There is a cynical suggestion that all Defence deals in India involve a measure of financial impropriety and that the recent revelations of bribery and corruption in the aborted AgustaWestland helicopter deal, while titillating in itself, indicates no real departure from an established pattern. There is undoubtedly some merit in this argument. In any case, since the 1980s, there is a growing belief that both individuals in high places — particularly in the military, bureaucracy and politics — use the large sums expended in Defence purchases to build themselves a tiny nest egg. Some of the illegal proceeds, it is also believed, find their way into the coffers of political parties.
The controversy over the purchase of artillery guns from the Swedish company Bofors was the first occasion when the paper trail establishing monetary inducements and kickbacks came into the public domain. The furore over the alleged Rs 64 crore payback had a significant political fallout and was an important factor in the defeat of Rajiv Gandhi in the 1989 general election.
looking back, the Bofors controversy established the presence of middlemen who received commission for the purchases by the Indian Government. It also established the role of politically connected arms agents and freelancers who received a cut. This in turn fuelled speculation that significant amounts of money was further channelled into the pockets of political leaders. Mercifully, however, the Bofors controversy did not tar the reputation of the military in the same way as an earlier purchase of submarines for the Indian Navy did.
The AgustaWestland controversy that is now under the scanner in India following a string of convictions on bribery charges by an Italian court has, so far, prompted some initial conclusions. It has established that the helicopter manufacturer wasn’t averse to paying out bribes. It has also indicated that key decision-makers in the military establishment may have been compromised. There are also hints that some leading lights in the political establishment — whose names are the subject of furious speculation — tweaked the bidding process to favour one company and received financial rewards for this act of manipulation.
Compared to the Bofors deal, there was, however, a new entity that emerged in the scrutiny of the AgustaWestland papers so far available. The court records indicate that the manufacturer paid a middleman something in the region of Euro 6 million for “media management”.
The sum set aside for managing the media or a handful of relevant journalists is very revealing. There was no hint of any media involvement in the Bofors scandal and, indeed, it was the media that played a significant role in unearthing documents that established a large part of the hanky-panky. Today there is the bizarre spectacle of the media being put in the dock for being players in a sordid game involving manipulation and bribery.
Part of the reason lies in the changed environment. In the mid-1980s, the media had little or no role in the decision-making process. Its task was basically that of a chronicler and, infrequently, as an investigator. Today, thanks to its phenomenal multiplication and its staggering outreach, the media has become a part of the decision-making process. The media today has the potential and the ability to create a favourable environment or even a vitiated atmosphere that can make or break a big decision involving public money. Managing the media has consequently become an important facet of marketing.
It may well be argued that there is nothing irregular in companies promoting their products. To some, even a bout of generous hospitality — the odd lunches and dinners, not to mention the bottle of whisky on Diwali — is part of public relations. But there is a difference between advocacy — a term preferred by Western-funded NGOs who are good at getting their point of view across to the media — and lobbying. The question that the media must ask itself in view of the AgustaWestland revelations is whether some journalists used their privileged access to the Defence Ministry to influence decisions or even suppress key information. Were they specially paid for their servicesIJ Did journalists misuse their professional status to solicit business for a particular companyIJ
These are questions that can no longer be evaded, not least in the context of the ‘paid news’ controversy that has eroded the credibility of the Fourth Estate. So far the professional associations that claim to safeguard media interests have maintained a sullen silence on the AgustaWestland revelations, pretending that it is a non-issue. Such ostrich-like attitudes won’t suffice any more. If there is evidence that public relations agencies and individual journalists went beyond the call of duty and were engaged in influencing decisions relating to facets of national security, there has to be remedial action. The Government-approved Press card gives the media privileged access into Government offices. If this is being misused, it compromises the entire profession.
The response to the AgustaWestland revelations doesn’t lie in governmental vigilance alone. The profession as a whole must engage in self-correction.