The Rafale Deal: Flying Lies? Part 3

 

The book, "The Rafale Deal: Flying Lies? The Role of Prime Minister Narendra MODI in India’s Biggest Defense Scandal" was published in December 2022. 

Here is the third & last part of the three session interviews where Anubandh KATÉ continues his conversation with author and publisher Paranjoy GUHA-THAKURTA, Yann PHILIPPIN of Mediapart (France) & French independent investigative journalist, Ariane LAVRILLEUX. Ariane presents to us the "Egypt Papers" (sell of French armaments, including Rafale to Egypt).

In this session we analyse the France specific details of this hugely controversial defense deal.

In this interview, Yann PHILIPPIN explains that before France had signed the OECD convention against corruption in 1999, one could even get a tax deduction for the bribes paid! Further, once France signed the OECD convention, the then CEO of Dassault Aviation, Serge DASSAUT complained: “But how do you want me to sell the planes without paying bribes?”

Ariane LAVRIEAUX tells us that the French government sold Rafales to Egypt in two installments (2015 - 24 Rafales & 2021 - 30 Rafales). And France as well provided to Egypt huge bank credits to buy these planes! Of which (credits), the French government took 60% and 85% of guarantees respectively. Which means, if Egypt goes bankrupt tomorrow, it is the French taxpayer who will have to bear the burden / the loss!

In this episode, we pay a tribute to all the honest & brave officers of the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Law & Justice, HAL, Indian AIR Force, CAG who resisted the corruption and irregularities in this case, despite harsh professional / personal reprisals.

Watch the interview as well to check how Paranjoy and Yann defend few of my tough questions!

And don’t miss the beautiful Bob DYLAN poem that Paranjoy recites in the end!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyvCRQbRshk

Note: 

1) These interviews were recorded in July 2024. 

2) The interview has simultaneous French and English subtitles.

#TheGreatRafaleMystery #RafalePapers #ChowkidarChorHai #MaiBhiChowkidar

#ChowkidarYaGaddar #SabYaadRakhaJayega

Anubandh: Hello! My name is Anubandh KATÉ and as you know, since last two sessions now..  I have been discussing with the authors of the book “Rafale Deal: Flying Lies?”, Ravi NAIR and Paranjoy GUHA-THAKURTA. I am also joined by Yann PHILIPPIN who is an investigative journalist for Mediapart. He has also been following this deal. We do not have today Ravi NAIR with us because he had some last minute meetings.. However, later in the meeting we will also be joined by Ariane LAVRIEUX  who is another French investigative journalist. She would bring in some Egypt Papers files which she was working on. This Egypt Papers scandal is related in a way to this Rafale deal. So, I start our session.  

As we know, in the last two sessions we focused on the India specific details of this deal  and today's session is mainly focused on the French details. This will be the last session of this series of interviews. Thus, most of my questions today will be to Yann. But it is good to also have Paranjoy here. 

Before I start asking you questions about the French details, from the last meeting Yann had a point.  He had said that he possibly could understand the position of DASSAULT (as) why it was reluctant to guarantee the aircraft manufactured by a HAL. And in our response, we had said that the Request for Proposal (RFP) clearly said that the vendor had no choice but to accept HAL as the main integrator or the main Manufacturer. Right? 

Paranjoy: In other words if I may briefly interrupt you… The RFP or the Request For Proposal made it clear… you may agree, you may disagree, that the guarantee would have to be given, in this case by DASSAULT Aviation.. 

Anubandh: So, by guarantee you mean the entire set of 126 aircrafts which included 18 flyaway as well as 108 which were to be made by HAL. Okay. Therefore, this was for all the aircrafts. And in a way, if DASSAULT did not agree later. If it was dilly-dallying or arm-twisting or backtracking… at least that was what was the accusation against it. Okay. I think this is clear.  

I would now like to quickly give you a broad view. This is the picture of how France earns money through its exports. You can see here, the balance of imports and exports.  

Sorry, this is in French but it is easy to understand. This statistics is from the period between October 2022 to September 2023 and it shows the major sources of earnings for France. 

As you can see the first one is the Defence sector. In this period France earned €29.6 billion Euros. The next one is perfumes and cosmetics. The third one is agriculture products. Thus, you can see the main source of income for France is the Defence sector. As we know, France is now the second exporter of arms after the United States in the world. 

Similarly, we also have this slide where we can see the share of French government in different companies. The ones that are of interest to us are Thales, Safran and Airbus.

 

And here you can see the huge share by the French state, the biggest one at 22% is in Airbus. The next is Thales and then there is Safran. So, 15% for Thales and 13% for Safran.  What is interesting here is to note that there are also DASSAULT Aviation and MBDA which have shares by Airbus. Therefore, through Airbus, it is an indirect investment into these companies by the (French) State government. 

This is what I wanted to show you initially and now my question is to Yann. Because, in India when we talk about Defence scandals and deals what comes to our mind is the Bofors Deal. Whereas in the minds of the French people when it comes to corruptions in Defence Deals what reminds us is the “Karachi affaire”. Apparently, in this deal, France sold submarines to Pakistan in the late 1980s. And I guess, there was some corruption (there). 

So Yann, could you briefly tell us about this deal? 

Yann: I am not a big expert on this deal but there have been suspicions of corruption and also what we call retro-commissions, meaning part of the bribes, part of the money went back to France, to allegedly finance a presidential campaign.

Anubandh:  Right and there were some French nationals who were killed also in Karachi. Apparently, at the behest of the Pakistani army. Okay. 

Then Let us move on to the DASSAULT group. Because I went to an interesting article, which was written by your (Yann) colleague, Martine ORANGE and it is in the Mediapart. It talks about the hundred years of DASSAULT in France and why it is important. 

Before I invite again Yann to add in… I would just highlight a few bullet points from this article. It says that DASSAULT has been the main private company which has been in the Defence business in France. Interestingly, the company (head) Marcel sorry.. Marcel BLOCH who later changed his name and became DASSAULT, was the founder of this company - DASSAULT Aviation. This company was nationalized in 1937 and later again in 1981. Interestingly, he was apparently the only CEO who was happy for this nationalization! Who didn't oppose it. Because he got (a) handsome compensation. He was promised public financial funds and state machineries’ full support. What needs to be also taken into account is that Marcel BLOCH - DASSAULT was a Jew. During the Second World War, he was deported to Germany, for a period of 9 months. When he came back, then the stat, the French state again invested in him. What is intriguing to know here that the French government restricted Airbus to the civil aviation sector while giving full free hand to DASSAULT Aviation to develop the Defence Aeronautical sector.  And there massive state investment in his company. The model was that all the R&D and the conception and assembling would be kept by DASSAULT while the rest would be subcontracted. In this case, the client which was the French Air Force would invest in the development of equipments and all other products. This is what I wanted to present as an introduction. Would you like to add anything about the particularity of the DASSAULT Group in France? 

