N.Ram 'exclusive' : "Government waived anti-corruption clauses in Rafale deal"

The Hindu has assured us that 'investigative reports' on Rafale will be released in dribs and drabs. It is the newspaper's prerogative to do so. However, prejudiced and one-sided reports deserve to be avoided.

The newspaper's headline on February 11 is "Government waived anti-corruption clauses in Rafale deal". The headline is sensational enough. But a more important step is awaited from The Hindu. How does it establish that the transaction was polluted by actual corruption.

A cursory reading of the day's report gives us the impression that modification of clauses is indicative of existence of unfair practices including bribery. It is significant to know whether there is any provision for deviation from standard clauses in IGA (Inter-Governmental Agreement) and contract documents. This is significant because The Hindu emphasises that  "DPP (Defence Procurement Policy) states explicitly that the Standard Document 'would be the guideline for all acquisitions' ". There is a convenient omission of any reference to para 71 of DPP-2013 governing the Rafale transaction.

Para 71 of DPP-2013 on Inter-Government Agreement (IGA) states that “there may be occasions when procurements would have. to be done from friendly foreign countries which may be necessitated due to geo-strategic advantages that are likely to accrue to the country. Such procurements would not classically follow the Standard Procurement Procedure and the. Standard Contract Document but would be based on mutually agreed provisions by the Governments of both the countries."

It is significant to note that DPP -2013 was not formulated by the present government. In all fairness, The Hindu ought to have mentioned this para in its report. 

The report also refers to the Letter of Comfort provided by the French government. What does the LoC say? The newspaper itself points out the following:

The letter of comfort issued by the French Prime Minister on September 8, 2016 (put out by ANI) states that “assuming that Dassault Aviation or MBDA France meet difficulties in execution of their respective supply protocols and would have to reimburse all or part of the intermediary payment to Government of the Republic of India, the Government of the French Republic will take appropriate measures so as to make sure that said payments or reimbursements will be made at the earliest.”

An assurance given by a government does not cease to be an assurance simply because it is not called a guarantee. 

Another sticking point, though not mentioned in this report is the government's refusal to accept Eurofighter Typhoon's reduced offer. The government has already responded as under:

"In another effort to twist facts, the Government is asked why it did not conduct negotiations with a particular company representing a competing fighter aircraft.  It seems to have been conveniently forgotten that the then Government itself had rejected that company’s unsolicited offer made days after closure of the bid process, declared Rafale (DA) as the L1 bidder and had commenced negotiations with it in February 2012."

If Ram presents all relevant details when he publishes 'exclusive' reports, a meaningful discussion will become possible. Else, 'dribs and drabs' will take us nowhere.

Misreading the leaders and misleading the readers

N.Ram continues his tirade against his bete noire, Narendra Modi and in the process belittles the intelligence of his readers. Caught with his pants down in his truncated presentation of a Defence Ministry note, he is now unleashing a fusillade of weak arguments from his fellow journalists in The Hindu.

Varghese K.George claims to present four reasons why the attacks on The Hindu story on Rafale are 'shallow' and 'self-incriminating'. Let us see how logical these four reasons are.

1) "Investigative stories come in drips." "No single report on the story is the last word on it." Nobody contests these motherhood statements. The criticism is not against reporting in instalments. What is questioned as duplicity is presentation of a part of a page and deliberate omission to include the minister's observation which is included in the same page. This omission is plain deception and not mere mischief. It is silly to conveniently modify the criticism and address the modified criticism. This is a subterfuge.
By quoting Carl Bernstein, "We are reporters. Not judges. Not legislators. What the government or citizens or judges do with the information we have developed is not our part of the process nor our objective" The Hindu is hoist with its own petard. N.Ram has failed to act as a reporter. He is blatantly judgmental. His objective of derailing the Rafale deal is as clear as daylight.

2) "Parikkar note implicates, not absolves, the PMO." So what? Is the journalist not giving the game away here? Has he not come to a judgment that Parikkar's note is implicatory? Is Carl Bernstein forgotten?
Interpretation of Parikkar's note is not the issue. The issue is why this observation of Parikkar was left out. If N.Ram accepts that the omission was a mistake, there is no need for further argument. But his hubris and narcissistic monomania will not let him accept his mistake. He makes other journalists in The Hindu to toe his line and further mislead the readers.

3) "PMO role in negotiations hidden from the SC." Words speak for themselves. A non-judgmental expression would be 'PMO role not disclosed'. Usage of the word 'hidden' gives the journalist's game away. The Hindu has decided that the PMO was an active player in negotiations. Therefore, the assertion that the PMO was only monitoring falls on deaf ears. How could these journalists forget the pain brought on the nation by Manmohan Singh's turning a blind eye to the shenanigans committed under his nose? Do these journalists want an ineffective prime minister who does not monitor what his ministers are doing?

4) "PMO role is not supervisory or of oversight; it is blindsiding the principal ministry." Again, is the journalist not judgmental? When a journalist is blind to a part of the note contained in the same page either by design or by negligence, he becomes delinquent and instead of informing the readers, he becomes a 'rogue journalist'.

Mr.Ram and his ilk have the freedom to misread the intentions and actions of national leaders, but they cannot arrogate to themselves any right to mislead the readers. Let them keep their coloured glasses to themselves and do the readers a favour by desisting from propagating misinterpreted and opportunistically truncated information.

In sum, Ram and The Hindu have first come to a conclusion that Narendra Modi  has not played fair and are now trying to fit half-truths and half-concealed faxes to suit their premature conclusions. This is not what Carl Bernstein advocated.

Investigative Journalism or motivated duplicity?

 N.Ram continues to write on a wing and a prayer. This time he has given up all pretences to his going after the truth. He has suppressed, ignorantly or maliciously, the concluding part of a confidential note of Ministry of Defence in an awkward attempt to bring disrepute to purchase of Rafale aircraft.

If Ram had access to the entire note and yet failed to disclose the Defence Minister's conclusive utterance, he is guilty of a journalistic fraud of misleading the readers. In case he could lay his partisan hands only on a part of the note, the conclusion would be that he is too amateurish and opinionated to seek what any reasonable journalist would have looked for: that is, what was the view of the then Defence Minister? If someone had favoured Ram with an incomplete note, he was probably taking Ram for a ride so that Ram would look foolish in readers' eyes. Whichever way you look at this sordid chapter in The Hindu's quest for truth (?), the conclusion is inescapable that Ram has jettisoned any idea of  preserving the newspaper's credibility.

The Hindu is a family-owned newspaper. The family needs to seriously introspect if they are ready to gamble away the newspaper's reputation garnered over decades just to satisfy Ram's egoistic political slant. When questioned as to why he published only a convenient part of the note, he replied that he would not rest till he reaches the goal. What could be the goal? As a journalist, he has every right and in fact duty too to try to unearth Bofors-like bribery, if any. Instead of doing that, if he keeps coming up with 'exclusives' containing truncated truths and fascinating falsehoods, readers will dismiss him as a discredited writer whose hobby is only to 'cry wolf'. At this rate, in the unlikely event of his noticing a real wolf, nobody will believe him.

The function of a journalist is to provide authentic news, not novate perceptions. Ram is desperately trying only to besmirch Modi's image. The Sinophile was awarded Padma Bhushan in the year 1990 in the field of Literature and Education. He may well be rewarded with Padma Vibhushan for Distortion and Misrepresentation if his political masters come to power.