government’s statement, what is says, what it doesn’t

Published

on

Rafale deal controversy: French government’s statement, what is says, what it doesn’t

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Congress president Rahul Gandhi’s statement in Lok Sabha, during the debate on no-confidence motion against Narendra Modi government, that there was no secrecy pact between India and France over deal for purchase of Rafale aircraft, was countered by French government within hours.

The statement issued by the French government affirmed that a secrecy pact exists between the two countries. The statement, however, only said the agreement “legally binds the two states to protect the classified information provided by the partner, that could impact security and operational capabilities of the defence equipment”.

However, Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman stretched the meaning of “classified information… that could impact security and operational capabilities of the defence equipment” to include the aircraft price.

Also lost in the noise was the aspect of shunting out public sector’s Hindustan Aeronautcis Limited, which has been making fighter aircraft for decades, and giving the contract to a private player with no background or experience in the field.

Read More:  Hug gone wrong? BJP to bring privilege motion against Rahul Gandhi for his allegations on Rafale deal

In its statement issued from Paris, the French foreign ministry said: “We have noted the statement of Mr Rahul Gandhi before the Indian Parliament. France and India concluded in 2008 a security agreement, which legally binds the two states to protect the classified information provided by the partner, that could impact security and operational capabilities of the defence equipment of India or France. These provisions naturally apply to the IGA concluded on 23 September 2016, on the acquisition of 36 Rafale aircraft and their weapons. As the President of the French Republic indicated publicly in an interview to India Today on March 9, 2018, ‘In India and in France, when a deal is very sensitive, we can’t reveal all details’.”

Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman also contradicted Rahul and cited Article 10 of the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) between the two countries on the purchase of Rafale aircraft, which calls for the protection of classified information and materials exchanged under the pact.

She said this agreement was signed in 2008 by UPA government’s defence minister AK Anthony – which wasn’t quite accurate. That deal was junked and replaced by another in 2016, as mentioned in French government’s statement.

Read More: No confidence motion: After a scathing attack, Rahul Gandhi hugs PM Modi

As in the French government’s statement yesterday – Friday, July 20 – even in the interview that French president Macron gave to India Today, he did not say Indian government could not disclose the aircraft cost. He said, “…they will have to consider which details they would want to be revealed to the opposition and Parliament.”[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1532169050900{padding-top: 10px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #a2b1bf !important;border-radius: 10px !important;}”]Here is the relevant portion of the interview:

Raj Chengappa: Why can’t the details of the deal be revealed and the air cleared up rather than have accusations flying around?

President Macron: First of all, you have these commercial agreements, and obviously you have competitors and we can’t let them know details of the deal. In India and in France, when the deal is very sensitive, we can’t reveal details because of business reasons. Part of the absence of answers to some technical issues is these commercial agreements and the interests of different companies. Secondly, there are some discussions to be organised by the Indian government, and they will have to consider which details they would want to be revealed to the opposition and Parliament. I am not the one to interfere in such a discussion, and you too must realise that we have to consider commercial sensitivities.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]When Macron visited India in March this year, the two sides signed a new confidentiality agreement, replacing the 2008 pact, that shields the government from sharing classified information on defence deals, including the Rafale fighter aircraft deal, said a report in The Indian Express (IE). The pact, signed by NSA Ajit Doval and the French President’s diplomatic advisor Philippe Etienne, relates to the exchange and reciprocal protection of classified or protected information.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1532169104071{padding-top: 10px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #a2b1bf !important;border-radius: 10px !important;}”]Who said what in Parliament

Congress president Rahul Gandhi, while speaking in the Lok Sabha, said: “The defence minister is sitting here. She had initially said she will disclose to the nation the price of the aircraft. Later, the defence minister clearly said she cannot divulge the details because there is a secrecy pact with France. I met the French President. I asked him is there any such pact between India and France. And the French President told me that there is no such pact between the Indian government and French government. That is the truth… Nirmala Sitharaman has spoken untruth, under pressure from Narendra Modi… Nirmala Sitharaman and the Prime Minister must inform the country.”

Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, who was allowed to speak after Rahul’s hour-long speech, said: “On the secrecy clause, I would like to show it before you, and I have submitted it for your consideration. It is an agreement which was signed during the previous government on January 25, 2008. The agreement of secrecy is an umbrella agreement, which was signed by then defence minister, A K Antony.”

Waving the agreement, she said, “This agreement clearly mentions… (that) ‘as per Article 10 of the Inter-Governmental Agreement between Government of India and Government of France on the purchase of Rafale aircraft, the protection of the classified information and materials exchanged under the IGA shall be governed by the provisions of the security agreement signed on 25 January 2008’.”

Prime Minister Narendra Modi also referred to the issue in his speech. “Just because of one careless allegation in the House on Rafale, both the nations had to release statements. One should not indulge in such childish behaviour,” he said.

