A statement issued on behalf of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Sunday sought to explain the controversial note issued in January 2008 by his private secretary on telecom spectrum allocation, that he was to be kept “at arm’s length from the process”.
The clarification notes for the first time the rivalry between old and new GSM and CDMA operators, and seeks to clear the air about the PMO’s role, a day ahead of the monsoon session of Parliament.
A noting recorded on January 23, 2008, by the PS to the PM had stated: “PM wants this informally shared with the Department (of Telecom). (He) does not want a formal communication and wants PMO to be at arm’s length.”
The PMO said an impression was sought to be created that the noting was in response to the Prime Minister being informed of steps being taken which he knew were inappropriate but he looked the other way.
WHAT HE MEANT TO SAY
In fact, the clarification says, the PMO did not issue a formal directive to the telecom ministry on the allocation of spectrum, not because the Prime Minister wanted to look the other way but because he did not want to be construed as directing the ministry to favour one or other corporate house. The PM wanted the autonomy of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) and the Department of Telecom (DoT) to be maintained.
“It was well known at that time that there were conflicting interests between existing operators and new entrants. The Prime Minister felt that this matter required detailed examination and deliberation by the DoT, in consultation with Trai and others. He felt that, under the circumstances, it was not appropriate for the Prime Minister's Office to pronounce on the matter till the subject had been carefully considered by the administrative ministry in consultation with Trai and other concerned departments.
More From This Section
Therefore, it was sent as an informal suggestion to the DoT for consideration,” the clarification says.
The statement has to be read in the context of the charge made by jailed telecom minister A Raja that at all stages the PMO and government were kept informed of the allocation process. The opposition has charged that if the PMO knew all along how spectrum was being allocated, it must explain its own role in the scam.
These inferences, the statement says, are unwarranted. The PMO’s note, on which the noting was recording, spelt out the general approach to telecom licensing and spectrum allocation.
POLICY THOUGHT
The approach was:
- Fix a 'threshold' level of spectrum that each operator must have in order to function with a minimum level of efficiency;
- Existing operators holding spectrum above the threshold level may be allowed a certain amount of time to raise the subscriber levels to reach full utilisation of spectrum, failing which the excess spectrum may be withdrawn;
- New operators may be allotted spectrum only up to the threshold level, on payment of the normal fees;
- The balance spectrum may then be auctioned among all those who hold spectrum up to the threshold level.
Given that GSM operators were holding unutilised spectrum, the note sought to strike a balance between existing operators and new entrants. “It did not deal with either issues relating to manner of grant of licence or charges for spectrum up to the threshold level”, the clarification says.
The statement says the proposal of the PM’s Office was to forward these suggestions to DoT for further consideration on the basis of individual consultations with the main players and Trai.
“The noting under question can in no way be construed to mean that the Prime Minister or his office looked the other way on matters relating to the grant of licence or spectrum charges etc. It related solely to the manner in which the approach summarised above should be conveyed to DoT, to be considered on merits, without being viewed as a direction from the Prime Minister or his office,” the note says.