- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 12,835
- Likes
- 7,762
Indian Military Trucks
- Thread starter Kunal Biswas
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 3,282
- Likes
- 316
Vectra boss Ravi Rishi at CBI HQ
Last Updated: Monday, April 02, 2012, 16:34
Zeenews Bureau
New Delhi: Vectra Group chief Ravi Rishi on Monday reached the CBI office in New Delhi for questioning in connection with the controversial Tatra trucks deal for Indian Army.
Rishi, whose group Vectra has a controlling stake in the Tatra-Vectra Group, will be grilled by the central probe agency in connection with the alleged bribery allegations made by Army Chief Gen VK Singh in view of a defence deal.
Media reports earlier claimed that the Vectra Group chief had sought more time from the CBI to appear before it in connection with the case.
He has been quizzed by the CBI earlier in connection with the case.
The CBI has also issued a lookout notice against the British citizen to bar him from leaving the country. The probe agency has also confiscated his passport and alerted all airports and exit points to ensure that he does not leave the country.
The CBI in its First Information Report (FIR), registered earlier this week, had named Rishi, a London-based businessman who along with the Vectra Group also has majority stake in Tatra trucks, a Czech manufacturer.
The defence deal related to the sale of 7000 trucks to the Army came under scanner after Army chief General VK Singh had alleged that he was offered a Rs 14 crore bribe to clear a file related to purchase of trucks.
The CBI had on Friday raided Tatra offices in Bangalore and Delhi in search of evidence.
Public sector unit BEML buys Tatra parts from Vectra and assembles trucks in Bangalore that were then sold to the Army.
General VK Singh on Saturday named retired Lt General Tejinder Singh in his complaint to the CBI. He had earlier claimed that a lobbyist, who had "just" retired, offered him a bribe for clearing "sub-standard" vehicles and he had informed the Defence Minister about it. The Ministry had then recommended a CBI probe into the allegation made by the Army chief.
In view of the claims made by the Army Chief, the CBI may also question retired Lt General Tejinder Singh in connection with the case.
However, retired Lt General Tejinder Singh has refuted the allegations and filed a defamation suit against the Army Chief and four other officers.
Tatra deal probe: Vectra boss Ravi Rishi at CBI HQ
Last Updated: Monday, April 02, 2012, 16:34
Zeenews Bureau
New Delhi: Vectra Group chief Ravi Rishi on Monday reached the CBI office in New Delhi for questioning in connection with the controversial Tatra trucks deal for Indian Army.
Rishi, whose group Vectra has a controlling stake in the Tatra-Vectra Group, will be grilled by the central probe agency in connection with the alleged bribery allegations made by Army Chief Gen VK Singh in view of a defence deal.
Media reports earlier claimed that the Vectra Group chief had sought more time from the CBI to appear before it in connection with the case.
He has been quizzed by the CBI earlier in connection with the case.
The CBI has also issued a lookout notice against the British citizen to bar him from leaving the country. The probe agency has also confiscated his passport and alerted all airports and exit points to ensure that he does not leave the country.
The CBI in its First Information Report (FIR), registered earlier this week, had named Rishi, a London-based businessman who along with the Vectra Group also has majority stake in Tatra trucks, a Czech manufacturer.
The defence deal related to the sale of 7000 trucks to the Army came under scanner after Army chief General VK Singh had alleged that he was offered a Rs 14 crore bribe to clear a file related to purchase of trucks.
The CBI had on Friday raided Tatra offices in Bangalore and Delhi in search of evidence.
Public sector unit BEML buys Tatra parts from Vectra and assembles trucks in Bangalore that were then sold to the Army.
General VK Singh on Saturday named retired Lt General Tejinder Singh in his complaint to the CBI. He had earlier claimed that a lobbyist, who had "just" retired, offered him a bribe for clearing "sub-standard" vehicles and he had informed the Defence Minister about it. The Ministry had then recommended a CBI probe into the allegation made by the Army chief.
In view of the claims made by the Army Chief, the CBI may also question retired Lt General Tejinder Singh in connection with the case.
However, retired Lt General Tejinder Singh has refuted the allegations and filed a defamation suit against the Army Chief and four other officers.
Tatra deal probe: Vectra boss Ravi Rishi at CBI HQ
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 3,282
- Likes
- 316
New details emerge on Tatra truck deal
Praveen Swami
Vinay Kumar
CBI questions London millionaire again
Even as Central Bureau of Investigation detectives have begun questioning Ravi Rishi, the London-based millionaire businessman at the heart of the showdown between the Defence Ministry and Chief of the Army Staff V.K. Singh, fresh details have begun to emerge of the truck deal that precipitated the crisis.
Rajan Mukherjee, the general manager of West Bengal-based Ural India, has told The Hindu that General Singh — then General Officer-Commanding of the Eastern Command — had requested the firm to provide trucks for testing in 2008, after Tatra trucks sold by Mr. Rishi's firm "miserably failed 17 Mountain for performing Quick Reaction Team and reconnaissance duties in [the] super-high altitude areas of northern Sikkim."
"Defects"
"During the trials," Mr. Mukherjee said in an e-mail to The Hindu, "the Tatra vehicle developed defects in engine assembly, whereas Ural's engine performance was satisfactory even after running about 600 km at high altitude."
Mr. Rishi owns Vectra, a conglomerate which has a controlling stake in Czech and Slovak-based specialist truck firm Tatra, which has supplied the Indian Army since 1986.
Rashi Verma, a Joint Secretary at the Defence Ministry, had said last week that the government had "never received any complaint from the armed forces" — a statement which suggests the Eastern Command either chose not to pass on its problems with the Tatra to the army headquarters in New Delhi, or that its reports were suppressed by higher authorities.
In an exclusive interview to The Hindu published on March 26, General Singh had said he was offered a Rs. 14-crore bribe, which, it emerged, was linked to an officer allegedly representing Tatra to clear a consignment of 600 trucks.
There is no information available so far if Ural India's trucks were the sole platform tested by the Eastern Command in Northern Sikkim and if so, why. Ural is co-owned by Kolkata-based magnate J.K. Saraf, who knew Gen. Singh during his tenure as Eastern Army Commander. There is no allegation, however, of the relationship having caused improper influence to be exercised.
Mr. Mukherjee's claims, however, stand in stark contrast to earlier statements by VRS Natarajan, the head of public-sector giant BEML, which co-manufactures Tatra trucks in India. Mr. Natarajan claimed that Ural India's trucks had been knocked out of competition in the ongoing trials, a claim Mr. Mukherjee has denied in his e-mail to The Hindu, adding that his firm is considering "appropriate action."
The BEML chief, however, has since been backed by Defence Research and Development Organisation chief V.K. Saraswat, who said Tatra trucks were "outstanding." Both BEML and Tatra have said they are considering legal action against General Singh, but provided no details of their course of action.
Army sources said the problem encountered in Sikkim could have been related to the Tatra truck's engine, which is designed for rugged battlefield use, compromising high-altitude performance in return for lower risks of breakdown.
CBI officials refused comment on the issues they had discussed with Mr. Rishi, but the businessman has been barred from leaving India until further notice.
He was earlier questioned by the agency officials last week, soon after the CBI registered an FIR in the case. CBI officials were also poring over and analysing a number of documents seized during raids in Delhi, Noida and Bangalore.
Apart from Mr. Rishi, the FIR refers to unknown officials of BEML, Vectra and the Army. The case was registered under provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to criminal conspiracy to cheat and under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The investigators are tasked with looking into all purchases of Tatra trucks made from 1997, when Vectra took control of Tatra. Since 1986, the Army has purchased some 7,000 Tatra trucks to transport troops and artillery.
The Hindu : News / National : New details emerge on Tatra truck deal-
Praveen Swami
Vinay Kumar
CBI questions London millionaire again
Even as Central Bureau of Investigation detectives have begun questioning Ravi Rishi, the London-based millionaire businessman at the heart of the showdown between the Defence Ministry and Chief of the Army Staff V.K. Singh, fresh details have begun to emerge of the truck deal that precipitated the crisis.
Rajan Mukherjee, the general manager of West Bengal-based Ural India, has told The Hindu that General Singh — then General Officer-Commanding of the Eastern Command — had requested the firm to provide trucks for testing in 2008, after Tatra trucks sold by Mr. Rishi's firm "miserably failed 17 Mountain for performing Quick Reaction Team and reconnaissance duties in [the] super-high altitude areas of northern Sikkim."
"Defects"
"During the trials," Mr. Mukherjee said in an e-mail to The Hindu, "the Tatra vehicle developed defects in engine assembly, whereas Ural's engine performance was satisfactory even after running about 600 km at high altitude."
Mr. Rishi owns Vectra, a conglomerate which has a controlling stake in Czech and Slovak-based specialist truck firm Tatra, which has supplied the Indian Army since 1986.
Rashi Verma, a Joint Secretary at the Defence Ministry, had said last week that the government had "never received any complaint from the armed forces" — a statement which suggests the Eastern Command either chose not to pass on its problems with the Tatra to the army headquarters in New Delhi, or that its reports were suppressed by higher authorities.
In an exclusive interview to The Hindu published on March 26, General Singh had said he was offered a Rs. 14-crore bribe, which, it emerged, was linked to an officer allegedly representing Tatra to clear a consignment of 600 trucks.
There is no information available so far if Ural India's trucks were the sole platform tested by the Eastern Command in Northern Sikkim and if so, why. Ural is co-owned by Kolkata-based magnate J.K. Saraf, who knew Gen. Singh during his tenure as Eastern Army Commander. There is no allegation, however, of the relationship having caused improper influence to be exercised.
Mr. Mukherjee's claims, however, stand in stark contrast to earlier statements by VRS Natarajan, the head of public-sector giant BEML, which co-manufactures Tatra trucks in India. Mr. Natarajan claimed that Ural India's trucks had been knocked out of competition in the ongoing trials, a claim Mr. Mukherjee has denied in his e-mail to The Hindu, adding that his firm is considering "appropriate action."
The BEML chief, however, has since been backed by Defence Research and Development Organisation chief V.K. Saraswat, who said Tatra trucks were "outstanding." Both BEML and Tatra have said they are considering legal action against General Singh, but provided no details of their course of action.
Army sources said the problem encountered in Sikkim could have been related to the Tatra truck's engine, which is designed for rugged battlefield use, compromising high-altitude performance in return for lower risks of breakdown.