Rahul, however, said he stood by his statement in Parliament. “Let them deny if they want. He (Macron) said that before me. I was there, Anand Sharma and former prime minister Manmohan Singh were also there,” he said.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]The controversy first broke out on February 5 this year, when Sitharaman told Rajya Sabha that the cost of Rafale aircraft could not be shared since it was “classified information” under the security agreement between the two countries. In a statement issued two days later, the defence ministry said that “in not revealing the item-wise details of the contract, the government is merely following in letter and spirit the confidentiality provisions of a bilateral India-France agreement of 2008, signed by the previous government.”

Read More: No confidence vote: Outcome known, BJP & Opposition hope to score propaganda points

Article 18(3) of the “Agreement between The Government of the Republic of India and The Government of the French Republic concerning the Protection of Classified Information and Material in the field of Defence”, signed in New Delhi on January 25, 2008, states that it will “remain in force for a period of 10 years”, and can “be renewed by tacit consent for a new five-year period”.

According to Article 11(3) of the agreement, “For any contract or sub-contracting contract that includes classified information and material, a security annex shall be drawn up. In this annex, the competent security authority from the party forwarding the information or the material, shall specify what has to be protected by the receiving party, as well as the corresponding classification level, applicable to it.”

However, as per law, pointed out the IE report, the government is bound to provide full information to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence, and the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).

Also, at a press conference conducted in the defence ministry in 2017, Sitharaman, flanked by the defence secretary and the deputy chief of air staff, had stated that her ministry “had nothing to hide” and would share the full price details of the deal, reported IE.

In November 2016, Dr Subhash Bhamre, MoS (Defence), in a written response to a question in the Lok Sabha, had said that the “cost of each Rafale aircraft is around Rs 670 crore”. After signing the deal with France in September 2016, top defence ministry officials had also given the breakdown of the Euro 7.9 billion deal for 36 Rafale fighters, as reported by The Indian Express. The basic cost of 36 aircraft was Euro 3,402 million (approximately Rs 670 crore per aircraft), the weaponry cost Euro 710 million, spare parts Euro 1,800 million, weather and terrain compatibility fits Euro 1,700 million, and performance-based logistics support Euro 353 million.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

India hits back at Shehbaz Sharif at UN, says terror will have consequences

India hit back at Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s UN speech, with New Delhi warning that terrorism will have consequences.

Published

on

India has responded to Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s remarks at the United Nations, delivering a strong message on terrorism and warning that such actions will have consequences.

The response came after Mr Sharif addressed the UN and raised issues concerning India and Pakistan. New Delhi rejected the narrative presented by the Pakistani prime minister and highlighted the issue of terrorism.

India’s message was delivered by Petal Gehlot, who represented New Delhi in the response to Pakistan.

India warns Pakistan over terrorism

India’s response focused on Pakistan’s record and its approach towards terrorism. New Delhi made clear that terrorism cannot be separated from its consequences and that those responsible cannot expect such actions to go unanswered.

The Indian side also pushed back against the claims and allegations made by Mr Sharif during his UN speech.

The exchange comes amid continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, with terrorism remaining a major point of disagreement between the two countries.

Shehbaz Sharif’s UN remarks

In his address, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke about India-Pakistan relations and raised several issues concerning New Delhi.

India subsequently exercised its right of reply to respond to Pakistan’s statements at the United Nations.

New Delhi’s response underlined its position that terrorism remains a serious issue in the relationship and that there would be consequences for terrorist actions.

The latest exchange at the UN adds to the continuing diplomatic confrontation between the two neighbouring countries.

Continue Reading

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

on

Actor Vijay

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

Continue Reading

India News

Women wrestlers challenge Brij Bhushan’s acquittal in sexual harassment case

Four women wrestlers have challenged the acquittal of former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and co-accused Vinod Tomar in a sexual harassment case.

Published

on

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh

Four women wrestlers have approached a Delhi court challenging the acquittal of former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP leader Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case.

The wrestlers have also challenged the acquittal of co-accused Vinod Tomar. The matter is scheduled to be heard by a Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts.

The appeal challenges the order passed by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on August 3, 2026, when Brij Bhushan and Tomar were acquitted in the case.

Wrestlers challenge court’s reasoning

In their appeal, the wrestlers have argued that the acquittal order is legally unsustainable and that the evidence was not assessed appropriately.

They have also alleged that the order relied on assumptions about how victims of sexual assault and harassment were expected to behave instead of assessing the evidence and circumstances of the complainants.

The challenge seeks judicial scrutiny of the findings that resulted in the acquittal of Brij Bhushan and Tomar.

Brij Bhushan was acquitted in August

The Rouse Avenue court acquitted Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on August 3 in the sexual harassment case involving women wrestlers. The court’s decision followed consideration of the evidence and statements presented during the proceedings.

The case had emerged after several women wrestlers accused the former WFI chief of sexual harassment. The allegations had led to a major protest by wrestlers in 2023.

The latest appeal means the acquittal is now being challenged before a higher court.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com