Passport <i>Kanda</i>

The controversy about Machine Readable Passports (MRPs) contract being awarded to India makes an interesting reading and reflects very badly on the media. More than the government and the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which have bungled in this passport kanda, it is media that has successfully managed to attract eggs on its face.

I am not at all suggesting that awarding of the MRP contract to India was a correct decision. Since the Supreme Court has taken up the matter, it would not be proper for me to argue much on the merits of the decision. But I cannot resist saying this: Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) and Foreign Minister (FM) Sujata Koirala and her closest aides owe an explanation to the nation about this controversial deal. The way they masterminded the whole process to zero in on the time constraint factor so as to hand over the MRP deal to India is questionable and each of them must be investigated for their role.

However, the question I am raising here is about the media reports and the PAC’s decisions on this episode.

Let me begin with the most ludicrous of all the arguments and reasoning that have been floated right since DPM/FM Koirala declared that her ministry would award the contract to Security and Minting Corporation India. On Tuesday, one of the leading Nepali newspapers quoted an unnamed officer of the National Security Council (NSC) saying the MRP contract to India would jeopardize our national security.

It was hilarious to read this expert’s views. (The same paper’s Wednesday’s edition says the NSC issued a denial after being pressured “from above”.) Since India got the MRP contract, it would know all the details of a Nepali citizen’s travel like where s/he went, the time spent there. So if I use the MRP from India and take a visa from the US, Israeli or Chinese Embassy here, the Indian intelligence officials would know it and can track my movements in these countries! Wow! Did not know the Indians had advanced so much in spying on others!

First of all, there is no security issue at all as is being insisted since the passport details will be personalized in Nepal and not in India which will only supply the MRP booklet. The very example that is being cited so as to question the award to India actually throws doubt on the misuse/abuse angle. The alleged Israeli intelligence’s use of British passports to kill a Hamas official in Dubai actually shows that passports can be forged anywhere, no matter which country makes or issues those. If Indian officials want to forge a passport, they – and for that matter any country can easily do it. This is not rocket science. Let us not try to fool ourselves.

For the press to insist on repeating this canard reflects very badly on our profession. Just to make things clearer. This is a first generation passport booklet and all works related to its details and issuance will be done here. To ignore this fact and jump to conclusion is sloppy journalism; to deliberately write the kind of reports that have appeared in recent days despite knowing this fact is unethical practice.

Both Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and a section of media have ignored some basic facts over the MRP contract given to India. As a result, xenophobia about (non-existent) security issue is being raised. It only serves the cause of some vested interests.

Now let us examine the decisions of PAC which has not covered itself with glory with its flip-flop on the issue. On Feb 14, the committee directed the government to approach other governments, besides India, over the MRP contract. Then on Feb 25, the same committee reversed its earlier decision, and directed the government to revive the bidding process cancelled in mid-December last year. Does PAC even know what it is doing?

Also, are the parliamentarians aware that of the four – Oberthur Technologies (France), Gemalto (Finland), Sagon Security Printers (France) and 3M Technology (Singapore) – which had been selected at the pre-qualification stage, only the first one qualified? Later, at the bidding stage, requirements were changed, suiting just one company – the Gemalto. Is PAC aware of this? Would it investigate this?

The PAC, in fact, would do a great service to the nation if they tried to find out how much the four companies who missed the contract are stoking this whole episode.

“Following the issuance of the directive from this committee, when the government talked to various friendly countries, it was found that the proposal forwarded by India’s state-owned company is the most suitable due to time constraints,” said Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal to the committee on Monday while explaining reasons for awarding the contract to India. “Since the bilateral talks with India had progressed, it was not appropriate to back down from the procedure due to diplomatic as well as political reasons.”

This was what the PM had said to PAC. Just read a few of the newspapers that reported this on Tuesday and you will understand what I mean when I say the press has not been fair. The same leading paper’s editorial on Wednesday puts forth some hard-hitting questions. One of the questions is about whether the government could bypass the four companies in the bidding process and give the contract to India. It ignored these companies’ selection process, which was questionable.

To insinuate that this government alone was responsible for missing the April 1 deadline is irresponsible. It was early 2005 when the process in Nepal started, if we can say that. One of the governments in power since then was led by Surya Bahadur Thapa and one of his ministers was Dr Prakash Chandra Lohani, a PAC member now. In fact, it was in 1980 that International Civil Aviation Organization has asked the member states to prepare to go for MRP.

To my fellow professionals: Pull up your socks, folks.

damakant@myrepublica.com