CBI officials refused comment on the issues they had discussed with Mr. Rishi, but the businessman has been barred from leaving India until further notice.
He was earlier questioned by the agency officials last week, soon after the CBI registered an FIR in the case. CBI officials were also poring over and analysing a number of documents seized during raids in Delhi, Noida and Bangalore.
Apart from Mr. Rishi, the FIR refers to unknown officials of BEML, Vectra and the Army. The case was registered under provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to criminal conspiracy to cheat and under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The investigators are tasked with looking into all purchases of Tatra trucks made from 1997, when Vectra took control of Tatra. Since 1986, the Army has purchased some 7,000 Tatra trucks to transport troops and artillery.
The Hindu : News / National : New details emerge on Tatra truck deal-
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 3,282
- Likes
- 316
Tatra deal: If Ravi Rishi 'sings', skeletons could tumble out
by FP Editors Apr 2, 2012
The noose is tightening around Ravi Rishi, the NRI businessman who owns the UK-based Vectra group that sold Tatra trucks to the Indian Army, which are at the centre of the controversy surrounding Army chief, Gen VK Singh's sensational allegation of bribery in the case.
On Sunday, the CBI issued restraint orders to prevent Ravi Rishi from leaving the country. It also impounded his passport, and has indicated it will question him again.
The action raises the prospect that Ravi Rishi could face arrest in the case. Last week, his premises and various properties were raided, and documents relating to the controversial deal were recovered.
As Firstpost has noted earlier, the Vectra Group is the largest shareholder in Tatra Holdings, which owns Czech truck manufacturer Tatra.
The Tatra- BEML deal violates the rule that Indian defence contracts are required to be direct deals between supplier and India. In this case, the deal was struck with an intermediary, the Vectra Group, which is tainted even given Vectra Group's organic links with Tatra.
From all accounts, Ravi Rishi used his knowledge of Tatra's straitened financial condition in the 1980s – the company was at that time struggling to survive – to extract low prices from the manufacturer, and then used his connections in India to get an even better deal.
The investigation into the case is all set to widen, given that the FIR lists Vectra company officials, officials in the defence ministry and the public sector defence utility BEML.
In the ultimate analysis, the buck may not stop with Ravi Rishi, and if he gives out more damning information on the deal, a whole lot of skeletons could come tumbling out.
An IIT electrical engineering graduate from New Delhi, Ravi Rishi had reportedly steered the Rajiv Gandhi government in 1986 towards the Tatra's all-weather trucks. Congress leaders are worried just how far the CBI probe could stretch; in particular, they are worried whether the CBI will inquire into how the Rajiv Gandhi government in 1986 approved of the deal. They are keen to ensure that the scope of the probe does not extend beyond the bribe allegedly offered to the Army chief.
Thus far, Ravi Rishi has dismissed the allegations against him, and said that the Tatra trucks were sold through public sector undertaking Bharat Earth Movers Limited.
He also said the charges levelled by General VK Singh – that the Tatra trucks were sub-standard – were baseless.
Tatra deal: If Ravi Rishi ‘sings’, skeletons could tumble out | Firstpost
by FP Editors Apr 2, 2012
The noose is tightening around Ravi Rishi, the NRI businessman who owns the UK-based Vectra group that sold Tatra trucks to the Indian Army, which are at the centre of the controversy surrounding Army chief, Gen VK Singh's sensational allegation of bribery in the case.
On Sunday, the CBI issued restraint orders to prevent Ravi Rishi from leaving the country. It also impounded his passport, and has indicated it will question him again.
The action raises the prospect that Ravi Rishi could face arrest in the case. Last week, his premises and various properties were raided, and documents relating to the controversial deal were recovered.
As Firstpost has noted earlier, the Vectra Group is the largest shareholder in Tatra Holdings, which owns Czech truck manufacturer Tatra.
The Tatra- BEML deal violates the rule that Indian defence contracts are required to be direct deals between supplier and India. In this case, the deal was struck with an intermediary, the Vectra Group, which is tainted even given Vectra Group's organic links with Tatra.
From all accounts, Ravi Rishi used his knowledge of Tatra's straitened financial condition in the 1980s – the company was at that time struggling to survive – to extract low prices from the manufacturer, and then used his connections in India to get an even better deal.
The investigation into the case is all set to widen, given that the FIR lists Vectra company officials, officials in the defence ministry and the public sector defence utility BEML.
In the ultimate analysis, the buck may not stop with Ravi Rishi, and if he gives out more damning information on the deal, a whole lot of skeletons could come tumbling out.
An IIT electrical engineering graduate from New Delhi, Ravi Rishi had reportedly steered the Rajiv Gandhi government in 1986 towards the Tatra's all-weather trucks. Congress leaders are worried just how far the CBI probe could stretch; in particular, they are worried whether the CBI will inquire into how the Rajiv Gandhi government in 1986 approved of the deal. They are keen to ensure that the scope of the probe does not extend beyond the bribe allegedly offered to the Army chief.
Thus far, Ravi Rishi has dismissed the allegations against him, and said that the Tatra trucks were sold through public sector undertaking Bharat Earth Movers Limited.
He also said the charges levelled by General VK Singh – that the Tatra trucks were sub-standard – were baseless.
Tatra deal: If Ravi Rishi ‘sings’, skeletons could tumble out | Firstpost
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 3,282
- Likes
- 316
Tatra money trail leads to tax haven
Chandan Nandy, Bangalore, April 2, 2012, DHNS:
CBI finds firm's ownership structure mired in mystery
The profits made by Tatra Sipox (UK) Ltd, owned by Vectra Ltd chief Ravinder Kumar Rishi, who has been questioned by the CBI in the case alleging BEML"ˆ"fraudulently assigning" a contract involving Tatra trucks to his company, are suspected to have found their way to Liechtenstein, a western European tax haven.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is looking into the ownership structure of Tatra Sipox, located in Richmond, Surrey, in the UK, has found that it is mired in mystery.
An examination of the web of "shell" companies shows that its main ownership leads to Liechtenstein through a company called Deswa Holding Establishment which owns 99 per cent of Venus Projects Ltd in which too Rishi has a stake. As of December 2009, the ownership of Tatra Sipox was between one Mrs Bozen Durdovicoca, Slovakian citizen, who owned 50 per cent shares and Venus Projects (Hong Kong)"ˆLtd which also had 50 per cent stake. Inquiries revealed that Tatra Sipox, which was originally incorporated in 1994, was promoted by one Jozef Majsky of Cervenova in Bratislava, Slovakia and Venus Projects UK Ltd, a fully owned subsidiary of Venus Projects Hong Kong. Venus Projects Ltd's address has been shown to be 2 Brentford Business Centre, Brentford Middle.
Czech newspapers have extensively reported that Majsky, a very rich Slovak, was a few years ago imprisoned for 22 months on the charge of defrauding people who had invested in two companies BMG"ˆInvest and Horizont Slovakia. In 1995-96, Venus Projects Ltd transferred its entire shareholding in favour of Jupiter Exports PTE"ˆLtd, based in North Bridge Road, Singapore. Jupiter Exports in turn transferred its shareholding to Durdovicoca. On the other hand, the founder shareholder Majsky transferred his shares in favour of Venus Projects Ltd Hong Kong in 2008-2009.
Although a few years ago the original manufacturer of Tatra trucks, Tatra a.s., showed Venus Projects Ltd as its agent for selling Tatra vehicles in India, Venus Projects dissociated itself from Tatra Sipox and transferred its share to Jupiter Exports.
Knowledageable sources said that way back in 1994-95, as a supplier to the Indian armed forces, Venus Projects was allegedly blacklisted by the Ministry of Defence. In 2011, Venus Projects' showed it was located at Cawdor Crescent, in Hamwell, London.
According to records Deccan Herald obtained from the Companies House, UK, atra Sipox was originally incorporated for the purpose of "representation", but subsequently switched to miscellaneous services such as "spiritual, religious and social, including marriage and dating services." The company's annual returns, filed on March 25, 2012, show that Vectra Ltd holds 15,000 shares. Its "abbreviated" accounts of October 2010 show that for the year ending 2010, the company was entitled to exemption under specific provisions of the British Companies Act, 2006 and it was also not required to obtain an audit.
Venus Projects Ltd (company number FC013931) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Venus Projects Ltd, Hong Kong, whose ownership structure reveals that another Hong Kong-based firm, Descona Ltd, holds one share while Deswa Holdings Establishment, based in Valduz in Liechtenstein holds 99,999 shares. Verification of Descona Ltd's ownership revealed that its owner was Seconda Ltd, Central Hong Kong, holding 99 shares.
The balance share is held by Anscode, Central Hong Kong. Suprisingly, Seconda Ltd is in turn owned by Descona Ltd. The addresses of Desconas, Seconda and Ancode is the same -- 6th Floor Alexandra House, Central Hong Kong. As for Deswa Holdings, the trail dries up in Liechtenstein.
Knowledgeable sources suspect that since Venus Projects Hong Kong is owned by Deswa Holding, its profits would have gone to Liechtenstein beyond which there is no information to show where the money might have been funelled.
Significant amount
As Deswa Holding held 99.99 per cent of Venus Projects, sources suspect a significant amount would have found its way into the tax haven and beyond.
Sources said it is misleading to make any claims that Tatra Sipox has a majority stake in the original Czech Tatra a.s, which makes Ravinder Kumar Rishi of Vectra an investor and not the manufacturer of Tatra trucks as it has claimed in its letter to the Ministry of Defence on March 28, 2012, seeking permission for sanction to prosecute the Chief of Army Staf Gen V"ˆK"ˆSingh.
Tatra Sipox's claim
The letter says:"ˆ"As you are aware our company is a producer and original equipment manufacturer (OEM)"ˆof Tatra trucks presently being used by the Indian Army in several sensitive applications."
Despite these claims, Tatra a.s., as its website says, "is one of the oldest vehicle manufacturers in the world. It has always been situated in Kopřivnice, a town in the eastern part of the Czech Republic, the Moravia-Silesia region."
A May 2002 sales invoice drawn on Tatra Sipox clearly indicates that the BEML's order of 35 Tatra trucks chassis was given to Tatra Sipox which was neither the manufacturer nor a single share was / is owned by Tatra a.s, the OEM.
The previous chairman of BEML K"ˆAprameyan in an annual general body meeting of 2002 said that Tatra Sipox was a marketing arm of the Czech company. But V"ˆR"ˆS"ˆNatarajan in an earlier press statement had claimed that Tatra Sipox was a Slovakian company.
