The Hindu's disbelief of the Indian government

The Hindu's Readers' Editor, in his sermon on April 8,  has  preferred to give greater credence to a report appearing in an American magazine 'Foreign Policy' than to the version of the Indian government on India shooting down an F-16 employed by Pakistan. In an insinuating tone, he has noted that authorities tend to hide behind anonymity. "The Indian Air Force's version was circulated through the news agency IANS."

Fine. Source of credible information should not be anonymous. I assumed that since The Hindu has trusted the Foreign Policy report, the identity of persons who have concluded that India's version is wrong must have been disclosed.

The Foreign Policy report says. " Two senior U.S. defense officials with direct knowledge of the situation told Foreign Policy that U.S. personnel recently counted Islamabad’s F-16s and found none missing." Who are these two officials? The report does not divulge.

The report further adds, "One of the senior U.S. defense officials with direct knowledge of the count said that Pakistan invited the United States to physically count its F-16 planes after the incident as part of an end-user agreement signed when the foreign military sale was finalized. " Who is this official?

The Hindu's policy seems to be that you can trust an anonymous report if it contradicts the Indian government. Otherwise, no. This is the consistency of jaundiced eyes.

Rafale and 2019 elections

The Hindu CSDS-Lokniti pre-poll survey conducted in the last week of March brings out an interesting aspect about the impact of Rafale allegations on popular perception.

52% of the people who are aware of Rafale transaction desire that NDA should get another chance at government. This is against only 39% among those who are not aware of the transaction.

What does this mean? Either the people are convinced about the genuineness and integrity of the transaction or the critics have done a bad job of analysing the transaction.

Will The Hindu take note of this curious finding and stop misinterpreting the transaction? Or will the newspaper stop supporting CSDS-Lokniti?

MIGS or PIGS

Rahul Gandhi has sought to up the ante in election rhetoric promising Rs.72,000 per annum to the poorest 20 % of families. If proposed by a government, this will be hailed as a welcome social security measure that seeks to banish 'absolute poverty'. If proposed by an opposition party with all relevant calculations and plans on raising requisite funds, it will be praised as a sincere attempt to convince the electorate as to why the party deserves a chance to govern. If proposed by an opposition party at the last minute just ahead of the elections sans any sincere attempt at economic arithmetic, it will be dismissed as nothing more than deceitful election rhetoric.

NYAY (Nyuntam Aay Yojana - Minimum Income Guarantee Scheme [MIGS] ) announced by the Grand Old Party on March 25th is long on promises and short on planning. 50 million poorest families are promised Rs.72,000 p.a. each to enable them to have a minimum yearly income of Rs.144,000 each. Those families falling short of annual income of Rs.144,000 despite the government's proposed assistance will be assisted by the Congress party with additional funds to bridge the gap. Assistance by the Congress party was mentioned only in one report. Many reports of the scheme have emerged with inconsistent details.

It is a top-up scheme ,assures one and therefore it will not be fiscally taxing. It is not a top-up and all these families will be given Rs.72,000 p.a. as claimed by another report. Further details will be provided by the architect of the scheme, P.Chidambaram in due course. It is really funny that different leaders come up with different versions. (Chidambaram has since confirmed that Rs.6,000 per month will be provided to each of the poorest 20% of families. He has discounted any difficulty in identifying such families. An expert committee will be appointed if the party comes to power and the MIGS scheme will be rolled out in stages. The amount will be directly credited to the bank account of a woman member of the family. Poverty abolition and women empowerment at one stroke! )

It sounds more like a battle cry with military metaphors thrown in. "It is the final assault on poverty." "It is a surgical strike on poverty." We are led to believe that India will become a poverty-less (Garibi-mukt) nation within five years if only the Congress party is voted to power. What the grandmother could only promise but not deliver ('Garibi hatao'), the worthy grandson wants to deliver!

