On Rafale deal, new documents point to Anil Ambani firm as essential
PARIS: In the Rafale jet deal, documents featured in a French aviation blog may fuel more controversy amid opposition allegations that France snagged the Rs. 59,000 crore deal as a trade-off for aeronautics major Dassault tying up with Anil Ambani's company.
Images of two trade union documents put up by the French blog Portail Aviation may add fodder to the political wrangling over the deal for 36 Rafale jets sealed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi with the French in 2016.
The images are of documents published by two unions of Rafale-maker Dassault - the CFDT and CGT. These are minutes of a meeting held on May 11 2017, in which the number 2 of Dassault Aviation, Loik Segalenn, is talking about the joint venture with Anil Ambani's Reliance Defence.
(The CGT statement says, "...a complete presentation of 'Make in India' with the creation of the enterprise 'Dassault Reliance Aerospace' at Nagpur was done for us".)
The blog does not interpret the documents and leaves it to readers to conclude whether or not Reliance was imposed on the French as a partner as a condition for the deal.
The CFDT's document was mentioned earlier in a report by the French publication Mediapart just after former French President Francois Hollande's explosive statement that France had no choice when it came to selecting Anil Ambani and his rookie company as offset partner for Dassault. According to Mediapart, an internal document of Dassault confirmed Mr Hollande's statement.
Dassault denied the allegation, saying the reference in the document was to the obligation to make offset investments in India and not the compulsion to get into a joint venture with Anil Ambani's Reliance Defence.
Details of the meeting appear to present a different picture.
The CGT statement says, "...a complete presentation of 'Make in India' with the creation of the enterprise 'Dassault Reliance Aerospace' at Nagpur was done for us. According to Mr (Loik) Segalen it was imperative and obligatory for Dassault Aviation to accept this "contrepartie" in order to obtain the export contract Rafale India." The French word used is "contrepartie", which can mean "compensation" or could have the negative sense of a "trade off".
The second union (CFDT's) statement talks about 'Make in India' being "the inevitable consequence" of the deal "imposed" by India, and says a joint venture with Reliance was created to attain this objective.
It is evident that the statements are not talking only about the offset obligation but also about the joint venture with Reliance.
Whether one of them was mandatory are among the questions raised by the opposition in India as well as a section of the French media.
The Congress has accused the government of corruption and crony capitalism. The party had seized on French president Hollande's comment to Mediapart last month to go hammer and tongs against the government, alleging that Anil Ambani's company was imposed as a preferred partner on the French.
courtesy : ndtv.com
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