The order for the 35 chassis was in dollar terms and amounted to $1,855,000 which, according to the exchange rate at that time, meant that each truck was purchased for about Rs 28 lakh a piece.
Industry sources said that even if there was a price escalation of 5 per cent per year, the Tatra trucks would cost about Rs 40 lakh now.
Tatra money trail leads to tax haven
Will this end up with the Gandhi's?...
Chandan Nandy, Bangalore, April 2, 2012, DHNS:
CBI finds firm's ownership structure mired in mystery
The profits made by Tatra Sipox (UK) Ltd, owned by Vectra Ltd chief Ravinder Kumar Rishi, who has been questioned by the CBI in the case alleging BEML"ˆ"fraudulently assigning" a contract involving Tatra trucks to his company, are suspected to have found their way to Liechtenstein, a western European tax haven.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is looking into the ownership structure of Tatra Sipox, located in Richmond, Surrey, in the UK, has found that it is mired in mystery.
An examination of the web of "shell" companies shows that its main ownership leads to Liechtenstein through a company called Deswa Holding Establishment which owns 99 per cent of Venus Projects Ltd in which too Rishi has a stake. As of December 2009, the ownership of Tatra Sipox was between one Mrs Bozen Durdovicoca, Slovakian citizen, who owned 50 per cent shares and Venus Projects (Hong Kong)"ˆLtd which also had 50 per cent stake. Inquiries revealed that Tatra Sipox, which was originally incorporated in 1994, was promoted by one Jozef Majsky of Cervenova in Bratislava, Slovakia and Venus Projects UK Ltd, a fully owned subsidiary of Venus Projects Hong Kong. Venus Projects Ltd's address has been shown to be 2 Brentford Business Centre, Brentford Middle.
Czech newspapers have extensively reported that Majsky, a very rich Slovak, was a few years ago imprisoned for 22 months on the charge of defrauding people who had invested in two companies BMG"ˆInvest and Horizont Slovakia. In 1995-96, Venus Projects Ltd transferred its entire shareholding in favour of Jupiter Exports PTE"ˆLtd, based in North Bridge Road, Singapore. Jupiter Exports in turn transferred its shareholding to Durdovicoca. On the other hand, the founder shareholder Majsky transferred his shares in favour of Venus Projects Ltd Hong Kong in 2008-2009.
Although a few years ago the original manufacturer of Tatra trucks, Tatra a.s., showed Venus Projects Ltd as its agent for selling Tatra vehicles in India, Venus Projects dissociated itself from Tatra Sipox and transferred its share to Jupiter Exports.
Knowledageable sources said that way back in 1994-95, as a supplier to the Indian armed forces, Venus Projects was allegedly blacklisted by the Ministry of Defence. In 2011, Venus Projects' showed it was located at Cawdor Crescent, in Hamwell, London.
According to records Deccan Herald obtained from the Companies House, UK, atra Sipox was originally incorporated for the purpose of "representation", but subsequently switched to miscellaneous services such as "spiritual, religious and social, including marriage and dating services." The company's annual returns, filed on March 25, 2012, show that Vectra Ltd holds 15,000 shares. Its "abbreviated" accounts of October 2010 show that for the year ending 2010, the company was entitled to exemption under specific provisions of the British Companies Act, 2006 and it was also not required to obtain an audit.
Venus Projects Ltd (company number FC013931) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Venus Projects Ltd, Hong Kong, whose ownership structure reveals that another Hong Kong-based firm, Descona Ltd, holds one share while Deswa Holdings Establishment, based in Valduz in Liechtenstein holds 99,999 shares. Verification of Descona Ltd's ownership revealed that its owner was Seconda Ltd, Central Hong Kong, holding 99 shares.
The balance share is held by Anscode, Central Hong Kong. Suprisingly, Seconda Ltd is in turn owned by Descona Ltd. The addresses of Desconas, Seconda and Ancode is the same -- 6th Floor Alexandra House, Central Hong Kong. As for Deswa Holdings, the trail dries up in Liechtenstein.
Knowledgeable sources suspect that since Venus Projects Hong Kong is owned by Deswa Holding, its profits would have gone to Liechtenstein beyond which there is no information to show where the money might have been funelled.
Significant amount
As Deswa Holding held 99.99 per cent of Venus Projects, sources suspect a significant amount would have found its way into the tax haven and beyond.
Sources said it is misleading to make any claims that Tatra Sipox has a majority stake in the original Czech Tatra a.s, which makes Ravinder Kumar Rishi of Vectra an investor and not the manufacturer of Tatra trucks as it has claimed in its letter to the Ministry of Defence on March 28, 2012, seeking permission for sanction to prosecute the Chief of Army Staf Gen V"ˆK"ˆSingh.
Tatra Sipox's claim
The letter says:"ˆ"As you are aware our company is a producer and original equipment manufacturer (OEM)"ˆof Tatra trucks presently being used by the Indian Army in several sensitive applications."
Despite these claims, Tatra a.s., as its website says, "is one of the oldest vehicle manufacturers in the world. It has always been situated in Kopřivnice, a town in the eastern part of the Czech Republic, the Moravia-Silesia region."
A May 2002 sales invoice drawn on Tatra Sipox clearly indicates that the BEML's order of 35 Tatra trucks chassis was given to Tatra Sipox which was neither the manufacturer nor a single share was / is owned by Tatra a.s, the OEM.
The previous chairman of BEML K"ˆAprameyan in an annual general body meeting of 2002 said that Tatra Sipox was a marketing arm of the Czech company. But V"ˆR"ˆS"ˆNatarajan in an earlier press statement had claimed that Tatra Sipox was a Slovakian company.
The order for the 35 chassis was in dollar terms and amounted to $1,855,000 which, according to the exchange rate at that time, meant that each truck was purchased for about Rs 28 lakh a piece.
Industry sources said that even if there was a price escalation of 5 per cent per year, the Tatra trucks would cost about Rs 40 lakh now.
Tatra money trail leads to tax haven
Will this end up with the Gandhi's?...
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,841
Tatra deal: Did Defence PSU BEML act like a middleman? --Videos India:IBNLive Videos
See this.
Heard what the Brig said - the BEML chap said how will the Def PSU survive if the Army does not buy.
Same is the case with the DRDO.
That much for self sufficiency and indigenisation that all talk about. It is a hogwash and what is asked is to support inefficient organisations that only get flabbier and useless.
See this.
Heard what the Brig said - the BEML chap said how will the Def PSU survive if the Army does not buy.
Same is the case with the DRDO.
That much for self sufficiency and indigenisation that all talk about. It is a hogwash and what is asked is to support inefficient organisations that only get flabbier and useless.
Bhadra
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,991
- Likes
- 23,756
So Army, Navy and Air Forces are just a captive markets and users for PSU, DRDO and MoD for their "Loot - Khasoot" and Defense of India a reasons to bloat black money stshed and exchanged in tax heavens abroad.
No wonder VKS did not get such a support from the retired lots as their could be mouse in the paints !
Remember - Loot and Scoot !
No wonder VKS did not get such a support from the retired lots as their could be mouse in the paints !
Remember - Loot and Scoot !
Bhadra
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,991
- Likes
- 23,756
Who is Lt-Gen Tejinder Singh?
Who is Lt-Gen Tejinder Singh?
MADHAV NALAPAT NEW DELHI | 6th Mar
Those involved in the making of purchases for security agencies under the Home Ministry or the PMO say that retired Lt-General Tejinder Singh,who has been explicitly accused by the Army of having floated reports that Chief of Army Staff General V K Singh spied on Defense Minister A K Antony, is not an unknown figure within the world of suppliers of equipment. One source said that Tejinder Singh "operates in tandem with a Major Hooda (retd) and his son, both of whom are well known to Karthik Chidambaram,the influential son of Home Minister P Chidambaram". The younger Hooda, a presumed relative of the Haryana Chief Minister, is alleged to be "active in promoting the products of certain agencies, including foreign entities". These sources claim that Tejinder Singh was very close to a former Chief of Army Staff and that he "knows the incoming Chief of Army Staff,Lt-General Bikramjit Singh, very well". None of these claims could be verified,especially suggestions that a such link "could influence procurement decisions by the Army in the future". General V K Singh is known to have had a series of battles with established cartels involved in military procurement,unlike some of his predecessors,who "played along with such elements". That the incoming Chief of Army Staff has very powerful support within the UPA was made clear by the government's decision to announce that he would succeed General V K Singh,even if the latter were to quit prematurely. It needs to be said that Lt-General Bikramjit Singh is widely regarded as a capable officer,with an excellent record in counter-insurgency operations.
Surprisingly,the CBI has thus far not shown any interest in investigating the many allegations that Lt-General Tejinder Singh,Major Hooda and others are involved in efforts to influence procurement decisions in the Home and Defense Ministries,besides those in NTRO,RAW and the Aviation Research Service. Reports of suspicious transactions in these agencies have been buried under a carpet of official indifference. By avoiding an enquiry, what has happened is that the miasma of suspicion that is hovering over the head of Karthik Chidambaram is continuing. Numerous sources allege "undue attention and interest" by the young politician in matters relating to equipment suggested as being needed for national security. There is every likelihood that such charges against Karthik are false, and motivated by jealously at his swift rise in business and politics. However, given the clout of the Home Minister in matters relating to promotions of IPS officers,the inaction of the CBI has given rise to speculation about the agency's motivation in rejecting an enquiry. Interestingly,a source claims that "one of the national security agencies of the Government of India recently asked for an enquiry into Hooda and Singh by both CBI and IB",but to no avail, "as high-level circles shield the two" . The Army has finally come out in the open about the mysterious retired armyman,who moves in very influential circles in Delhi,and directly tied him to the ongoing - and vicious - campaign against General Singh. It needs to be added that Defense Minister A K Antony has thus far kept himself scrupulously away from this campaign,although he has endorsed the view that Lt-General Bikramjit Singh is the fittest officer to be the new COAS.
Sources tracking procurement within the services are,in the words of a senior officer, afraid that "once the new Chief of Army Staff takes office,enquiries initiated by General Singh may get discontinued",thereby enabling officers guilty of graft and worse to escape. Hopefully,such a suspicion will be shown to be unfounded,come June 1,2012,and that the new Chief of Army Staff will continue the house-cleaning initiated by his predecessor. General Bikramjit Singh needs to show that he is in the tradition of those fighting graft,rather than in that of certain predecessors who are known to have done the opposite.