Yann: This is  probably the oldest Defence company in France, the DASSAULT Group. It manufactures  war planes but also private jets, the Falcon jets which are quite famous among the wealthy people all around the world. What is interesting about DASSAULT is that it makes  most of its living from public money, from the state money. Basically, the (French) state bought the warplanes, the Mirage and then the Rafale. What should also be pointed out is that it is one of the most influential companies in France. I mean regarding politicians. Because Marcel DASSAULT - the founder has been famous for financing political parties. Especially, the right (wing parties). He was  himself  a member of the National Assembly  for the right wing party in France. And it is been the same with his son who was .. So, Serge who is deceased as well and  who was a senator from the same party, the right wing party and they both… the father… 

Paranjoy: The UMP… 

Yann: Sorry, please let me finish.. 

Paranjoy: So this party, this party is the UMP, correct? 

Yann: It changed name. It is a Gaullist (Charles de Gaulle) party but it changed names… many a times.. Today, it is called “Les Republicain” but it had several names in the past. It is been the UDR, the RPR, the UMP. It has changed (names) a lot. It is the traditional right wing party, the Gaullist party.  So, I am lost… Anyway, so there has been financing of this party by the father and the son. Both the father and the son were members of the party, (they) were both members of parliament. They were both very very influential at the top level of the state, including when the Presidents of France were not from their party. For instance, under François HOLLANDE who was a left wing President. It was under his mandate that the Rafale deal has been concluded. DASSAULT was also very influential towards President HOLLANDE, even if they were not of the same party. In essence, it is one of the most influential firms in France. 

Anubandh: Right. Thank you. Apparently there were also corruption  allegations and charges against DASSAULT, which included deals in France but also in Belgium. Is that correct? 

Yann: Yes. Marcel.. Sorry, Serge DASSAULT has been sentenced for corruption in Belgium and is also   involved in an another a very famous scandal which is: On top of being a senator, Serge DASSAULT was a Mayor of a city in the suburbs of Paris, called Corbeil-Essonnes. He was accused to have bribed the voters so that the voters elect him. And he couldn't be judged because he died, shortly before the trial but several of his collaborators have been sentenced for corruption for this, for aiding him in bribing voters. In order that he is elected (as a) Mayor in his city of Corbeil-Essonnes. We can also point out that when France signed the OECD (1997) convention that forbids corruption, Serge DASSAULT complained and said: “But how do you want me to sell my planes without paying bribes?”! Thus,  there is some kind of a ha ha…. you know, some kind of a ..ha ha… maybe… it is a bit strong (to say) but you can see what Serge DASSAULT thought about corruption. As he complained that he could not… that he was not allowed to give bribes anymore, after France signed this OECD convention against bribery of foreign agents. 

Anubandh: Thanks. I think Paranjoy wants to say something. Please. 

Paranjoy: In our book, we have quoted from an article by Christopher… from the Independent which says that when Serge DASSAULT died at the age of 93 in 2018, his own associates, his accomplices were imprisoned, after they were found guilty of corruption. The combined fine of about one million Euros was imposed on them and this has also come out in various other publications including AFP – Agence… 

Yann: But in which case? 

Paranjoy: This is the case, the contract to refit electronic equipments in fighter aircrafts used by the Belgian Air Force. 

Yann: Yes! I talked about it. I mentioned that. It is a corruption sentence in Belgium. That is correct. 

Anubandh: Thank you. So, Let us move on. What was interesting for me and perhaps it is also interesting to the French population is to know about the Reliance Flag Atlantic France Group. This is something I  discovered in the book. It says that this company had a cross Atlantic underwater telecommunications cable that linked France and the US. And there was an accusation by the French government that there was tax evasion and avoidance practices. What was alleged was that the RFAF.. Reliance Flag Atlantic France artificially transferred the profits from its French subsidiary to the mother company of its telecommunications activities, which is Reliance Globalcom Limited. It is registered  in Bermuda, the British Overseas Territory which until recently featured on the European Union's blacklist of   non - cooperative tax havens. In this case the French tax department levelled a fine of 151 million Euros in taxes and penalties which ultimately Anil AMBANI managed to get it reduced to 6.2 million (Euros), thanks to  his nomination by Mister MODI into the Rafale deal. Therefore, there was a kind of a trade, I mean a deal that was made here so that Anil AMBANI could pay less taxes. Could you please tell us if there is anything more to tell about this deal, about this company? 

Yann: Yes, that is a very long story. This company operates a Transatlantic Telecom cable and it is registered in France. There has been a standard inspection of this company by the French tax authorities. During which they discovered that the company made no profit and that the reason for that is that this company paid very big charges to various other entities of the Anil AMBANI group. So, what we call intra group charges. In fact,Reliance France was paying charges to other Reliance entities and these entities were registered in tax havens like Bermuda which has a special status. Actually, it is very difficult to do that. You have to justify it as the French tax authorities don't want  money to go to tax havens. Therefore, the tax authorities, they asked Reliance to justify these charges. Why are you paying so much money as  charges to these offshore companies in Bermuda? At the beginning Reliance refused to answer, refused to give documents. They gave nothing. Since all this money was going to tax havens, the tax authorities considered that all the charges were fictitious, as a hypothesis. They rejected all the charges and so it meant that the corporate tax should be calculated not on the profits but on the turnover, because if you eliminate all the charges, the turnover and the profits are the same! You see what I mean? That is why they notified (imposed) this huge tax penalty of €151 million (Euros). 

Then, at some point Reliance realized that not cooperating was not a good strategy. Therefore, they began to give documents to try to justify that these charges are real. That there is real spending, real services provided by the Reliance group to its French subsidiary. After they began  giving this documents, they said, Ok, we gave you (the) documents. And so we are of the opinion that we owe (you) six millions and not 150. But the French tax authorities, they were not satisfied. They knew that some of the charges are real. So 150 (million Euros) was just a starting point of the negotiation. They were totally aware that it was not the economic reality. However, they thought that six millions was not enough. 

