The Shiv Sena, a member of the National Democratic Alliance, embarrassed the government in the Lok Sabha debate on the Rafale deal on Wednesday when party MP Arvind Sawant echoed the Opposition’s demand for a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) investigation.
“Aren’t we a clean government? So, let us have a JPC; everything will become clear,” Mr. Sawant said, urging the government to agree to the setting up of a JPC to look into the issue.
Earlier, Mr. Sawant raised questions on the Rafale deal, seeking to know why a private company was preferred over state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL), which had wide experience in the field.
“The Defence Minister did not go to France with the Prime Minister. An industrialist went with him. His company existed only on paper. The HAL had everything required. Why was that agreement done with him [the industrialist]? You do a contract with a company that exists only on paper,” Mr. Sawant said. “The HAL CMD has said we can manufacture the aircraft. Why was it denied that role?”
He said that France had even refused a sovereign agreement on the deal.
Drawing a parallel with the Bofors scam, Mr. Sawant said, “People said ‘Bofors was good but the deal was bad’. People now say that ‘Rafale is good but the deal is bad’. Why not agree to constitute a JPC? Are we afraid of the Opposition? We are a clean government. Give them a JPC.”
Trinamool stand
Saugata Roy of the Trinamool Congress faulted the government for ordering just 36 Rafale aircraft for ₹59,000 crore.
“The UPA price was just ₹526 crore per aircraft. Why was it renegotiated at ₹1,671 crore per aircraft,” Mr. Roy asked.
Referring to the government’s argument of immediacy involved in the purchase, he said that while Mr. Modi announced the deal in April 2015, the Defence Minister signed it one year and four months later. “A company registered only 12 days before the PM went to France... Why was a Johnny-come-lately given preference over the trusted HAL,” Mr. Roy asked.
Mohammad Salim of the CPI(M) said the team negotiating the commercial terms said the price had increased in the new deal.