Who is Lt-Gen Tejinder Singh?
MADHAV NALAPAT NEW DELHI | 6th Mar
Those involved in the making of purchases for security agencies under the Home Ministry or the PMO say that retired Lt-General Tejinder Singh,who has been explicitly accused by the Army of having floated reports that Chief of Army Staff General V K Singh spied on Defense Minister A K Antony, is not an unknown figure within the world of suppliers of equipment. One source said that Tejinder Singh "operates in tandem with a Major Hooda (retd) and his son, both of whom are well known to Karthik Chidambaram,the influential son of Home Minister P Chidambaram". The younger Hooda, a presumed relative of the Haryana Chief Minister, is alleged to be "active in promoting the products of certain agencies, including foreign entities". These sources claim that Tejinder Singh was very close to a former Chief of Army Staff and that he "knows the incoming Chief of Army Staff,Lt-General Bikramjit Singh, very well". None of these claims could be verified,especially suggestions that a such link "could influence procurement decisions by the Army in the future". General V K Singh is known to have had a series of battles with established cartels involved in military procurement,unlike some of his predecessors,who "played along with such elements". That the incoming Chief of Army Staff has very powerful support within the UPA was made clear by the government's decision to announce that he would succeed General V K Singh,even if the latter were to quit prematurely. It needs to be said that Lt-General Bikramjit Singh is widely regarded as a capable officer,with an excellent record in counter-insurgency operations.
Surprisingly,the CBI has thus far not shown any interest in investigating the many allegations that Lt-General Tejinder Singh,Major Hooda and others are involved in efforts to influence procurement decisions in the Home and Defense Ministries,besides those in NTRO,RAW and the Aviation Research Service. Reports of suspicious transactions in these agencies have been buried under a carpet of official indifference. By avoiding an enquiry, what has happened is that the miasma of suspicion that is hovering over the head of Karthik Chidambaram is continuing. Numerous sources allege "undue attention and interest" by the young politician in matters relating to equipment suggested as being needed for national security. There is every likelihood that such charges against Karthik are false, and motivated by jealously at his swift rise in business and politics. However, given the clout of the Home Minister in matters relating to promotions of IPS officers,the inaction of the CBI has given rise to speculation about the agency's motivation in rejecting an enquiry. Interestingly,a source claims that "one of the national security agencies of the Government of India recently asked for an enquiry into Hooda and Singh by both CBI and IB",but to no avail, "as high-level circles shield the two" . The Army has finally come out in the open about the mysterious retired armyman,who moves in very influential circles in Delhi,and directly tied him to the ongoing - and vicious - campaign against General Singh. It needs to be added that Defense Minister A K Antony has thus far kept himself scrupulously away from this campaign,although he has endorsed the view that Lt-General Bikramjit Singh is the fittest officer to be the new COAS.
Sources tracking procurement within the services are,in the words of a senior officer, afraid that "once the new Chief of Army Staff takes office,enquiries initiated by General Singh may get discontinued",thereby enabling officers guilty of graft and worse to escape. Hopefully,such a suspicion will be shown to be unfounded,come June 1,2012,and that the new Chief of Army Staff will continue the house-cleaning initiated by his predecessor. General Bikramjit Singh needs to show that he is in the tradition of those fighting graft,rather than in that of certain predecessors who are known to have done the opposite.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,841
Tejinder Singh is also a Hooda!
I wonder if the cases initiated by the current Chief will be pursued.
Once he retires, it will become business as usual.
Very few like to rock the boat since the end result is what the current Chief is facing!
I wonder if the cases initiated by the current Chief will be pursued.
Once he retires, it will become business as usual.
Very few like to rock the boat since the end result is what the current Chief is facing!
Bhadra
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,991
- Likes
- 23,756
How to buy a battle-ready military
How to buy a battle-ready military - Indian Express
Amitabha Pande : Thu Apr 05 2012, 00:17 hrs
The defence procurement system needs radical reform to address corruption
In the media frenzy generated by General V.K. Singh's not-so-startling revelations, our genius for muddling issues and focussing on their more salacious aspects has once again become evident. Knee-jerk reactions, like the reference of the Tatra procurements to the CBI, will ensure the flaws in the decision-making process remain unaddressed and the opportunity for serious and radical systemic reforms is again passed over.
There are several distinct sets of issues the current episode throws up , all of which deserve separate analyses.This essay confines itself to the issue of corruption in defence procurements. Why does it occur and what is special about corruption in defence? Where does it occur and relatedly, how does it occur?
The issue of "why" is complex. Many reasons make it different from corruption elsewhere. The market is what is called monopsonistic, that is, a monopoly on the demand side, rather than the supply side, and monopolies of both kinds can be pernicious. Paradoxically, however, given the uncertainties and the whimsies of the market, the number of suppliers is also limited. This necessarily leads to an unhealthy relationship between the buyer and the supplier, which veers between being cosy and crony-like to being tense and adversarial. The risks involved are considerable and therefore the need for intermediation often necessary. Security concerns necessitate a veil of secrecy on defence acquisitions, making it difficult to apply the rules of transparency applicable elsewhere. Perversely, the need for confidentiality also becomes an excuse for conducting business in devious and furtive ways.
The nature of the market, therefore, is one that provides fertile breeding ground for corrupt practices. What increases the complexity is the tortuous system of procurement designed by the Indian bureaucracy on the famous CYA principle, which ensures that multiple opportunities for charging rent arise, and that this rent has to be paid and is paid, irrespective of who one chooses to buy from and irrespective of there being honest jokers in the pack at different levels. Procedures intended to prevent foul play ironically achieve the opposite, with illicit payments being made simply for play to happen — foul or fair.
Which brings us to the question of "how", but before that let us look at the interesting issue of "where". There are three separate tracks that all procurements in the defence ministry go through, and each of these tracks has a bewildering multiplicity of hurdles .
The first is demand estimation, demand vetting, demand projection and inter se priority determination. This exercise is in the domain of the SHQ. It is here that decisions are taken on the volumes required and the inter se priority to be accorded to the items to be procured within available budgets. It is astonishing how unpredictable this can be. Capital intensive production capacities set up at huge costs on the basis of long-term, sustained demand go abegging for orders simply because a new army chief changes priorities, or a transaction does not go in favour of the desired party, or because the one projecting the demand does not like the face of the supplier. As no one can be penalised for not wanting to buy, huge sums are paid simply to sustain demand, especially when it comes to repeat orders.
The second is technical — from framing the general staff qualitative requirements, to preparing engineering specifications, technical trials, user trials and techno-commercial evaluations before the procurement process commences, and the entire spectrum of post-contract activities related to quality inspections, controls and quality assurance. This is the jealously-guarded turf of the SHQ, which brooks no outside interference. The procedural labyrinth that any supplier has to go through to have his product declared technically acceptable is Kafkaesque and offers limitless rent-seeking opportunities. Being a purely technical matter, neither the processes nor the practices are audited or subjected to independent professional scrutiny.
The third is actual procurement, where the onus shifts to the ministry and the dreaded babu. Here, there is a well-established hierarchy of rent collectors along the approval chain. The approval cycle itself is so complicated and so lengthy that the opportunity for each functionary or facilitator to collect his share of the booty along the nuisance value chain is maximised. At no stage does anyone need to circumvent or short circuit the procedure, because following the procedure itself provides the opportunity. The bidders open a kind of letter of credit with the established chain of rent collectors before the procurement process begins and as each stage of the transaction is crossed, the rent gets automatically paid at the appropriate level. At the apex of the decision-making chain is the chief collector — who could be the minister, prime minister, or a confidante of either — who gets the highest share of the rent. It matters little who wins an order, because payment is made for the final approval being granted, not for deciding in anyone's favour.
What can be done? First, devolve and delegate clear and full decision-making authority for procurements down the chain of command. Restrict the role of the ministry to procurement of major weapons systems and platforms. Have a clear hierarchy of budget holders who are fully responsible within their budgets to take all decisions for achieving budgeted outcomes. Second, simplify procedures, moving from administrative controls and restrictions to budget-based methods of control. Third, enhance the level of discretion available to the decision-makers rather than reduce or constrict it. Trust a group of competent men to weigh the pros and cons of each option and take a decision they feel is in the best interests of all stakeholders. Guarantee them complete protection from any allegations of misuse of trust.
Four, distinguish between middlemen who perform a genuine service for the supplier and the deal fixers, and give the former legal recognition and allow them free and easy access to decision-makers, making interactions with them transparent and aboveboard. Five, make a transition from engineering solution-based specifications to critical performance parameters. Share these parameters with potential suppliers and test product performance against these parameters. Six, integrate the departments of defence production and defence research with the department of defence and privatise defence PSUs, ordnance factories and defence labs by converting them into widely-held public limited companies answerable to their shareholders for performance, thereby encouraging a shift from pure 'buy' decisions, to 'buy and make' decisions from a customer-friendly industry.
While this may appear too radical an agenda, the kind of changes in procurement policies and systems that have been attempted so far have managed to achieve the impossible — deterred the honest from taking any decision and paralysed the system and, paradoxically, substantially increased the opportunities for the dishonest to eke out his rent from a vast new range of hurdles that a supplier has to go through to secure business. Only radical reform can break this deadlock.
The writer is a former secretary to the government and handled army procurement in the 1990s
How to buy a battle-ready military - Indian Express
Amitabha Pande : Thu Apr 05 2012, 00:17 hrs
The defence procurement system needs radical reform to address corruption
In the media frenzy generated by General V.K. Singh's not-so-startling revelations, our genius for muddling issues and focussing on their more salacious aspects has once again become evident. Knee-jerk reactions, like the reference of the Tatra procurements to the CBI, will ensure the flaws in the decision-making process remain unaddressed and the opportunity for serious and radical systemic reforms is again passed over.
There are several distinct sets of issues the current episode throws up , all of which deserve separate analyses.This essay confines itself to the issue of corruption in defence procurements. Why does it occur and what is special about corruption in defence? Where does it occur and relatedly, how does it occur?