We were at this point of the negotiation when something very strange happened. We are in 2015 and Anil AMBANI becomes the new partner of DASSAULT for the Rafale, just before the visit of Narendra MODI to Paris in 2015, wehre he announces the new deal. The fact that the initial tender is withdrawn and is replaced by the purchase of 36 aircraft made in France. Anil AMBANI is a member of this Indian delegation that goes to Paris for this very very important announcement. Thus, he is with M. MODI. And since he is in Paris with Mr. MODI, he tries to use this to get a better tax deal. He talks about his tax problems to the ministers who is the French minister that he meets in Paris with Mister MODI. This is to  have a favorable deal. And what we revealed in Mediapart is really important. On 14^th April 2015, during this visit in Paris,  Mister AMBANI writes himself a letter to.. Sorry..he writes a letter to the French Minister of Finance,  Mister SAPIN. And also to the French Minister of Economics who is Emmanuel MACRON. And who is today's President of France. Thus, he personally writes to these two ministers,  one of them being our President today. This is to ask them that they intervene towards the tax authorities so that it gets a better deal. And it worked! At the end, after Mister AMBANI wrote this letter to Mister SAPIN and to Mister MACRON, he got what he wanted! Exactly the Six millions (Euros) that he was willing to pay at the beginning of the negotiations. Therefore, it is a complex case. We are certain. We published the proof that there has been an intervention. We also know that after Mister AMBANI's letter, the Minister SAPIN asked explanations to the tax authorities. Hence, there has been an intervention from the political level to the administrative level. What is unclear yet and that the French probe is investigating is: Has this political intervention been effective? What would have Mister AMBANI got (as tax) without the intervention? Would he would have paid without this political intervention?  It is not totally clear as of today. However, we have made a thorough analysis of  the final deal that he got. Some experts told us that he shouldn't have paid 150 (million Euros). The initial figure was not economically relevant. However, some experts that we talked to  told us that six millions (Euros) was a gentle deal. It is (quite) likely that he should have paid more. That is the story. 

Paranjoy: When I go through your article, which is a very detailed article, this last point that you made is really the key.  Legally, can you establish what is called “quid pro quo”? That the reduction in the tax dues to the Reliance flag company and the whole association with the dissolution that you can connect the two? This political intervention and connecting the two, the quid pro quo? I think that is going to be not (so) easy. This is my view but I would like to know your view. 

Yann: Yes. It is not easy. Well, I am not a magician so I don't know what…  I don't know everything about what happened during this case. That is going to be the job of the French police and the French judges who investigate the case. What we are sure about is that there has been this political intervention in the tax case which is usually not allowed in France. It is normally forbidden for politicians to intervene in a tax case. Therefore, this intervention happened and in the end Mr. AMBANI got a favorable tax deal. However, we cannot be sure today that there  is a direct…that this is the direct consequence… the gentle deal that he got from the political intervention… that is going to be the job of the investigators… of the police who are investigating the case.. to sort that out.  

Anubandh: Right. Yann, in your answer you mentioned that the former economy minister of France Emmanuel MACRON, who is the current Prime .. President…He was in a way, also involved but there is one more President, former President that is François HOLLANDE.  On 21^st September 2018, he gave an interview to Mediapart. And I don't know if it was with you. In that interview, he claimed that the Indian government recommended Anil AMBANI's company as the offset partner of DASSAULT Aviation. And that DASSAULT or the French government had no choice but to accept this selection, in a way imposed by the Indian government. Do we confirm this? 

Yann: Yes. That is what he told us exactly and this provoked a total storm because the Indian government denied, then DASSAULT denied. Basically everybody denied! Thus, what I think personally is that he had the courage or maybe not the courage, maybe he was not aware that this was so sensitive… what he said and that he told the truth… ha ha ha right in a bit… in a naive way, you know. No, I don't think he imagined, when he said that to Mediapart, the consequence that it would. And the fact that he would embarrass a lot … both the Reliance and the Indian government. 

Anubandh: True and François HOLLANDE is very consistent in giving such declarations. He also gave recently a declaration about France and Germany not wanting to respect the Minsk Accord (Minsk treaty) with Russia. 

Well, that apart. Since we are talking about François HOLLANDE there comes also Julie GAYET, his partner and the financing of her movie by Anil AMBANI. Could you tell us more about that deal and also (the) link…. if there is any link between what François HOLLANDE said (in this regard). Was he trying to divert the attention, in a way? Is there any link or not? 

Paranjoy: Because he is claiming that the investment in that film was very negligible… 

Yann: That was not small. That was 1.6 million Euros. That is not that small. What is troubling is the timing also because Reliance announced this financing in January 2016. This was shortly after the announcement of the new deal and the fact that Anil AMBANI becomes a new  partner of DASSAULT. Of course we can wonder whether Mister AMBANI did that to thank Mister HOLLANDE of facilitating the new deal or not. So, what we can say is that François HOLLANDE claims that he didn't know about it. That he learned that afterwards, that he was not aware of this financing before it happened. Therefore, again that is going to be for the investigators of the French Anti-Corruption Police to sort that out. To try to find out whether  Mister AMBANI did that to please Mister HOLLANDE or not. Or if it is just a coincidence. 

Paranjoy: And the timing because the MoU was signed just after… the signing of the MoU, the 1.6 million Euros was pledged for that film. Thus, the circumstantial evidence. How important is it that will have to be determined by the judges and the prosecutors in France. 

Anubandh: Right. Since we are talking about the investigation in France and although Yann, last time you did brief us about that, I would like you to again give a context, the big context. Because I see there are agencies such as Agence France Anti-Corruption – AFA. There is also SHERPA which filed the first petition, which was dismissed and (then) there was a second petition. You also talked about the two kinds of investigations: one which could be influenced by the executive and one which was independent. Could you please briefly give us a context so that we understand what is really is happening?  

Yann: Okay. So, that is a long story.  This started in 2018 when SHERPA… SHERPA is an NGO, a French NGO that is fighting corruption and corporate crimes. They fight big  Corporations’ wrongdoings.... and so in 2018, shortly after….  as Paranjoy told us, that is the same year, right? That there has been a complaint in India because of the…  when the scandal broke…  So, it (SHERPA) filed the first complaint to the French national financial prosecutor which is in charge of the biggest corporate crimes and corruptions. Therefore, in 2018 and what we revealed is that the French national financial prosecutor at that time dumped the case, closed the case without investigating. The only investigation they did is talking of the record to the lawyer of DASSAULT, which is quite strange! That is the only act of investigation that they did at the time 

Paranjoy: The date was 20 April 2021 when SHERPA's lawyers Monsieur Bordeaux and Brenda… 

Yann: No No… that is the second one! 

Paranjoy: That is the second complaint… you're saying… I see 

Yann:  that is the second petition… no, the first one was in 2018.. and at this time the prosecutor (Eliane HOULETTE) closed the case without investigating. This was against the will of her deputy because she was a lady (Eliane HOULETTE) at that time the prosecutor. Her deputy wanted to investigate and she said no, we will not investigate. What is crazy is that a few days later during an interview in the French  media she said that she closed this case to preserve the interest of France! Which is really crazy… So, you have the top financial prosecutor who is supposed to fight corruption to be, in the front line of the fight against corruption, who confesses that she buried a case to preserve the national interest of France! 

Then in 2021 Mediapart published a series of revelations of this deal that we called the “Rafale Papers” with a lot of new elements. Following our revelations, SHERPA filed a second complaint based on our revelations. At this point it worked and there has been an investigation opened, finally at the end of 2021.  This time it was not given to a prosecutor who is formally not independent from political power. It was given to investigating judges who are formally independent. Thus, the probe really started only at the end of 2021. 

