Hatching JPC to bury ‘chopper-gate’
By Nantoo Banerjee
Full credit to those Congress satraps running the seemingly minority UPA government at the Centre for floating the idea of a JPC to investigate into the reported kickbacks in the Rs. 3,500-crore VVIP-special AgustaWestland helicopter import deal to save their skin and scuttle debates and disturbances in Parliament over the shameful exposé before the Italian court! They are talking about the setting up of a joint parliamentary committee (JPC) even before Parliament opens for the budget session and without the opposition pitching for it. The objectives are simple: (a) to kill any fruitful lasting investigation in the matter which are normal to unearth the complex money trail spanning over three continents and (b) to ensure its least impact on the Congress party’s fortunes in the forthcoming Parliamentary election.
A JPC investigation in the election year is normally a fruitless exercise. Its life ends with the life of Lok Sabha. While the proceedings need to be completed in a tearing hurry, the report may never come up for discussion before the dissolution of the House. Subsequent Parliament never discusses a JPC report of previous Parliament. And, the new government rarely implements the JPC recommendations made at the fag end of the previous government. As a result, such a JPC report merely stays as a property of Parliament. It may at the most serve an academic interest of members and researchers having access to the Parliament library. Several past JPC investigation reports, including the one into the operation of India’s fizzy drinks and bottled water industry towards the end of the NDA regime in 2004, are gathering dust in Parliament library, having little impact on either those guilty of wrong-doing or on government policies.
The clever government offer to allow a JPC investigation into the Rs. 350-crore kickback in the AgustaWestland chopper import deal is to nix the growing opposition demand for a probe into the matter by a Supreme Court-monitored Special Investigative Team (SIT). The SIT investigation into the 2G bribery scandal, under the Supreme Court tutelage, has made a much better progress and yielded much better results compared to the one being done by the JPC. Investigations into bribery by a foreign entity on foreign land using overseas touts to influence domestic policy or purchase decisions in another country and government are much tougher than those indulged by domestic entities at home as the experience in the progress of the 25-year-long chase in the Bofors kickback investigation case proved.
The flip side of the Bofors probe was that it had cost the government of India over Rs. 250 crore while the kickback paid by the Swedish gun manufacturer to secure the Rs.1,500 crore Indian defence contract to supply 410 numbers of 155 mm Howitzer field guns was only Rs. 64 crore. The probe failed to establish the alleged link of the then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi in the bribery case and the Indian government sleuths failed to reach and question Ottavio Quatrocchi, a Gandhi family friend and also a key accused cum agent in the Bofors deal, after conducting hot pursuits for him by CBI and Enforcement Directorate officials through South East Asia, Europe and South America spanning over a period of a quarter of a century.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s statement that “we have nothing to hide” appears to be an honest confession since the government till now seems to know nothing about the kickback aspect in the chopper deal beyond what has appeared in the Italian and Indian media following the arrest and resignation of the AgustaWestland CEO on bribery charges in the case which is being heard by Italy’s Busto Azizio judicial court. Actually, there is nothing sensational or even unusual about such kickbacks given by overseas companies to secure large government contracts outside. These bribes are normally hidden under various fictitious heads and shown as business expenditure – ‘above the line’ – in the corporate books of account to get tax exemption. Corporate entities there are required to follow strict financial disclosure rules or face criminal proceedings under the law. Most defence manufacturers in Europe, including Italy’s Finmeccanica, are quasi-government entities and their books of account are subject to inspection by host country’s government super auditors (like India’s CAG) as well as anti-corruption wings and revenue department of government. It is in this process that major corporate bribery scandals sometimes get exposed.
It is most unlikely that India will get any worthwhile support from the Italian judiciary or the government to know the whole truth about real Indian beneficiaries of the Italian kickback. Such an official assistance is not in the commercial interest of Italy or Finmeccanica, which is deeply involved in much larger defence deals with India, especially with Indian Navy. At best, Indian authorities may find, after some hard, time-consuming and expensive investigation, one or more of Win Chadhas in the Italian helicopter bribery case, the identities of bigger and more influential players such as Ottavio Quatrocchi in the Bofors case and ‘the family’ are likely to forever remain an enigma. (IPA Service)