The issue of "why" is complex. Many reasons make it different from corruption elsewhere. The market is what is called monopsonistic, that is, a monopoly on the demand side, rather than the supply side, and monopolies of both kinds can be pernicious. Paradoxically, however, given the uncertainties and the whimsies of the market, the number of suppliers is also limited. This necessarily leads to an unhealthy relationship between the buyer and the supplier, which veers between being cosy and crony-like to being tense and adversarial. The risks involved are considerable and therefore the need for intermediation often necessary. Security concerns necessitate a veil of secrecy on defence acquisitions, making it difficult to apply the rules of transparency applicable elsewhere. Perversely, the need for confidentiality also becomes an excuse for conducting business in devious and furtive ways.
The nature of the market, therefore, is one that provides fertile breeding ground for corrupt practices. What increases the complexity is the tortuous system of procurement designed by the Indian bureaucracy on the famous CYA principle, which ensures that multiple opportunities for charging rent arise, and that this rent has to be paid and is paid, irrespective of who one chooses to buy from and irrespective of there being honest jokers in the pack at different levels. Procedures intended to prevent foul play ironically achieve the opposite, with illicit payments being made simply for play to happen — foul or fair.
Which brings us to the question of "how", but before that let us look at the interesting issue of "where". There are three separate tracks that all procurements in the defence ministry go through, and each of these tracks has a bewildering multiplicity of hurdles .
The first is demand estimation, demand vetting, demand projection and inter se priority determination. This exercise is in the domain of the SHQ. It is here that decisions are taken on the volumes required and the inter se priority to be accorded to the items to be procured within available budgets. It is astonishing how unpredictable this can be. Capital intensive production capacities set up at huge costs on the basis of long-term, sustained demand go abegging for orders simply because a new army chief changes priorities, or a transaction does not go in favour of the desired party, or because the one projecting the demand does not like the face of the supplier. As no one can be penalised for not wanting to buy, huge sums are paid simply to sustain demand, especially when it comes to repeat orders.
The second is technical — from framing the general staff qualitative requirements, to preparing engineering specifications, technical trials, user trials and techno-commercial evaluations before the procurement process commences, and the entire spectrum of post-contract activities related to quality inspections, controls and quality assurance. This is the jealously-guarded turf of the SHQ, which brooks no outside interference. The procedural labyrinth that any supplier has to go through to have his product declared technically acceptable is Kafkaesque and offers limitless rent-seeking opportunities. Being a purely technical matter, neither the processes nor the practices are audited or subjected to independent professional scrutiny.
The third is actual procurement, where the onus shifts to the ministry and the dreaded babu. Here, there is a well-established hierarchy of rent collectors along the approval chain. The approval cycle itself is so complicated and so lengthy that the opportunity for each functionary or facilitator to collect his share of the booty along the nuisance value chain is maximised. At no stage does anyone need to circumvent or short circuit the procedure, because following the procedure itself provides the opportunity. The bidders open a kind of letter of credit with the established chain of rent collectors before the procurement process begins and as each stage of the transaction is crossed, the rent gets automatically paid at the appropriate level. At the apex of the decision-making chain is the chief collector — who could be the minister, prime minister, or a confidante of either — who gets the highest share of the rent. It matters little who wins an order, because payment is made for the final approval being granted, not for deciding in anyone's favour.
What can be done? First, devolve and delegate clear and full decision-making authority for procurements down the chain of command. Restrict the role of the ministry to procurement of major weapons systems and platforms. Have a clear hierarchy of budget holders who are fully responsible within their budgets to take all decisions for achieving budgeted outcomes. Second, simplify procedures, moving from administrative controls and restrictions to budget-based methods of control. Third, enhance the level of discretion available to the decision-makers rather than reduce or constrict it. Trust a group of competent men to weigh the pros and cons of each option and take a decision they feel is in the best interests of all stakeholders. Guarantee them complete protection from any allegations of misuse of trust.
Four, distinguish between middlemen who perform a genuine service for the supplier and the deal fixers, and give the former legal recognition and allow them free and easy access to decision-makers, making interactions with them transparent and aboveboard. Five, make a transition from engineering solution-based specifications to critical performance parameters. Share these parameters with potential suppliers and test product performance against these parameters. Six, integrate the departments of defence production and defence research with the department of defence and privatise defence PSUs, ordnance factories and defence labs by converting them into widely-held public limited companies answerable to their shareholders for performance, thereby encouraging a shift from pure 'buy' decisions, to 'buy and make' decisions from a customer-friendly industry.
While this may appear too radical an agenda, the kind of changes in procurement policies and systems that have been attempted so far have managed to achieve the impossible — deterred the honest from taking any decision and paralysed the system and, paradoxically, substantially increased the opportunities for the dishonest to eke out his rent from a vast new range of hurdles that a supplier has to go through to secure business. Only radical reform can break this deadlock.
The writer is a former secretary to the government and handled army procurement in the 1990s
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,841
Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.
Thrice and once the hedge-pig whined.
Harpier cries 'Tis time, 'tis time.
Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and owlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
Witches' mummy, maw and gulf
Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark,
Root of hemlock digg'd i' the dark,
Liver of blaspheming Jew,
Gall of goat, and slips of yew
Silver'd in the moon's eclipse,
Nose of Turk and Tartar's lips,
Finger of birth-strangled babe 30
Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a tiger's chaudron,
For the ingredients of our cauldron.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Cool it with a baboon's blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.
Thrice and once the hedge-pig whined.
Harpier cries 'Tis time, 'tis time.
Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and owlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
Witches' mummy, maw and gulf
Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark,
Root of hemlock digg'd i' the dark,
Liver of blaspheming Jew,
Gall of goat, and slips of yew
Silver'd in the moon's eclipse,
Nose of Turk and Tartar's lips,
Finger of birth-strangled babe 30
Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a tiger's chaudron,
For the ingredients of our cauldron.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Cool it with a baboon's blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.
Bhadra
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,991
- Likes
- 23,756
Very Very disturbing but factual article by Col RSM :
RSM Singh lays it out for all in his piece in Firstpost.
Quoting it in full with emphasis and comments.
Quote:
An Imminent Hijack by the Arms lobby
by RSN Singh, Canary TrapThe biggest curse for any Indian today is probity. Had Gen VK Singh accepted the Rs 14 crore bribe he claimed he was offered, he would have been the darling of the establishment and would have rode to the office of governor of some state on retirement.
The revelations by the army chief regarding an attempt to bribe him by a Lt Gen during the course of an interview with a national daily was known to this author and informed people in the journalist fraternity. The fact that there exists evidence by way of a taped conversation between the said Lt Gen and the army chief is also not a new input. This author had written about the role of this Lt Gen in trying to bribe the army chief at the behest of certain arms supplier in an earlier Firstpost article, "Who's trying to fix the army chief by raking up his age?" in July 2011.
This article was widely circulated. The offer of bribe was to push the sale of Tatra vehicles at an exorbitant price. A particular firm was purchasing second-hand Tatra vehicles and selling it through Bharat Earth Movers Ltd (BEML) at more than double the cost. Reportedly, while the cost of each vehicle off the shelf was around Rs 30-40 lakh, there was a bid by the arms lobby to sell it to the Indian army for about Rs 1 crore.
The army chief refused to put the army and the country to such a massive loss of tax-payer money. It is then that the Lt Gen allegedly offered a bribe of Rs 14 crore. When the army chief did not relent, he is understood to have pleaded that army chiefs before the present incumbent had all played ball and those who will succeed him would also do so. Tatra vehicles have been procured by the Indian army since 1986.
Significantly, the army chief said that he immediately reported the matter to the defence minister and offered to quit if he was considered a 'misfit'. This offer to quit is pregnant in import, and its depth and linkages are yet to unravel.
A conscientious and God-fearing defence minister did acknowledge in the Rajya Sabha that the matter was indeed reported to him and he stated that he sank his head in his hands. Was it because of the conflict between his 'head and heart'? Or in other words, was it because of the conflict between the defence minister's personal integrity and political integrity or political compulsions?
It is rather well known that the defence minister has always held the army chief in very high esteem for reasons of personal integrity, something which resonates with his own personality. Some sources have revealed to this author that Antony had almost decided to rule in favour of Gen VK Singh in respect to the date of birth controversy after the first opinion of the law ministry, which categorically upheld the general's contention. It was then that powers in positions superior to Antony compelled him to readdress the case to the law ministry. It did weigh heavily on his conscience, and there were political offers and assurances to recompense the hurt caused by the deliberate miscarriage of truth and justice in ways more than one.
The general found it hard to buy the bargain on a basic issue that questioned his character. Notwithstanding the efforts of emissaries he did not relent and offered to resign. The political class, prodded by a megalomaniac bureaucracy for fear of the 'succession plan' being upset in deference to the arms lobby, as also the unacceptable adverse political fallout for reasons of political funding requirements, began to threaten the general that should he choose to offer his resignation it would not be accepted.
The general was thus driven to the Supreme Court.
The establishment, more so powers superior to Antony, were unnerved by this development, as they were acutely conscious that the general's case was 'open and shut'. Leave alone experienced lawyers, even a first year law student will vouch for the fact. What happened thereafter is well known. Every institution in India has probably discredited itself in this age row.
It is not that the army was not confronted earlier with such instances of discrepancies in dates of birth of officers. They are routine and are resolved quickly and appropriately. An exactly similar case was resolved in the late 1990s just one day before the retirement of one Col Ramesh Chandra Dixit. VK Singh was made the first and last exception. Last exception, because the MoD or the Army Headquarters consequent to their ruling on Gen VK Singh's age, cannot legally dare to reiterate that the Army List, or the Military Secretary's Branch enjoy primacy over the Adjutant General's Branch with matters pertaining to date of birth of officers.
What was therefore perpetrated on the army chief was a fraud. A fraud so outrageous that it seemingly reduces India to the category of Banana Republic. Who perpetrated this fraud? It was two army chiefs in succession, whose reputations are today under attack for their unsavory deeds and involvement in various scams. Imagine an army chief (COAS General Deepak Kapoor ,COAS Gen N C Vij and Admiral Madhavendra Singh) appropriating flats meant for families of Kargil martyrs.
Can it get worse? It is no wonder that these army chiefs, who as father figures, should have protected the professional and personal integrity of their subordinates, chose to force Gen Singh to accept a particular date of birth, failing which there was an implied threat that the controversy would be used to derail him. They should have instead apologised for the omissions and commissions of a particular branch of the army headquarters. Once the so-called 'acceptance' was obtained on the repeated plea of 'organisational constraints', the army chiefs began to breath easy.
Gen Singh's subsequent pleadings to explain the 'organizational constraints' fell on deaf ears. The sigh of relief was because the 'succession plan' as desired by the arms lobby was now in place.