In parallel, there has been this other agency which is the AFA. So, Agency Française Anticorruption, which is different. In fact, this the AFA, the French Anti-Corruption Agency doesn't investigate specific cases. The job of this agency is to check if the big French companies respect their compliance obligations regarding corruption. They don't look at the cases. They look at the companies, if is everything in place inside the company to prevent corruption.  Do the people have sufficient training, are there enough internal audit, enough controls, how do you manage the intermediaries, you know, that help you close some deals. Therefore, they investigate the system. What they found out when they did an unvesitgation of DASSAULT is that the compliance was very bad.  The compliance of DASSAULT in terms of anti-corruption was very very bad. Also, when investigating  the system, they found some specific elements regarding the Rafale deal. Especially the strange relationship between DASSAULT and the intermediary Sushen GUPTA that we talked about during the last sessions. What is very strange is that there have been no sanctions against DASSAULT for this. So, what the agency said is “please become compliant” but there was no sanction, no fine, for this big noncompliance that they discovered. What is the most surprising is that these specific elements, the strange way that  DASSAULT was dealing with Indian intermediary Sushen GUPTA, the French Anti-Corruption agency kept that for herself! And didn't denounce that to the prosecutor and basically it is the prosecutor…sorry that is the investigating judges, who afterwards had to ask for these documents to the AFA. 

Anubandh: Right. Thanks. In the last sessions we did not have enough time to visit certain irregularities which this deal involves and they are quite important So, I just briefly would put them together and then I would request your comments. 

So, what we know in this deal is that the seat of arbitration was changed from Delhi to Geneva. Which means there was no longer Indian judiciary's say in the deal. There was a removal of anti-corruption clause, there was a letter of comfort from the French government instead of a bank guarantee which is more solid, there was dilution of offset obligations, etc. There is an unnamed official of the Ministry of Defence and the book quotes it. He said: “the documents were not really drafted with the interest of the government of India in mind”. So, this question is to both Yann and to Paranjoy. Do you agree with this disclosure? 

Yann: I don't know about this, so I will let Paranjoy to answer. 

Paranjoy: I agree with that. There is a top official who spoke with us  Mr. MOHANTY and he used to be the financial advisor in the Defence Ministry and he pointed it out to us. He has give it to us. He has written an article. He responded to an email. It was (indeed) most unusual to shift the place the arbitration center.  So, obviously there is much more to it  than meets the eye. 

Anubandh: Right. Thank you. 

Yann, I have a difficult question now for you. And to balance, I will also ask, try to ask a difficult question to Paranjoy. I must ask you this question because it is mentioned in the book. The book says that there were certain accusations against Edwy PLENNEL who is the founder of Mediapart. Further, it claims that Edwy PLENNEL had worked for the American Central Intelligence Agency – CIA . Further, the writes that this comes from an article published on the Aviator Buzz. This was in 2021 and the name of the blogger is Shubhadip. However, I went as well on the internet. This allegation was made by the former Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of François MITTERAND (France’s former President), his name is Rolland DUMAS. The allegation was that PLENNEL was lobbying for the American Defence equipment suppliers. And was thus exerting political pressure on the Indian government, so that it does not purchase more Rafale aircrafts. This way, he could have increased the chances of the US (arms) companies (Boeing, Lockheed Martin).  How do you respond to this allegation? 

Yann: It is total bullshit. That is false. 

Anubandh: Okay. That is a brief and a direct answer. Thank you. 

Yann: No. There has never been any material elements supporting this. Basically that is totally bullshit and there has been never been even the beginning of a proof of this.   

Anubandh: OK. 

Paranjoy: That he was a CIA agent. 

Anubandh: Right.  

Paranjoy, now it is your turn. In your book you claim that you have tried to represent both sides to this deal. I mean, people who are for and who are against (it). Your main headline of the book, the cover page, points fingers towards the Prime Minister of India. But as far as I remember, I do not see a mention of  either the Prime Minister's office’s  reply or Prime Minister's reply to your allegations or to this book. Did you try to contact him? Did he reply? And if not, would you include his reply, his say, in the next edition of the book? 

Paranjoy: Why us? Everybody, including the present leader of the Opposition, Mister Rahul GANDHI, all raised the same allegations. There was complete silence on the part of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's office and the supporters of the ruling regime, that is the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), which is a right wing Hindu Nationalist party. Remember that these allegations were made in a public, in the public domain. We included the interview of a supporter of the deal that was Raghunath NAMBIAR, Air Marshal Raghunath NAMBIAR. He gave his version. We stuck to our side of the story and though the interview ran for a very long time, when he saw the transcript, he redacted very large portions of it. We published what he had given us the green signal to publish. That is as far as… and we gave it the title that people were wondering, why the Indian Air Force was getting involved in politics. Many things he said that he cut out himself. He did not want (those) to be attributed (to) him. 

As far as the allegations against the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's office, as I mentioned earlier it is not just us. Every time these allegations have been laid, the supporters of the ruling regime have said: the Supreme Court has given it a clean cheat, the controller and Auditor General of India has given a clean cheat. In our book, which was published in November 2022 and subsequently it was updated because of Yann PHILIPPIN's new revelations that came out. So, after that we published an updated version of it. And it has been updated all the way up to  August of 2021. One minute, I'll just tell you exactly the date. Yes,  it was… it has been updated all the way up to September 2023. Therefore, that is less than one year away. We are in July 2024 (today). 

There has been not a single response to our book. Nobody has challenged it. It is a book that is available in the public domain. It is available on Amazon. All these months have gone by. If anything that was written is factually incorrect, by now somebody should have said it. Except whenever this question has come up, the same thing: we have got a clean cheat from the Supreme Court, we have got a clean cheat from the CAG - the Controller and Auditor General. These are the standard responses. The Prime Minister's office has not responded.   

Yann: Sorry, I must add that you know, I wrote many many articles on this case, on this Rafale deal. And on multiple times I asked questions to the Prime Minister's Office, to the Ministry of Defence, but also to the agencies that investigate the case in India. I asked them why they didn't open a specific probe about this.  Namely the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate. I never got an answer. Never! Never! Never!

So, there is a clear will from the Indian government not to respond on this. 

Paranjoy: Yann already has got a copy of our book. So, the point is, all this… I mean there have been months and months that have  gone by.Nobody is responding. 

Anubandh: Right. Moving ahead. When we look at this deal and I am very tempted to use the French cliché… Can we say that this has been India's Waterloo deal? And interestingly, the French are the  winners here. But in the book,  you briefly talked about what impact this might have in the prospects for India, as the arms buyer in the world Defence deals, in future. How would other vendors, you know, the future sellers of arms would deal with India and would see India? 

