Tata defends his group, Raja and PM

Rebuts Rajeev Chandrasekhar’s indictment of 2G spectrum policy.

Tata Group chairman Ratan Tata today gave a strong rebuttal to former telecom entrepreneur and present Member of Parliament, Rajeev Chandrasekhar’s indictment of policy on the sector, saying it was not factual and meant to meet political ends.

Chandrasekhar, who’d issued an “open letter to the Prime Minister” on Monday, said Tata’s response was a feeble one, which did not address the points he’d made.

Asked about the war of words between operators, telecom minister Kapil Sibal, who took charge recently after his predecessor had to step down after a flurry of allegations and a probe by investigative agencies, stated: “We will put everything (the controversy) to an end, as we will ensure a level playing field to all the operators.”

The minister added: “Everybody is looking at the telecom sector (only) as a source for earning money for the finance ministry. If we look at telecom in that context, we will be doing injustice to the people of India.”

Ratan Tata’s Chandrasekhar’s-talking-nonsense missive had two interesting aspects. One, he indirectly rapped the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, though he made a point of commending its former telecom minister during its earlier rule, Arun Shourie. Two, he had some good words for the policy under A Raja, the minister who had to step down last month, and whose offices and homes were searched by investigating agencies yesterday. He has, in passing, critiqued the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s (CAG’s) report in this regard, which led to the present political storm.

Tata said Chandrasekhar’s political “affiliation” was known and he was making “insinuations” accordingly, to embarrass Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Chandrasekhar is an independent member of the Rajya Sabha from Karnataka, whose election was supported by the BJP. Tata also blamed the BJP for various “flip flops” in telecom policy in his letter.

And, defended both Manmohan Singh and the actions taken by former minister Raja. “Whatever may be said, it must be recognised that the recent policy broke the powerful cartel which has been holding back competition and delaying implementation of policy not to their liking, such as growth of CDMA technologies, new GSM entrants, revision in subscriber-based spectrum allocation norms and even number portability,” his letter said. By cartel, he meant incumbent GSM operators -- including Chandrasekhar’s BPL, which the latter later sold off.

As noted, Tata was careful to “commend” Arun Shourie for, during the earlier NDA government, implementing “a far sighted policy”, under which CDMA operators offering limited mobility services like Tata Teleservices migrated to full mobility by taking a Unified Access Service Licence for just Rs 1,650 crore.

Chandrasekhar’s first letter had alleged Tata was a beneficiary of the way the government had manipulated telecom policy. In his reply to Tata’s rebuttal, he said the latter’s missive “is a typical one that ducks the main issues and instead attempts to shoot the messenger”.

Adding: “I am only disappointed, but no longer surprised, that in sharp contrast to my efforts to go out of the way to keep this debate relating to facts and policy discussions, your letter is intensely personal, attributes feeble motives and (is) most unbecoming of the House of Tatas. I can only think that this is a lapse in good judgment. I particularly find your self-appointed defence of the Prime Minister and Government very irrelevant.”

Commenting on the various points in the Tata letter, to the effect that there was no unwarranted gain to his group during the tenure of any minister, Chandrasekhar said, “The facts, in the letter are just exceptionally weak” and that he would “rebut your allegations, claims and innuendo, chapter and verse, in the public domain.”

Tata’s letter defends using controversial corporate lobbyist Niira Radia. It does this by making a mention of Chandrasekhar’s own earlier alleged attempts to prevent the entry of WLL-limited mobility services and CDMA operators.Tata says in 2002, Chandrasekhar used to be parked in the Taj Mahal Hotel in Delhi (owned by the Tatas), where he interacted with the polity and bureaucracy and with other operators to forge a telecom policy of their choice. This was when Chandrasekhar was president of the Cellular Operators Association of India, the GSM operators’ body.

It notes Chandrasekhar also solicited support of the Confederation of Indian Industry for the purpose. “Would you not consider this as an endeavor to influence or subvert policy? To influence politicians or solicit support from selected corporates?” asks Tata in the letter.

As for the CAG report, Tata said it had not ascribed any value to the notional loss to the exchequer on the 48 new licences issued to GSM incumbents from 2004 to 2008 -- CAG has ascribed a huge notional loss to the 2008 issue of licences by Raja’s ministry. This, says Tata, though “CAG was supposed to cover the period from 2003”.

TTSL attacks Chandrasekhar letter
Along with Ratan Tata, its chairman, Tata Telservices also sent a detailed, six-page, response to Member of Parliament Rajeev Chandrasekhar's open letter of charges on alleged telecom policy manipulation.

Answering every allegation by Chandrasekhar in some detail, TTSL said it had applied for dual crossover technology only after the policy was announced and was the first legitimate applicant to do so, after the policy announcement.

Chandrasekhar, in his letter, said TTSL had received undue advantages durng the processing of dual technology applications. He also said TTSL caused a loss of Rs 19,074 crore to the exchequer, by virtue of the dual-technology.