P.Chidambaram is confident that the scheme will not require more than 2% of GDP for its implementation. So, if the scheme does not lead to withdrawal of any subsidy scheme and if additional taxes are not levied, fiscal deficit (that is the amount to be borrowed by the government as % of GDP) will increase by 2%. Fiscal Deficit is now 3.3%

Direct income transfer to the poor cannot be questioned on ethical grounds. Even the most fiscally imprudent social welfare scheme can work well if accompanied by administrative efficiency and political rectitude. At the same time, even a fiscally prudent social welfare scheme will come a cropper if accompanied by administrative bungling and political duplicity.

We are not sure if the Congress party is chastened by the debacle it faced in 2014 on account of its multiple scams. If it has not learnt any lessons, MIGS will degenerate into PIGS (Political Income Guarantee Scheme). As of now, it looks as though NYAY or MIGS is a desperate gamble by the Congress party to oust Modi from power. Even if there is a change in government, Congress may at best be a coalition partner in the government. "Coalition Dharma" will provide an excuse for non-implementation of poll promises. The much wanted relief for the poor is not likely anytime soon.

N.Ram's miscalculation

As Mr.Ram continues his tirade against the Rafale contract, the chinks in his armour are becoming more transparent. He has repeatedly and vigorously argued that Modi's government is paying more for the aircraft than what Manmohan Singh's government wanted to pay but never paid. Comparison between an event and a non-event is ridiculous enough. On top of this, Mr.Ram has used an inappropriate figure to arrive at the conclusion he wanted to reach.

Under Table 2 : Comparison of Costs, the media baron points out that the aligned cost under the UPA's otiose proposal was 7488.58 million Euros including the cost of bank guarantee. In the actual contract under NDA, the comparable cost without bank guarantee is 7168.57 million Euros. So, the savings, the argument goes is only 320.01 million Euros. The learned journalist compares this savings with the cost of bank guarantee in terms of commission payable to guarantee-issuing banks which he reckons at 574 million Euros. This is where the miscalculation has occurred. (The allegation is savings to Dassault arising from avoidance of guarantee is not fully passed on to GOI.)

574 Million Euros is the cost if SBI issues the guarantee. But the guarantee was supposed to be issued by French banks and not by SBI. Commission on guarantees chargeable by the French banks was 143 million Euros which Mr.Ram has mercifully and hesitantly quoted, though with much less prominence. So, in effect, though the French company would have saved only 143 million Euros by avoiding the bank guarantees, GOI could extract cost reduction to the extent of 320.01 million Euros from the French.

It is said that if you torture the data enough, you can arrive at any conclusion. Apart from torturing the data, Mr.Ram uses the wrong data to suit his politically motivated conclusion. In the process he continues to mislead the reading public. As if this deviation from journalistic ethics is not enough, the Attorney General has now said that The Hindu is using 'stolen data'. N.Ram pleads that his exercise is in public interest. Is misleading the public in wily ways really in public interest?

There is another major problem arising from Mr.Ram's 'exclusive reports'. He has named the 'three dissenters' whom he calls the 'domain experts' in his reports. This jeopardises their security given the fact that the reports relate to competing players in arms and ammunition who because of their enormous reach are potentially capable of causing grave injury to person and reputation of bureaucrats. Mr.Ram has violated the right to privacy of these dissenters which includes the right to public anonymity of bureaucrats as far as their file notings are concerned.

This has another deleterious effect. If a newspaper chooses to publish names of officials who took a particular stand in an important issue, bureaucrats in future will opt to play safe by not articulating their views in the file. Any responsible newspaper will not indulge in this scandalous game. There are ways of presenting a report without causing possible hurt to officials. The Hindu chooses to hide 'Secret' from the face of an extract from a confidential Defence file, it chooses to publish deliberately truncated extracts, but feels free to give unnecessary publicity to names of 'dissenting officials'. Is this journalistic ethics?

N.Ram has accused a former Defence Secretary of being 'economical with the truth'. Mr.Ram is using wrong data and thereby distorts truth. I do not know which is a graver offence: an alleged economy with the truth or a deliberate distortion of data.

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.