Paranjoy: That is a difficult question to answer. The arms trade and the military industry complex world, they don't care about… they are completely, not just amoral but immoral. Thus, I don't think it matters to them. What I think will matter in my opinion. What I think will matter is what happens in France, what happens to the investigation that will take place in France. How it will affect the trade between India and (France)... and you know, there has (been) a proposal to buy more Rafale aircrafts for the Navy now.  Let us see what happens. If everything… I mean… the ones who are in this business and Yann can, you know substantiate what I am saying.. . they have a very thick skin. They are brazen. 

Yann: I agree with what Paranjoy says. Basically, you know that corruption has been widespread in these big Defence deals. And for the anecdote, before we signed, I mean France and many other countries signed the OECD Convention against bribery of Foreign Agents, you could even deduct the bribes from your taxes, when in France! There was a special line in the tax declaration of the companies where you could deduct the bribes from your taxes! Hahaha… So, corruption was not only legal, you could have a tax break! Because when you were corrupting  people abroad, that was more than 20 years ago. But it is to give you the context and so there has been a lot of corruption cases regarding arms deals. And yes, basically it is not because there is one more scandal that I would think this would change anything  between India and the countries that sells  weapons to India. 

Paranjoy: And if I can just quote one line from what Mr. N. RAM has written in our book in the forward, it is a second paragraph. He said, “Worldwide the arms trade has become synonymous with bribery and influence peddling under the cover of national security and the high interests of the state.” Therefore, you know, according to Mister N. RAM, he says several scholars and experts have said that at least 40% of all the corruption in legal international trade is linked to arms, the arms deals. 

Anubandh: Right. Thank you. So, although it is very clear that there was corruption in this deal, from both sides, the French and the Indian side, we should also remember that there were a lot of brave Indian officers from the Ministry of Defence, Ministry of law and Justice, HAL and others who resisted, who pointed out the irregularities in this deal. And on many occasions they had to pay as well a price for taking the stand. They were either sent on leave, they were fired or not promoted and a lot more. Therefore, a thought to these brave people.   

I ask this last question to Paranjoy and then we will invite Ariane. 

Paranjoy, you have written that the book is dedicated to VASUDEVAN, Mister VASUDEVAN. Could you in briefly tell us who is this person and why did you dedicate this book to him? 

Paranjoy: The late Professor Hari VASUDEVAN was my brother in law. He passed away in May, on May 10^th 2020, in the first wave of the Covid. And he was a professor who taught history at the university of Calcutta. An extraordinary scholar of the history of Europe and Russia. He had read drafts of the manuscript of the book and made several comments, several observations. He had promised me that he would write a very detailed introduction to the book. However, that was never to be because he passed away in the first wave of Covid. He was married to my sister who was being widowed and that is the reason why we dedicated the book to him. 

Anubandh: Thank you very much! And now I welcome Ariane LAVRIEUX. I am delighted to have you here. Just to tell you, with me here is Paranjoy GUHA THAKURTA who is the co-author of this book along with Ravi NAIR who could not join… 

Paranjoy: And the publisher..and I am also the publisher. 

Anubandh: True. And there is Yann PHILIPPIN that you know. Now to introduce Ariane… Ariane is an investigative journalist. She is based in Marseille (France). She specializes in Defence deals, human rights violations and impact of economy on the environment. She works for different radios like RFI and RTS - Swiss Radio France. She also works for magazines and investigating media such as Mediapart, Disclose, Le Monde Diplomatique, Alter Eco, Revue Dessinée. She has been very closely following the Egypt papers,

the sale of Rafale and other French armaments to the Egyptian dictator Marechal (Abdel Fattah) al-SISSI. 

So, welcome Ariane. Thank you for joining.   

Ariane: Hi. Thanks. 

Anubandh: So, before I start asking you questions I just wish to also open this debate and give a broader sense to it. Since you are here and bringing in the Egyptian angle to this. However, in any case, the French sale of armaments has been of… I mean there has been a lot of criticism against it. If we take a small historical background. France has been accused of selling armaments to South Africa during the apartheid period the Iraq and Iran war of 1980, then to Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates during 2010. War crimes were committed by these countries in Yemen. Then I talked about Egypt in 2010. Egypt which bombarded both Egyptian and Libyan civilians, used Rafale and MBDA made missiles and other French armaments. Morocco has been also receiving French arms and using it in the western Sahara region, against the rebellions. And very shocking and surprising, at least to me, was the case that France has been selling arms not just to Ukraine but also to Russia! Companies such as Thales, Safran, Lynred, ST Microelectronics are involved. There has been an investigative publication by BLAST, Investigative Journal which say that during 2015 to 2020, France has been delivering armaments to Russia, against the sanctions put in place by European Union as well as United Nations. Moreover, it has been delivering arms to Russia until at least April 2023. So, both Thales and Safron are delivering arms and also to Israel. 

Ariane: It's not arms per se, but these are dual use components that are used on weapons in Russia and most of the time they don't sell it directly. They sell it through subsidiaries. 

Anubandh: Thank you. 

Now, my last slide and then I invite Ariane. This is about the Defence armaments sent to India. This is India specific, how armaments were sold to India by France. You can see in dark grey, these are the orders placed and you see a shoot up in 2015. The lighter grey is when the armaments were delivered. I think these are the Rafales in 2020.

Then, this is where it could be interesting. This is the sale of Rafael in the world to date. This article is from Les Echos. French Air force bought 192 Rafale aircrafts, while 242 for the rest of the world, India numbers at 36 while Egypt is at 54 and these are the numbers of the prices.  Thus, this is also a way to compare perhaps the prices.

 

Now, I open now the floor to Ariane.

Could you tell us more about the sale to Egypt of these Rafale and other armaments? How you investigated? How and what was the response from the French government?  Please let us know.  Tell us. 

Ariane: Yes. Egypt was the first country to buy the Rafale. It was under a young dictatorship, a young new dictatorship, military dictatorship that was in place since 2013. It was after one of the biggest massacre  of Egyptian modern history where 1000 civilians were killed in two days. Thus, this new military government was lacking support, especially from the states. Therefore, they were looking for support on the international scene. France was among the first countries, the first democratic country to answer positively and to send officials from the government to discuss with the new, with the army in order to sell weapons. As selling weapons is not only, it is not only a business, it is not like any (other) business, it creates a strong link of dependence between the seller and the buyer. It is a way for the buyer to guarantee a kind of a support from the country that is selling. Therefore, France in this case. And especially when we are talking about the most expensive aircraft, combat aircraft of French history. Which was hardly selling. That it has been the program that was running for decades and no country wanted to buy it. There were some attempts with Brazil and it failed. Hence, it was a huge diplomatic success for the French President at that time and his Ministry of Defence, Jean Yves Le DRIAN. It was like a double win for France and Egypt. This is how it was seen by  the top level of authorities.   