The Indian army and the army personnel as such are not safe under such chiefs.
The bureaucrats became part of the design only after Gen Singh raked up the issue of his date of birth as COAS (Chief of Army Staff). Four former chief justices of India, all of them with impeccable credentials, gave opinions in his favour, but this did not appeal to the moral sense of the ministry. That the law ministry gave an opinion categorically upholding Gen Singh's stand, did not help. When the general said it was not a question of additional few months, but his honour, it did not help. He was ridiculed, not only "¦"¦"¦"¦"¦.by the political and bureaucratic establishment but by some retired generals as well.
These retired generals are now (Who? can some one list), courtesy television channels, very familiar faces. All of them have a dubious past. One of them was forced to resign from the army because of IB reports regarding his indiscriminate womanising. The other is known to have run away with his senior's wife, and the third was in the dock for possessing a false degree. So much for the detractors of Gen Singh!
These characters only testify that the muck in the army has been accumulating over the years. It was quite evident when some generals awarded themselves shamelessly after the Kargil conflict.. There was no bravery or operational genius on display on their part. It would have been befitting to send some of them packing. The politics of the day saved them.
Corruption in the arms procurement process is not a new phenomenon. It started soon after independence. There was the Jeep scandal in VK Krishna Menon's time. The underpinning of the Tehelka sting operation was also regarding the same corruption. So what is new?
What is alarming and dangerous is the level of influence the arms lobby has acquired that it has begun to decide as to who would be the army chief and the length of his tenure. The tentacles of this lobby have penetrated every conceivable pillar institution of the state.
Reportedly, several crores of rupees have been spent by the arms lobby to perpetuate the date of birth fraud on Gen Singh. Such is the depth of influence of the lobby that only a divine intervention can salvage the obvious truth that every 'straight' Indian realises: that morally and legally Gen Singh's date of birth is 10 May 1951 and not 10 May 1950 as inflicted by the two army chiefs at the behest of the arms lobby. It is rather depressing to find so many 'not too straight' serving officers in the army.
The arms lobby first contrived to inflict the date of birth controversy on the general; then launched a media campaign to make him resign by engineering a divide between the general and the defence minister, as also the civil authority versus military. Then there was an attempt to prevent him from going to court by invoking tradition and precedence; then there was a campaign to make him withdraw his case from the Supreme Court; then there was psychological pressure being put on him to resign after the Supreme Court order which says nothing about his date of birth; and when he did not resign then there were desperate moves to get him sacked.
The fabrication of the story regarding the bugging of the defence minister's office at the behest of the general should be seen in this backdrop. The story was so poorly scripted that it fell apart. The writers of this script continue to enjoy immunity. The letter leak (from the general to the prime minister) should also be viewed in the same vein. The clamour for the chief's head by some bizarre quarters(Mulayam and Lallo Yadavs - conviniently by bashing a "Singh" these Caste Satraps buttress their "Yadav" position too) was also at the behest of the arms lobby.
A former diplomat (NSA Brajesh Mishra), who messed with India's national security, was pulled out of the cobwebs to suggest that the general should be sent on 'forced leave', little realising that there is no such provision in army law. He did not prefer 'sacking' probably due to his own vulnerabilities. Another former diplomat(KC Singh ?) with no locus-standi and no knowledge of army functioning has been taking special delight in VK Singh bashing. The man, it is apparent, has more than one motivation in doing so. This diplomat claimed that the unprecedented media campaign against Gen Singh unleashed by a daily newspaper published from the north was with the tacit approval of the PM. A prime minister getting after his own army chief via the media, if true, can happen only in Banana Republics.
A few years ago one Commander Nadeem(??) was mowed by a truck while he was taking his morning jog on the lawns of Shanti Path in New Delhi. He was dealing with the acquisition of some sensitive equipment. The recent death of a MoD official, Kumar Yashkar Sinha, and his wife is also intriguing. Initially the police dubbed the case as one of murder by strangulation of the wife by the husband followed by 'suicide' by the latter by setting himself aflame.
The profile of the officer suggests that he was of very strong character and enjoyed great marital harmony with his wife. It is, therefore, most unlikely that he had any suicidal tendencies. The police, based on a letter recovered from the scene of the crime, is attributing 'work pressure' by some superiors of the official for his alleged suicide. It is bizarre. No person will kill his wife because of his own work pressure. No person will strangulate his wife and then immolate himself.
He could well have hung himself instead of choosing such a painful route to suicide. It now emerges that the official was also dealing with RTI in the MoD. Is the murder of the official and his wife the handiwork of the arms lobby? The possibility cannot be ruled out.
The machinations of the arms lobby seem to have subverted the top leadership of the army considerably. One army chief allegedly initiated the culture of political funding by linking the army to the arms lobby- bureaucracy- politician nexus for political funding. The desperation and ruthlessness of the key players and key institutions could well be motivated by 2014 elections.
It is a matter of grave concern that succession plans in the army are being made at the behest of the arms lobby. It is not merely a question of subversion of a few people at the top. It has a cascading affect and thus the entire selection system gets vitiated and in the process the entire army gets subverted.
Lord Wavell had predicated the survival of India as one entity on the preservation of the Indian army as an effective and irreproachable instrument. This instrument is not fraying from the edges but is under threat from the top. If the slide continues, India would unravel. As it is, the state is losing its writ at a frightening pace. If the last bastion crumbles, India will indeed survive as another Banana Republic. Let us therefore save the Indian army and save India.
RSM Singh lays it out for all in his piece in Firstpost.
Quoting it in full with emphasis and comments.
Quote:
An Imminent Hijack by the Arms lobby
by RSN Singh, Canary TrapThe biggest curse for any Indian today is probity. Had Gen VK Singh accepted the Rs 14 crore bribe he claimed he was offered, he would have been the darling of the establishment and would have rode to the office of governor of some state on retirement.
The revelations by the army chief regarding an attempt to bribe him by a Lt Gen during the course of an interview with a national daily was known to this author and informed people in the journalist fraternity. The fact that there exists evidence by way of a taped conversation between the said Lt Gen and the army chief is also not a new input. This author had written about the role of this Lt Gen in trying to bribe the army chief at the behest of certain arms supplier in an earlier Firstpost article, "Who's trying to fix the army chief by raking up his age?" in July 2011.
This article was widely circulated. The offer of bribe was to push the sale of Tatra vehicles at an exorbitant price. A particular firm was purchasing second-hand Tatra vehicles and selling it through Bharat Earth Movers Ltd (BEML) at more than double the cost. Reportedly, while the cost of each vehicle off the shelf was around Rs 30-40 lakh, there was a bid by the arms lobby to sell it to the Indian army for about Rs 1 crore.
The army chief refused to put the army and the country to such a massive loss of tax-payer money. It is then that the Lt Gen allegedly offered a bribe of Rs 14 crore. When the army chief did not relent, he is understood to have pleaded that army chiefs before the present incumbent had all played ball and those who will succeed him would also do so. Tatra vehicles have been procured by the Indian army since 1986.
Significantly, the army chief said that he immediately reported the matter to the defence minister and offered to quit if he was considered a 'misfit'. This offer to quit is pregnant in import, and its depth and linkages are yet to unravel.
A conscientious and God-fearing defence minister did acknowledge in the Rajya Sabha that the matter was indeed reported to him and he stated that he sank his head in his hands. Was it because of the conflict between his 'head and heart'? Or in other words, was it because of the conflict between the defence minister's personal integrity and political integrity or political compulsions?
It is rather well known that the defence minister has always held the army chief in very high esteem for reasons of personal integrity, something which resonates with his own personality. Some sources have revealed to this author that Antony had almost decided to rule in favour of Gen VK Singh in respect to the date of birth controversy after the first opinion of the law ministry, which categorically upheld the general's contention. It was then that powers in positions superior to Antony compelled him to readdress the case to the law ministry. It did weigh heavily on his conscience, and there were political offers and assurances to recompense the hurt caused by the deliberate miscarriage of truth and justice in ways more than one.
The general found it hard to buy the bargain on a basic issue that questioned his character. Notwithstanding the efforts of emissaries he did not relent and offered to resign. The political class, prodded by a megalomaniac bureaucracy for fear of the 'succession plan' being upset in deference to the arms lobby, as also the unacceptable adverse political fallout for reasons of political funding requirements, began to threaten the general that should he choose to offer his resignation it would not be accepted.
The general was thus driven to the Supreme Court.
The establishment, more so powers superior to Antony, were unnerved by this development, as they were acutely conscious that the general's case was 'open and shut'. Leave alone experienced lawyers, even a first year law student will vouch for the fact. What happened thereafter is well known. Every institution in India has probably discredited itself in this age row.
It is not that the army was not confronted earlier with such instances of discrepancies in dates of birth of officers. They are routine and are resolved quickly and appropriately. An exactly similar case was resolved in the late 1990s just one day before the retirement of one Col Ramesh Chandra Dixit. VK Singh was made the first and last exception. Last exception, because the MoD or the Army Headquarters consequent to their ruling on Gen VK Singh's age, cannot legally dare to reiterate that the Army List, or the Military Secretary's Branch enjoy primacy over the Adjutant General's Branch with matters pertaining to date of birth of officers.
What was therefore perpetrated on the army chief was a fraud. A fraud so outrageous that it seemingly reduces India to the category of Banana Republic. Who perpetrated this fraud? It was two army chiefs in succession, whose reputations are today under attack for their unsavory deeds and involvement in various scams. Imagine an army chief (COAS General Deepak Kapoor ,COAS Gen N C Vij and Admiral Madhavendra Singh) appropriating flats meant for families of Kargil martyrs.
Can it get worse? It is no wonder that these army chiefs, who as father figures, should have protected the professional and personal integrity of their subordinates, chose to force Gen Singh to accept a particular date of birth, failing which there was an implied threat that the controversy would be used to derail him. They should have instead apologised for the omissions and commissions of a particular branch of the army headquarters. Once the so-called 'acceptance' was obtained on the repeated plea of 'organisational constraints', the army chiefs began to breath easy.
Gen Singh's subsequent pleadings to explain the 'organizational constraints' fell on deaf ears. The sigh of relief was because the 'succession plan' as desired by the arms lobby was now in place.
The Indian army and the army personnel as such are not safe under such chiefs.
