Rudradev wrote:It is therefore quite rich of ShauryaT to refer to others as "spin masters", when the web of lies and half-truths he himself reproduced cannot withstand the scrutiny of a simple google search.
RD: Good attempt at spinnning. So, you agree that NS/Jaitley were lying when they said GoI had nothing to do with the selection of ADAG as the major vendor to fulfill offsets? If you do care for the matter beyond the partisanship, let me know what is the rationale for ADAG selection to fulfill a major part of the offsets. Maybe there is one but it is not clear to me. Highlighting a supposed difference between semantics (Proposed, in context of, part of) does not prove anything, except to argue like lawyers. Next someone will ask, show me the proof in writing that GoI gave the name of ADAG to fulfill offsets and short of that all who question are anti-nationals? Also, you debate well, but when you resort to such constructs, in my eyes you are admitting defeat for your position. Contempt for those who oppose an argument is the first sign of defeat, in my eyes. If asking questions of those in power is termed as being anti-national then what is a democracy for?
This matter can be cleared by a simple assertion of ownership for GoI's fiduciary duty to own their decisions and end the matter. The more the obfuscation the more the "perception" that crony favoritism has been part of the deal.
Goalposts are large, heavy things. Great men like Arun Shourie and Yashwant Sinha have tried to move them as convenient, but succeeded only in embarrassing themselves. I fear you will only muddy your trousers if you follow in the muck of their footsteps.
GOI's position is that it had nothing to do with encouraging, driving, or in any way influencing the selection of Reliance Defence as a partner for Dassault. That relationship has been known to exist since 2012, and it is a matter of record that Reliance Defence passed on to ADAG in subsequent restructuring. It has been confirmed yet again by Hollande, the French government, AND Dassault that the choice of an Indian offset partner was Dassault's alone. Not the French government's choice, and not the GOI's.
So why should I, GOI, or anyone else offer a rationale for something which evidently did not happen?
As for semantics, let me offer the following example:
1) "Arun Shourie gets a lot of publicity in the context of
the Narendra Modi government."
2) "Arun Shourie gets a lot of publicity as part of
the Narendra Modi government."
Does it take a "lawyer" to distinguish between the above two statements? As far as I can see, (1) is obviously true, because Shourie is gibbering about the Modi government on every available media platform. But (2) is not true, and the whole reason why Shourie is having apoplectic fits since 2014 is that (2) is not true!
"Next someone will ask" is a strawman if I ever saw one. The initial question you raise about "why was ADAG proposed" is itself based on a total fabrication, and wilful distortion of M. Hollande's statement. Now you insist that GOI must "assert ownership" of a proposal that they are not established to have made in the first place.
What if I ask you WHY you passed gas 31 times during our last BRF meeting. Does that put the onus on you to prove that you didn't pass gas? And will the matter be cleared if and only if you "assert your ownership" of passing gas?
Now that's what I mean by shifting the goalposts!
Certainly questions should be asked of GOI, but when the questions themselves are revealed to be frivolous, defamatory, and completely without merit in their underlying assumptions... then one begins to consider the motives of the questioners who repeat them endlessly. Wouldn't you?