And it did cost… It did cost something to the French state. It was not… it was not for free, because actually Egypt didn't buy it (in) cash. They bought it through a loan and the loan was, is still guaranteed. 60% of the loan is guaranteed by the French state and the French public banks. Therefore, it means that if Egypt doesn't manage to refund the loan then it will be (the) French taxpayer who will pay the Rafale to Egyptian army. Thus, it is the case for the contract of 2015.  At first, Egypt bought 24 Rafales and again in 2021 they bought 30 Rafales. The deal was for 3.75 billion Euros. And it was again allowed, this time it was guaranteed of which 85% by the French states. At that time Egypt was  going  through a very deep economic crisis. Less and less banks were ready to give a loan. Therefore, they requested the highest level of guarantee which was again the French state. 

I am saying that to show you how important it is for the French state  to support this kind of export because this is, the Rafale is part of the diplomacy, is part of the French diplomacy. Selling a Rafale is seen in French state as a diplomatic a success. It is seen as a part of the French soft power.  It comes back from  De Gaulle. Actually, you mentioned all those other contracts from South Africa, Iraq, etc.… all dictatorships…  actually France made a speciality to sell weapons to dictatorships. As, in the 1950s during the Cold War there were the (United) states and Russia and the France. There were these two big sellers and France wanted to sell to other people. So, there were not a lot of countries remaining. Hence, they chose the few that were remaining which were dictatorships or rogue states. This is the same public (state) policy that is applying now and Egypt has been chosen for that. (With) India, it is a bit different because in the public opinion of France and (French) public, in the opinion of French leaders also it is a country with which we can have a full relationship. I would say, (it is because) there is no contradiction with the Human rights, values that France shows off. Just to Conclude. Egypt was and is still very important for the Rafale. What I would call the Rafale diplomacy and the arms diplomacy of France. There are still negotiations  ongoing to increase weapon sales to Egypt. 

Anubandh: To me, what is really striking in what you just said was the fact that France sold Rafale aircrafts to Egypt and gave itself, I mean, they gave bank credit to Egypt so that they (Egypt) could buy it! And the French taxpayer was a stakeholder (in this deal). But at no point of time the French population was asked, if they would agree to this deal or not.Thus, there is a (clear) “Deficit of Democracy” here.

Ariane: Ya ya.. that is true. 

Anubandh: And similarly, I mean again, there perhaps is also a conflict of interest (here) because we know that in 2020 Marechal (Abdel Fattah) al-SISSI, in a very secretive way was given the highest civilian award, that is “Legion d'honneur” by Manuel MACRON. And the French media was kept away. It was through an Egyptian website that the French media came to know (about it). Last year (2023) it was Mr. MODI who was also given the Legion d'honneur. The French Defence minister Le DRION…I forgot his name he… 

Ariane: Jean Yves Le DRIAN 

Anubandh: ya…Jean Yves Le DRIAN also received the highest civilian award from Egypt. Therefore, is this a way to compensate big dignitaries or people in office for the deals they sign with France? 

Ariane: I mean dictators are always looking for a public acknowledgement. For the fact that other countries are endorsing them, greeting them. There were some very important moments when President TRUMP thanked his very good friend, President (Marechal Abdel Fattah al) - SISSI and so this… you could think that these decorations do not mean a lot. For a dictatorship, for dictators for whom the power is very fragile, these kind of symbolic decorations are important. And in fact, this decoration of Legion d’honor happened in December 2020. And five months later Egypt signed the contract to buy 30 more Rafales. Thus, I wouldn't say, one created (the other). That the one event created the other but that it shows definitely that there are, there is a close relationship and a will to thank and to please. A will to please the Egyptian top army authority from the French leadership. 

Anubandh: You initially mentioned that India perhaps is a better candidate to sell arms for France compared to other openly declared dictators and we know there are lots of Human rights violations and journalists are being harassed in India but what the Indians should know. That they would perhaps be surprised that the French state isn't either (very) kind to their journalists. (In particular those) who go in a sensitive file, in a sensitive direction. And you were at the receiving end last year (2023) when you were detained for more than 30 hours. Could you please tell us about this experience and in general how the French state behaves with investigative journalists like you? 

Ariane: Yes, press freedom in France is at stake for many years now it has been a little bit under covered.

However, it is true that since, I would say 10…almost (last) 10 years, since the new wave of terrorist attacks, there was an increase of terrorism laws that were targeting. (The ones) that started to target the Muslim community, the civil society and journalists. More and more journalists are arrested, during demonstrations, for instance more and more journalists are being questioned by the police for doing their job. (They are) questioned to  give their sources. Thus, my case made the headlines but actually there is… France is one of the countries in Western Europe where there is the most violation against press freedom.  The most arrests (of journalists) in the past years have been… have happened in France in the entire European union (EU). Therefore, these not arrests like in Egypt or in dictatorship. These are typically for a few hours or few days. Butstill, it is very worrying for a State where there is a rule of law and democratic principles. So, in fact, in September (2023) I was detained for two days. My house was searched, my computer was searched by cyber security analysts from intelligence office in France. There were 6 agents searching my computer, phone, looking at my notebooks and looking for the sources who informed, disclosed that there are arms deals with Egypt and Russia, as you mentioned and I have been interrogated (for) several hours. I kept silent because this is still a right in France. However, this is a clear intimidation not only to me, to my colleagues and to my newsroom. It is a clear intimidation to any journalist who wants to do investigation on Defence stories. You may not know but in France publishing stories, information about the army that are covered most of the time… this information is covered by what we call “Defence of National Security” the secret of Defence National security. This is an offense, it could lead you to 5 years in jail. In fact, this is exactly the same offense, the same penalty in Egypt for revealing military secrets! Thus, there is no protection for journalists, when we investigate on arms deals. 

Anubandh: Thanks. I think it is an important point especially from the point of view of the Indian audience who tend to believe that the West, Europe has better journalistic atmosphere or the response from the government is way better than what we have in India which perhaps is true but there are lots of details. As Ariane rightly said, there are huge problems in France but since we are talking about the media I think it is worth giving a look at how is the media situation in France.  In India, it is very clear. We know that there are big billionaire; ADANI and AMBANI who govern and control most of the mainstream media.

I personally was surprised and shocked that the situation in France is not that … it is not that different either… 

Paranjoy: You should not say most of the media. Yes, ADANI and AMBANI, their groups have very major interests in the media but I would rather, instead of saying most of the media, you can say, large sections

or substantial sections of the media, that will be more accurate. Yes please continue.