The bureaucrats became part of the design only after Gen Singh raked up the issue of his date of birth as COAS (Chief of Army Staff). Four former chief justices of India, all of them with impeccable credentials, gave opinions in his favour, but this did not appeal to the moral sense of the ministry. That the law ministry gave an opinion categorically upholding Gen Singh's stand, did not help. When the general said it was not a question of additional few months, but his honour, it did not help. He was ridiculed, not only "¦"¦"¦"¦"¦.by the political and bureaucratic establishment but by some retired generals as well.
These retired generals are now (Who? can some one list), courtesy television channels, very familiar faces. All of them have a dubious past. One of them was forced to resign from the army because of IB reports regarding his indiscriminate womanising. The other is known to have run away with his senior's wife, and the third was in the dock for possessing a false degree. So much for the detractors of Gen Singh!
These characters only testify that the muck in the army has been accumulating over the years. It was quite evident when some generals awarded themselves shamelessly after the Kargil conflict.. There was no bravery or operational genius on display on their part. It would have been befitting to send some of them packing. The politics of the day saved them.
Corruption in the arms procurement process is not a new phenomenon. It started soon after independence. There was the Jeep scandal in VK Krishna Menon's time. The underpinning of the Tehelka sting operation was also regarding the same corruption. So what is new?
What is alarming and dangerous is the level of influence the arms lobby has acquired that it has begun to decide as to who would be the army chief and the length of his tenure. The tentacles of this lobby have penetrated every conceivable pillar institution of the state.
Reportedly, several crores of rupees have been spent by the arms lobby to perpetuate the date of birth fraud on Gen Singh. Such is the depth of influence of the lobby that only a divine intervention can salvage the obvious truth that every 'straight' Indian realises: that morally and legally Gen Singh's date of birth is 10 May 1951 and not 10 May 1950 as inflicted by the two army chiefs at the behest of the arms lobby. It is rather depressing to find so many 'not too straight' serving officers in the army.
The arms lobby first contrived to inflict the date of birth controversy on the general; then launched a media campaign to make him resign by engineering a divide between the general and the defence minister, as also the civil authority versus military. Then there was an attempt to prevent him from going to court by invoking tradition and precedence; then there was a campaign to make him withdraw his case from the Supreme Court; then there was psychological pressure being put on him to resign after the Supreme Court order which says nothing about his date of birth; and when he did not resign then there were desperate moves to get him sacked.
The fabrication of the story regarding the bugging of the defence minister's office at the behest of the general should be seen in this backdrop. The story was so poorly scripted that it fell apart. The writers of this script continue to enjoy immunity. The letter leak (from the general to the prime minister) should also be viewed in the same vein. The clamour for the chief's head by some bizarre quarters(Mulayam and Lallo Yadavs - conviniently by bashing a "Singh" these Caste Satraps buttress their "Yadav" position too) was also at the behest of the arms lobby.
A former diplomat (NSA Brajesh Mishra), who messed with India's national security, was pulled out of the cobwebs to suggest that the general should be sent on 'forced leave', little realising that there is no such provision in army law. He did not prefer 'sacking' probably due to his own vulnerabilities. Another former diplomat(KC Singh ?) with no locus-standi and no knowledge of army functioning has been taking special delight in VK Singh bashing. The man, it is apparent, has more than one motivation in doing so. This diplomat claimed that the unprecedented media campaign against Gen Singh unleashed by a daily newspaper published from the north was with the tacit approval of the PM. A prime minister getting after his own army chief via the media, if true, can happen only in Banana Republics.
A few years ago one Commander Nadeem(??) was mowed by a truck while he was taking his morning jog on the lawns of Shanti Path in New Delhi. He was dealing with the acquisition of some sensitive equipment. The recent death of a MoD official, Kumar Yashkar Sinha, and his wife is also intriguing. Initially the police dubbed the case as one of murder by strangulation of the wife by the husband followed by 'suicide' by the latter by setting himself aflame.
The profile of the officer suggests that he was of very strong character and enjoyed great marital harmony with his wife. It is, therefore, most unlikely that he had any suicidal tendencies. The police, based on a letter recovered from the scene of the crime, is attributing 'work pressure' by some superiors of the official for his alleged suicide. It is bizarre. No person will kill his wife because of his own work pressure. No person will strangulate his wife and then immolate himself.
He could well have hung himself instead of choosing such a painful route to suicide. It now emerges that the official was also dealing with RTI in the MoD. Is the murder of the official and his wife the handiwork of the arms lobby? The possibility cannot be ruled out.
The machinations of the arms lobby seem to have subverted the top leadership of the army considerably. One army chief allegedly initiated the culture of political funding by linking the army to the arms lobby- bureaucracy- politician nexus for political funding. The desperation and ruthlessness of the key players and key institutions could well be motivated by 2014 elections.
It is a matter of grave concern that succession plans in the army are being made at the behest of the arms lobby. It is not merely a question of subversion of a few people at the top. It has a cascading affect and thus the entire selection system gets vitiated and in the process the entire army gets subverted.
Lord Wavell had predicated the survival of India as one entity on the preservation of the Indian army as an effective and irreproachable instrument. This instrument is not fraying from the edges but is under threat from the top. If the slide continues, India would unravel. As it is, the state is losing its writ at a frightening pace. If the last bastion crumbles, India will indeed survive as another Banana Republic. Let us therefore save the Indian army and save India.
Bhadra
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,991
- Likes
- 23,756
some good and thought proviking writtings these days:
Defence sector needs to be streamlined and reformed to stay relevant in a changing India
Defence sector needs to be streamlined and reformed to stay relevant in a changing India - Economic Times
Defence sector needs to be streamlined and reformed to stay relevant in a changing India
Defence sector needs to be streamlined and reformed to stay relevant in a changing India - Economic Times
pmaitra
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,600
New details emerge on Tatra truck deal
PRAVEEN SWAMI
VINAY KUMAR
The Hindu
CBI questions London millionaire again
Even as Central Bureau of Investigation detectives have begun questioning Ravi Rishi, the London-based millionaire businessman at the heart of the showdown between the Defence Ministry and Chief of the Army Staff V.K. Singh, fresh details have begun to emerge of the truck deal that precipitated the crisis.
Rajan Mukherjee, the general manager of West Bengal-based Ural India, has told The Hindu that General Singh — then General Officer-Commanding of the Eastern Command — had requested the firm to provide trucks for testing in 2008, after Tatra trucks sold by Mr. Rishi's firm "miserably failed 17 Mountain for performing Quick Reaction Team and reconnaissance duties in [the] super-high altitude areas of northern Sikkim."
"Defects"
"During the trials," Mr. Mukherjee said in an e-mail to The Hindu, "the Tatra vehicle developed defects in engine assembly, whereas Ural's engine performance was satisfactory even after running about 600 km at high altitude."
Mr. Rishi owns Vectra, a conglomerate which has a controlling stake in Czech and Slovak-based specialist truck firm Tatra, which has supplied the Indian Army since 1986.
Rashi Verma, a Joint Secretary at the Defence Ministry, had said last week that the government had "never received any complaint from the armed forces" — a statement which suggests the Eastern Command either chose not to pass on its problems with the Tatra to the army headquarters in New Delhi, or that its reports were suppressed by higher authorities.
In an exclusive interview to The Hindu published on March 26, General Singh had said he was offered a Rs. 14-crore bribe, which, it emerged, was linked to an officer allegedly representing Tatra to clear a consignment of 600 trucks.
There is no information available so far if Ural India's trucks were the sole platform tested by the Eastern Command in Northern Sikkim and if so, why. Ural is co-owned by Kolkata-based magnate J.K. Saraf, who knew Gen. Singh during his tenure as Eastern Army Commander. There is no allegation, however, of the relationship having caused improper influence to be exercised.
Mr. Mukherjee's claims, however, stand in stark contrast to earlier statements by VRS Natarajan, the head of public-sector giant BEML, which co-manufactures Tatra trucks in India. Mr. Natarajan claimed that Ural India's trucks had been knocked out of competition in the ongoing trials, a claim Mr. Mukherjee has denied in his e-mail to The Hindu, adding that his firm is considering "appropriate action."
The BEML chief, however, has since been backed by Defence Research and Development Organisation chief V.K. Saraswat, who said Tatra trucks were "outstanding." Both BEML and Tatra have said they are considering legal action against General Singh, but provided no details of their course of action.
Army sources said the problem encountered in Sikkim could have been related to the Tatra truck's engine, which is designed for rugged battlefield use, compromising high-altitude performance in return for lower risks of breakdown.
CBI officials refused comment on the issues they had discussed with Mr. Rishi, but the businessman has been barred from leaving India until further notice.
He was earlier questioned by the agency officials last week, soon after the CBI registered an FIR in the case. CBI officials were also poring over and analysing a number of documents seized during raids in Delhi, Noida and Bangalore.
Apart from Mr. Rishi, the FIR refers to unknown officials of BEML, Vectra and the Army. The case was registered under provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to criminal conspiracy to cheat and under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The investigators are tasked with looking into all purchases of Tatra trucks made from 1997, when Vectra took control of Tatra. Since 1986, the Army has purchased some 7,000 Tatra trucks to transport troops and artillery.
Source: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3280890.ece
PRAVEEN SWAMI
VINAY KUMAR
The Hindu
CBI questions London millionaire again
Even as Central Bureau of Investigation detectives have begun questioning Ravi Rishi, the London-based millionaire businessman at the heart of the showdown between the Defence Ministry and Chief of the Army Staff V.K. Singh, fresh details have begun to emerge of the truck deal that precipitated the crisis.
Rajan Mukherjee, the general manager of West Bengal-based Ural India, has told The Hindu that General Singh — then General Officer-Commanding of the Eastern Command — had requested the firm to provide trucks for testing in 2008, after Tatra trucks sold by Mr. Rishi's firm "miserably failed 17 Mountain for performing Quick Reaction Team and reconnaissance duties in [the] super-high altitude areas of northern Sikkim."
"Defects"
"During the trials," Mr. Mukherjee said in an e-mail to The Hindu, "the Tatra vehicle developed defects in engine assembly, whereas Ural's engine performance was satisfactory even after running about 600 km at high altitude."
Mr. Rishi owns Vectra, a conglomerate which has a controlling stake in Czech and Slovak-based specialist truck firm Tatra, which has supplied the Indian Army since 1986.
Rashi Verma, a Joint Secretary at the Defence Ministry, had said last week that the government had "never received any complaint from the armed forces" — a statement which suggests the Eastern Command either chose not to pass on its problems with the Tatra to the army headquarters in New Delhi, or that its reports were suppressed by higher authorities.
