Will 'saint' Antony bring out the truth in chopper scandal?

Dateline

Defence minister A K Antony resembles his boss, prime minister Manmohan Singh in many ways. Antony is the other ‘Mr Clean’ in the UPA government, known for personal honesty and integrity in public life.

But just like Manmohan Singh who has turned a blind eye to many scams around him, Antony is now being accused of total inaction in the AugustaWestland chopper scandal despite being aware of it for a year.

He has come under fire from the opposition for sitting idle over the Rs 400 crore kickback scam in the VVIP ’copter deal despite media reports appearing first in April 2012. The Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley went on to ask the government whether the Congress would actually like to know the names of the bribe takers or prefer to keep the name (or names) under wraps.

The accusations appear to have some merit considering the fact that Antony prefered silence over several key questions on the Rs 3,600 crore deal under which defence ministry purchased 12 VVIP helicopters – 8 in VVIP configuration and 4 in non-VIP mode.
Why does the IAF Communications squadron need 12 helicopters – instead of the original plan of buying 8 choppers -- to replace its ageing Mi-8 fleet and why did it not opt for Mi-17 (which in any case are in use now) is another point of debate. But even on the AW-101 deal, there are lingering questions.

Take the case of holding the helicopter trial outside India for example. Going by the fact sheet released by the defence ministry field evaluation trial of AgustaWestland AW 101 copters was carried out in UK whereas trials of Sikorsky were conducted in the USA from January 16, 2008 to February 2008.

The field evaluation trial team submitted its report in April 2008 and recommended AW-101 helicopter for induction into service. Members of the Special Protection Group that looks after VIP security were part of the field evaluation trial team, whose composition remains unknown till date.

Here comes the first question. Why were the trials allowed to be held in the UK and USA in the first place and who took that crucial decision? Going by the laid down norms for defence procurement, trials are to held in the same place where the platform would be put to use. AW-101 trials were held in the UK where the highest peak, Ben Navies in the Scottish highlands has a height of approximately 1300 mt. In England, the highest elevation is Scafell Pike at 978 mt.

How can a helicopter, which is supposed to take off with load from an altitude of 4500 mt where air pressure is low, be tested in the UK, which does not have that elevation at all. But the staff evaluation report assessed the VVIP helicopter AW-101 to be fully compliant with staff qualitative requirements. A technical oversight committee gave green signal to the evaluation report in August, 2008. The composition of this panel too is unknown.

Inexplicable factor

Then comes another inexplicable factor. When the contract negotiation was carried out, Indian Air Force headquarters recommended inclusion of three systems in the chopper. They are traffic collusion avoidance system (TACS-III) and enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS) besides medical evacuation system for eight choppers in VVIP configuration.

This gives rise to two questions – why were these systems not part of the original tender specifications and secondly how come technical specifications for a VVIP copter was made without a medical evacuation system.

Apparently the Union finance ministry too had some objections, which were overruled. The contract negotiation committee recommended conclusion of the contract at a negotiated price of 556.262 million Euro.

The defence ministry did not disclose what was the price tag without these systems and how much the cost was jacked up? At least three IAF chiefs and three defence secretaries have seen the files before the contract was inked.

The first media report on the alleged kickback came on February 24, 2012. The very next day Antony asked the Indian Ambassador in Rome to find out the facts. Since then there are seven more attempts by the defence/external affairs ministries to get official information from Italy. All efforts were stonewalled by the Italian authorities which cited their secrecy law for not sharing information at this stage of investigation.

When Antony announced a CBI inquiry following the arrest of the Finmeccanica chief executive officer Guiseppo Orsi, he did not have anything substantial to order an inquiry. The question is if the ministry can order a CBI probe based on media reports on Orsi’s arrest why did he not take any action when reports of kickback appeared first? There is hardly any change in terms of information the defence ministry possess. “But you have given the culprits such a long time, they would have destroyed all evidences by now,” said Jaitley in the Rajya Sabha.

The veteran BJP leader who is also a reputed lawyer pointed out the government should have filed a first information report so that there is a legal case under investigation. Without a case under investigation and without a letter rogatory, no information will come from the foreign government. But whether an FIR can be filed based on newspaper reports is a legally gray area.

“Identifying the bribe-takers is the job of the defence minister, who cannot pass the buck to the Italian authorities. Coercive criminal processes need to be followed to know their names. The Parliament members can not arrest anybody, search any premise, interrogate in custody and extradite anyone. So how would the MPs know the names of bribe takers?

Still if you go on to create the Joint Parliamentary Committee, my suspicion is that you don’t want to know,” said Jaitley.

Going by the outcome of all the JPCs since the first one after the Harshad Mehta scam in the early 1990s, the parliamentary panel does not kindle much hope on going to the root of the scam despite Antony’s bravado.