 

Anubandh: Why not? Okay. In France, the mainstream media, the group that interests us is this DASSAULT family which has the Figaro and other groups. That is the business magnate (DASSAULT) that we are talking about. However, there are also Patrick DRAHI, he has this RMC and other networks. We have of course Xavier NEIL. We have other groups. I forget now the names. Maybe Ariane can help me.. but this is to tell… 

Ariane: You have you have basically three - four billionaires who are sharing most of the private media. You have public media. The state owned media, which are independent. They do not directly respond to the government. There is an authority, an independent authority that regulates the public stations, public radio stations. This is what you find. There is then the big company, LVMH. LVMH belongs to Bernard ARNAULT. He owns big brands… all clothes, the big brands of cloths such as Louis Vuitton, Sephora, etc. Then you have another big billionaire, called BOLORE with the far right. He is an islamophobic billionaire who ran a campaign in favor of the far right movements, different far right movements in France. You have another one in Marseille where I am. He is a Syrian Lebanese billionaire who owns a big company of maritime trade, CMA- CGM. It is big, a big cargo (company) all around the world. You have maybe heard of them during the explosion in the Beirut port. They are linked to sometimes with Bashar al ASSAD. This big company owns several TV channels. They just bought several TV channels and newspapers. They are a rising billionaire who tend to be more close to the current government in place. So, more center, close to Emmanuel MACRON.   

Anubandh: Right. Ariane could you tell us how has been Le Figaro's response to these investigations and these deals? As it is owned by DASSAULT. 

Ariane: Well, I think I am not sure (if) Le Figaro spoke about our investigation Actually it is not only Le Figaro, it is most of the media who didn't speak about our investigation. Some private radios broadcast our investigation as some journalists wanted to speak about it. The Public stations, public TV also I did a big investigation. However, most of the journalists didn't showcase the story. I would not say it is a censorship from the state. It is mostly that they think it was not interesting. It was not a public interest story. Because we reveal the state secret, the weapon. We revealed how France helped Egypt to kill civilians in the desert. This story for most of French journalists was seen as a foreign affairs story. That is not really concerning, it not really interesting for the French audience. Actually my investigation got attention when  I got arrested. So, in last September (2023). Then all other media started to publish, to talk about my story, including Le Figaro. The newsroom of Le Figaro participated in an oped to denounce that I was attacked, that I was the target. Therefore, there is a common understanding among the community of journalists, including in the media that are owned by private businessmen who do weapons deals. The press freedom is something we should protect and the secret of sources is a core democratic principle. 

Anubandh: True, since we are talking about press freedom and both India and France are involved,  I have this last slide, and I would also request Paranjoy to join, I mean, to put his screen on. 

 

The ranking here is from Reporters Sans Frontières – RSF and you can compare, you can see here there is a comparison between India and France. There is the ranking and there is this global score. You can see the ranking for India has dropped from 140 to 159. That is a clear downgrade. And of course, along with it, the global score has also decreased. The global score here is described as “a quantitative tally of abuses against journalists in connection with their work and against media outlets” and “a qualitative analysis of the situation in each country or territory based on the responses of press freedom specialists, including journalists, researchers, academics and human rights defenders to an RSF questionnaire.”

Thus, this is how they calculate the global score. Regarding France what was surprising is that although they have improved upon their ranking, their global score remains almost the same.  So, Ariane… (if you could comment) 

Ariane: I mean, of course the situation is terrible in India for my journalists colleagues. Especially, women journalists who receive death and rape threats almost everyday, if they  challenge the official narrative or the far right narrative. However, in France also what said RSF is that it is the worst score in all the European Union (EU). In all the democratic European Union. Because now we have several countries that are falling out of the rule of law. Especially Hungary, where there is no more press freedom and almost no more press freedom. Also, I think maybe in India you have a more acute awareness of press freedom. Of the attacks on press freedom, because you have seen this rise. There is probably more mobilization, social mobilization to denounce what is happening. In France, very few people realize what is happening, very few journalists themselves protest when they are targeted by the police. When they are questioned by the police. It is starting to change but we are really, there is little community organization. There is a very low rate of a (journalists) unions. There is a very low rate of journalists who are part of a union which, I guess, is a bit different in India. Therefore, I think in France we didn't want to see  or we forgot that these attacks are happening more and more. As you see, it is also qualitative analysis. I think less, lots of journalists especially independent journalists in local area are not reporting their attacks. I mean you have terrorist attacks on journalists. There are people who are entering houses of journalists because they didn't like an article! They took off the wheel of the car of a journalist in Brittany to provoke an accident.  This was because the (journalist) reported about (the evils of) intensive agriculture techniques and the agro business industry. Thus, there is a lot of press aggression, attacks that are under the radar. I do not want to say that the situation is similar in India and in France. However, we need to see the whole picture. Especially, how much the French population, the French society is under, I wouldn't say (under) educated but less aware maybe than the Indian society.  

Anubandh: Thank you. Paranjoy could you give a quick reaction?  

Paranjoy: I will give you. This would be my closing remarks. You have put out the rankings and the media freedom, the press freedom, freedom of expression indices that have been put out by organizations like RSF. My opinion is that at one level this is a global phenomenon. It is happening across the world. As far as India is concerned specifically India is concerned, we have seen how, especially over the last 10 years, after the (BJP) government came to power the index has been coming down. In the past, whoever has been in power they have not been tolerant towards its critics, among journalists. The difference is that this government, the present government has been vengeful. It has been not just intolerant, several law enforcing agencies including the Central Bureau (of investigation), including Income Tax Department, the Enforcement Directorate. They have gone after the media organizations, they have gone after the media organizations because of their commentary and their analysis. It has even happened to the BBC in India, it has happened to several media organizations. Whereas the journalists in the small towns and in the remote areas, they are more vulnerable. Even the organizations have been harassed by the law enforcing agencies and one of the reasons for it is that the media is seen to be “an enemy of the nation”. Just because you are the enemy of the government and those who are in power, you are made out as if you are the enemy of the country. And their patriotism is being questioned. Now the laws have been changed, the rules have been changed and they have been aimed at, you know, stifling freedom of expression which is a fundamental right of  every Indian citizen. The reasonable restrictions of the right to free expression have this term “reasonable” (which) has been misinterpreted. The laws on sedition, the laws on defamation and libel, in my opinion they have been misused against the critics of the government. 

Mr. Narendra MODI, the Prime Minister of India happens to be the first and the only Prime Minister of India who has never in India faced an unscripted spontaneous press conference, where anybody can ask him any question. He has given only interviews to particular persons who he has picked and he has chosen them. They have not asked him difficult questions. They have asked him questions that he wanted to be asked. And there have been scripts… there have been like scripted interviews, instead of being spontaneous interviews. All of this has resulted in those who are independent journalists, those who I believe that the job of journalists is to hold truth to power and expose corruption in high places, they are facing severe challenges, including financial challenges, including by withdrawal of advertising support, not just by the government but by those supportive of the government, including big business houses. And as you pointed out earlier many of the richest, two of the richest men in India, they are also controlling big, that they have large media interests and media empires. So, this would be my observations and comments. 