In an exclusive interview to The Hindu published on March 26, General Singh had said he was offered a Rs. 14-crore bribe, which, it emerged, was linked to an officer allegedly representing Tatra to clear a consignment of 600 trucks.
There is no information available so far if Ural India's trucks were the sole platform tested by the Eastern Command in Northern Sikkim and if so, why. Ural is co-owned by Kolkata-based magnate J.K. Saraf, who knew Gen. Singh during his tenure as Eastern Army Commander. There is no allegation, however, of the relationship having caused improper influence to be exercised.
Mr. Mukherjee's claims, however, stand in stark contrast to earlier statements by VRS Natarajan, the head of public-sector giant BEML, which co-manufactures Tatra trucks in India. Mr. Natarajan claimed that Ural India's trucks had been knocked out of competition in the ongoing trials, a claim Mr. Mukherjee has denied in his e-mail to The Hindu, adding that his firm is considering "appropriate action."
The BEML chief, however, has since been backed by Defence Research and Development Organisation chief V.K. Saraswat, who said Tatra trucks were "outstanding." Both BEML and Tatra have said they are considering legal action against General Singh, but provided no details of their course of action.
Army sources said the problem encountered in Sikkim could have been related to the Tatra truck's engine, which is designed for rugged battlefield use, compromising high-altitude performance in return for lower risks of breakdown.
CBI officials refused comment on the issues they had discussed with Mr. Rishi, but the businessman has been barred from leaving India until further notice.
He was earlier questioned by the agency officials last week, soon after the CBI registered an FIR in the case. CBI officials were also poring over and analysing a number of documents seized during raids in Delhi, Noida and Bangalore.
Apart from Mr. Rishi, the FIR refers to unknown officials of BEML, Vectra and the Army. The case was registered under provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to criminal conspiracy to cheat and under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The investigators are tasked with looking into all purchases of Tatra trucks made from 1997, when Vectra took control of Tatra. Since 1986, the Army has purchased some 7,000 Tatra trucks to transport troops and artillery.
Source: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3280890.ece
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,841
Defence minister AK Antony in crosshairs for taking on arms lobby?
NEW DELHI: A spate of controversies about the Army may have been a result of the vicious factional feud within the force, but there are indications that the controversies are also being used as fodder to target defence minister AK Antony.
Allegations against Army chief Gen VK Singh, ranging from deployment of off-the-air interceptors to unauthorized troop movements to the capital, may have emanated from internal rivalries in the Army, but many now suspect these are now being used to make a case against Antony for his "inaction" and inability to handle the delicate equation between the political leadership and the Army.
The reasons for the suspicions are twofold. First, with the Army chief set to retire on May 31, the main worry of his rivals has ceased to exist. Second, Antony's anti-corruption stand has antagonized a whole range of interests: arms lobbies, middlemen, foreign governments and armament firms.
Antony firm on clean process
Last month, Antony banned six armament companies, including four foreign firms - Israeli Military Industries, Singapore Technologies Kinetics, Rheinmetall Air Defence ( Zurich) and Corporation Defence ( Russia) - for 10 years.
It's said that some warned him against this radical step, saying the backlash could be severe. But the defence minister factored in the warning, kept the top political leadership informed about every step taken by him, and went ahead and blacklisted the companies in his deep belief that defence procurement by world's largest arms importer should be completely free of any taint.
Despite the growing criticism about his handling of defence ministry, Antony remains unapologetic. Only this week, he acknowledged that blacklisting Israel's IMI had derailed a Rs 1,200 crore project in Nalanda, Bihar, for an ordnance complex of five plants to manufacture propellant charges for heavy-calibre artillery ammunition for Bofors Howitzers and other guns. However, he defended the decision.
"Blacklisting IMI has further delayed our Nalanda project. We are determined to modernize our armed forces fast but there will be zero tolerance on corruption. So, sometimes delays will take place," he said at the induction ceremony of nuclear submarine INS Chakra at Visakhapatnam on Wednesday.
His quest for corruption-free defence purchases has been attacked as impractical and he has been blamed for delaying the modernization of the armed forces. But while this has argument has virtually been turned into conventional wisdom, facts prove that armed forces have fared much better under Antony in using up budgetary allocations. Last year, the defence ministry spent the entire allocation.
Defence minister AK Antony in crosshairs for taking on arms lobby? - The Times of India
NEW DELHI: A spate of controversies about the Army may have been a result of the vicious factional feud within the force, but there are indications that the controversies are also being used as fodder to target defence minister AK Antony.
Allegations against Army chief Gen VK Singh, ranging from deployment of off-the-air interceptors to unauthorized troop movements to the capital, may have emanated from internal rivalries in the Army, but many now suspect these are now being used to make a case against Antony for his "inaction" and inability to handle the delicate equation between the political leadership and the Army.
The reasons for the suspicions are twofold. First, with the Army chief set to retire on May 31, the main worry of his rivals has ceased to exist. Second, Antony's anti-corruption stand has antagonized a whole range of interests: arms lobbies, middlemen, foreign governments and armament firms.
Antony firm on clean process
Last month, Antony banned six armament companies, including four foreign firms - Israeli Military Industries, Singapore Technologies Kinetics, Rheinmetall Air Defence ( Zurich) and Corporation Defence ( Russia) - for 10 years.
It's said that some warned him against this radical step, saying the backlash could be severe. But the defence minister factored in the warning, kept the top political leadership informed about every step taken by him, and went ahead and blacklisted the companies in his deep belief that defence procurement by world's largest arms importer should be completely free of any taint.
Despite the growing criticism about his handling of defence ministry, Antony remains unapologetic. Only this week, he acknowledged that blacklisting Israel's IMI had derailed a Rs 1,200 crore project in Nalanda, Bihar, for an ordnance complex of five plants to manufacture propellant charges for heavy-calibre artillery ammunition for Bofors Howitzers and other guns. However, he defended the decision.
"Blacklisting IMI has further delayed our Nalanda project. We are determined to modernize our armed forces fast but there will be zero tolerance on corruption. So, sometimes delays will take place," he said at the induction ceremony of nuclear submarine INS Chakra at Visakhapatnam on Wednesday.
His quest for corruption-free defence purchases has been attacked as impractical and he has been blamed for delaying the modernization of the armed forces. But while this has argument has virtually been turned into conventional wisdom, facts prove that armed forces have fared much better under Antony in using up budgetary allocations. Last year, the defence ministry spent the entire allocation.
Defence minister AK Antony in crosshairs for taking on arms lobby? - The Times of India
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 24,330
- Likes
- 11,874
Army truck deal: BEML flouted deal, used Tatra name
NEW DELHI: The Central Bureau of Investigation has come across evidence which show that manufacturers of Tatra trucks did not object to a key violation of the contract agreement between them and defence public sector unit (PSU) BEML.
The violation, of BEML allegedly using the trade name and trademark of Czech Republic-based original manufacturer of Tatra trucks, is being examined in the light of the contract agreements between the two signatories in 1997, sources said.
Among the several documents recovered during raids, CBI officials have found the document related to the 1997 contract between BEML and Tatra Sipox, in which Paragraph 11 reportedly states that BEML cannot use the trademark of Tatra. However, for so many years, BEML has been making trucks for the Army in the name of Tatra. "They (BEML) are only buying parts from Tatra, not the trucks. They assemble the trucks here in India. We will look into the whole contract and other details," said a senior CBI official.
This is the reason that agency has also asked for the documents from Tatra as well, and an LR would be sent soon, seeking further information. The agency is also planning to soon question BEML chairman VRS Natarajan.
Earlier, the agency had questioned UK-based NRI businessman Ravi Rishi for six times in connection with the Tatra deal. The CBI probe is expected to take time as voluminous documents collected from the defence ministry in connection with the Tatra deal are being studied.
In 1997, Tatra Sipox UK had signed a truck supply deal with BEML allegedly in violation of defence procurement rules which say that purchases should be done directly from original equipment manufacturers. The first agreement for supply of all-terrain trucks used for transport of soldiers, heavy machinery, missile systems etc was signed with the Czechoslovakia-based firm, Tatra, in 1986.
In 1997, BEML started procuring trucks through Tatra Sipox UK, which claims to be the marketing arm of Tatra, in which Ravi Rishi had a substantial stake. CBI has alleged that since Tatra Sipox UK was not the original manufacturer of these all-terrain trucks, the rule that defence purchases should be made from original manufacturer has also been violated.
http://m.timesofindia.com/PDATOI/articleshow/12576566.cms
NEW DELHI: The Central Bureau of Investigation has come across evidence which show that manufacturers of Tatra trucks did not object to a key violation of the contract agreement between them and defence public sector unit (PSU) BEML.
The violation, of BEML allegedly using the trade name and trademark of Czech Republic-based original manufacturer of Tatra trucks, is being examined in the light of the contract agreements between the two signatories in 1997, sources said.
Among the several documents recovered during raids, CBI officials have found the document related to the 1997 contract between BEML and Tatra Sipox, in which Paragraph 11 reportedly states that BEML cannot use the trademark of Tatra. However, for so many years, BEML has been making trucks for the Army in the name of Tatra. "They (BEML) are only buying parts from Tatra, not the trucks. They assemble the trucks here in India. We will look into the whole contract and other details," said a senior CBI official.
This is the reason that agency has also asked for the documents from Tatra as well, and an LR would be sent soon, seeking further information. The agency is also planning to soon question BEML chairman VRS Natarajan.
Earlier, the agency had questioned UK-based NRI businessman Ravi Rishi for six times in connection with the Tatra deal. The CBI probe is expected to take time as voluminous documents collected from the defence ministry in connection with the Tatra deal are being studied.
In 1997, Tatra Sipox UK had signed a truck supply deal with BEML allegedly in violation of defence procurement rules which say that purchases should be done directly from original equipment manufacturers. The first agreement for supply of all-terrain trucks used for transport of soldiers, heavy machinery, missile systems etc was signed with the Czechoslovakia-based firm, Tatra, in 1986.
In 1997, BEML started procuring trucks through Tatra Sipox UK, which claims to be the marketing arm of Tatra, in which Ravi Rishi had a substantial stake. CBI has alleged that since Tatra Sipox UK was not the original manufacturer of these all-terrain trucks, the rule that defence purchases should be made from original manufacturer has also been violated.
http://m.timesofindia.com/PDATOI/articleshow/12576566.cms