Anubandh: Thank you Paranjoy. 

And we are now reaching the end of this interview. I have just one last question to both of you. And you can respond. Few years earlier, when I was working in Bangalore (India) I met a French CEO of a very small company. His argument was that in India, to make business, to survive there is no way, no option but to do corruption. He said if I would not do corruption then I would not win the contract. If I don't go ahead then someone else would. How would you respond to such arguments, when it comes to Defence deals which are very infamous for having corruption in it? Is there a way to do business without corruption? 

Ariane: Yes, that is something that we, that I hear a lot also.  It is a way to take off your own responsibility  

as a company and as a state. As a company and as a state, you have a social responsibility. You don't do anything you want, anything you can. You have a code of conduct and you have to abide it. (You have to) abide by the law. Further, the French state signed the treaty on arms trade, to regulate the arms trade. And it says that you cannot sell weapons to a country that will use it to commit human rights violation. The one that will use it against civilians, for example to  perpetrate war crimes. Thus, this is very clear and this is a treaty that more than 100 countries signed, including France. They have to abide by it! Therefore, it is not something about what we think we should do… But we can't do (anything that we like). This is the rule that we have commonly chosen, (we) have ratified (it) together as states. Whether you like it or not this is the common rule. Okay? So, you can invent any kind of excuse that another rogue state will do (it, if we don’t). We try to make the world a place that is a little bit less horrible, so please respect  the common rules! 

And the second argument would be. OK, you want to sell to dictatorship? Fair (enough). But where is this word of the French citizen?  Where is the word of Indian citizen? If you think it is important to sell weapon to dictatorship, because you will keep a channel (open) and you will keep a way to discuss with the top level authority of this dictatorship or like illiberal  countries. Ok. But let us have a public debate. Let us have a vote. In France, this is forbidden. Not (just) citizens, but even the (Members of Parliament) MPs can not ask questions on arms delivery,  after they have been delivered. All the documents, all the decisions are state secrets. When there will be a public debate, a little bit more transparency, then you can invoke these kinds of arguments. Such as, “(please) say yes, as if we don't do that, it will reinforce China”, and so on. However, we don't have the full information disclosed. Thus, we can't make enlightened decisions, enlightened debates. We can not fully respond, scientifically respond to these kind of arguments because we are prevented to think and to be informed. 

Anubandh: Right.  So, deficit of democracy as we said. 

Paranjoy: You know, I agree with what Ariane has just said, I have nothing more to add except to say that the best, the best way to prevent or curb or reduce corruption is to have greater transparency in public. The role of the media in a democracy is to hold accountable those who are in positions of power and authority, make them more accountable when their discretionary powers are being misused, to hold truth to power. I mean, I think without transparency, without accountability, there cannot have true democracy and in the opinion of several people, including myself, the different indicators show that there has been a democracy deficit. That India describes itself as the world's largest democracy because we have more than 1.4 billion people. But the question is, are we moving towards a better democracy, a stronger democracy and that can only happen if the media, you call it the fourth estate and other agencies that are responsible for greater transparency in public life, become stronger. We have seen how those who have been in power in India have diluted the provisions of the Right to Information Act (RTI) and how these acts and rules even after they are made (into a law), they are not implemented properly. Thus, this is, at one level, as I mentioned earlier, a global project but when it concerns your own society and when you are seeing that these are not being properly implemented. And you still want to say we are a democracy, then all I can say is that you can't fool everybody all the time. We have to, we have to fight and continue to fight to ensure greater accountability of those who are in positions of power and authority. Thank you for listening. 

Anubandh: Thank you Paranjoy. One last thing. Since you have the book in front of you, would you please read the last, the beautiful poem of Bob Dylan that you included in the book and then we stop? Bob Dylan… 

Paranjoy: Bob Dylan… earlier known, I mean, known as  ZIMMERMAN… Robert ZIMMERMAN who won the Nobel Prize. This is a an excerpt from an article.. sorry.. a song that he wrote in 1963 which was sung in 1963. It says, “come you masters of war”, the name of the song is “Masters of war” 

So it says,  “come you masters of war, 

you that build the big guns, 

you that build the death planes, 

you that build all the bombs, 

you that hide behind walls, 

you that hide behind desks, 

I just want you to know I can see through your masks, 

let me ask you one question, 

is your money that good? 

will it buy you forgiveness? do you think? 

I think you will find when your death takes its toll 

all the money you made will never buy back your soul.” 

This is Bob Dylan for you. 

Anubandh: a big thank you to Paranjoy and to Ariane! For all your time. This has been an exciting  discussion. I learnt and discovered many things thanks to you. I hope the readers, be it in India, in France would also take this book and discover on their own. Thank you very much and I hope to talk to you again. 

Paranjoy: Bye Bye. 

Ariane: Ha ha. Bye Bye. 

Anubandh: Thank you.

 

 

Paranjoy Guha THAKURTA - Co-Author

    

Paranjoy Guha THAKURTA started his professional career in 1977. His work experience, spanning over four and a half decades, cuts across different mass media: the written word, the spoken word and the audio-visual medium - printed publications and websites, radio and podcasts, television and documentary cinema. He is a writer, speaker, anchor, interviewer, teacher, analyst/commentator, publisher, producer, director and consultant. He has authored/co-authored eight books, published more than 30 books, directed/produced more than 25 long documentary films and hundreds of short films/videos, including two music videos. He has been the editor of Economic and Political Weekly (April 2016 ~ July 2017) and is a member of the visiting faculty at the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA) for the last 19 years. He is a consultant with the NewsClick portal.

 

Ariane LAVRILLEUX

Ariane is an investigative journalist. She is based in Marseille. Ariane specializes in Defence deals, human rights violations and the impact of economy on the environment. She works for different radios like RFI and RTS - Swiss Radio France. She also works for magazines and investigating media such as Mediapart, Disclose, Le Monde Diplomatique, Alter Eco and Revue Dessinée. Ariane has been very closely following the Egypt papers, the sale of Rafale and other French armaments to the Egyptian dictator Marechal (Abdel Fattah) al-SISSI. 

Yann PHILIPPIN

Yann  PHILIPPIN is an investigative journalist and reporter for the French Mediapart. In his journalistic career, he has investigated the crash of the Rio Paris flight of Air France, the SNCF accident in Brétigny and politico-financial cases such as the Dassault and Rafale deal controversies. Specialized in financial cases, tax fraud and corruption, he works in particular on data “leaks” published by Mediapart with its partners from the European Investigative Collaborations (EIC) network, on which Yann is also, a board member.

 

Anubandh KATÉ is a Paris based engineer and co-founder of the association, “Les Forums France Inde”.