The UPA government is increasingly at war with its ownself. Even among the ministers, distrust has set in. Let alone a party, the Congress does not even appear to be a coalition. The Prime Minister and the UPA chairperson are mute spectators. The legitimacy of the government has been eroded. There are several questions which home minister P Chidambaram has to answer in relation to the fixation of the value of the spectrum in 2008. It is not an internal matter of the government. It involves public revenue.
Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee is wrong in refusing to elaborate on the ground that the matter is sub judice. Even on March 25, 2011, when the matter was sub judice, a note approved by him reached the Prime Minister’s office. The culpability of the government or its ministers is not merely a legal question. The country is entitled to know the rationale behind the FM and finance ministry’s opinion as to why the predecessor FM and the ministry acted in the matter in a particular manner, so as to cause wrongful loss to the public exchequer. It is an issue in the public domain and both Mukherjee and Chidambaram must answer these questions. If no answers are given, the nation is entitled to presume that no answers could have been given.
Questions for Chidambaram: Admittedly on November 22, 2007, the ministry through finance secretary D Subbarao wrote to his counterpart in the DoT. He raised the correct questions that “in particular, it is not clear how the rate of Rs 1,600 crore, determined as far back as in 2001, has been applied in 2007 without any indexation, let alone current valuation. Moreover, in view of the financial implications, the ministry should have been consulted before you have finalised your decision”. Notwithstanding this clear position, telecom minister A Raja decided to allot the spectrum and in particular fix the entry fee at Rs 1,651 crore, which was arrived at by a mechanism prevailing in 2001. This happened on January 11, 2008. Fully aware of the situation, the then FM Chidambaram on January 15, 2008, sent a note to the PM wherein he stated, “Spectrum is a scarce resource. The price for spectrum should be based on its scarcity value and efficiency of usage. The most transparent method of allotting spectrum would be through auction.” Notwithstanding this opinion for allotments already made the minister observed, “In such cases, the past may be treated as a closed chapter.”
The FM, thus, altered the position which his ministry had taken in relation to the excesses of Raja. He further changed his opinion in as much as the PM made a statement on February 24, 2011 in the Rajya Sabha stating, “Contrary to the assertion of the Leader of Opposition, the record clearly shows that the then FM while he initially had a different view which he sent to me on January 15, 2008, subsequently consulted the telecom minister and the two ministers worked out and agreed on the spectrum charges, which was reported to me in a meeting on July 4, 2008.” Now the note of the finance ministry dated March 25, 2011, approved by the FM clearly mentions that the loss of revenue has occurred because “thus, the ministry of finance implicitly agreed to the imposition of the same entry fee as prevailing in 2001 for licences allotted up to December 31, 2008”. Should the then FM not be telling the country as to why his ministry changed its position from November 22, 2007, where it had insisted either on indexation or determination of the current value. Has not his act of agreeing to the ministry of telecom’s proposal not caused wrongful loss to the government and a pecuniary advantage to the allottees of the licencees?
Question for Mukherjee: By sending the note dated March 25, 2011, the finance ministry has rendered an exemplary service to the nation. It has placed on record what it perceives to be the factual position. Mukherjee cannot hide behind the plea of sub judice. It is a matter which relates to public interest and ministerial conduct. We do hope that having rendered such a long service to the nation, Mukherjee will not shirk from his public responsibility to make a full and frank disclosure.
And finally a question to the Hon’ble PM. What was the Hon’ble PM doing when national loot was taking place? The PM heads the council of ministers. He just can’t delegate the responsibility to two ministers and abandon his responsibility, particularly, when his own correspondence with Raja reveals that he had a lurking suspicion that all was not well.
Edited excerpts of a speech made by Arun Jaitley, Leader of Opposition, Rajya Sabha, at the Constitution Club in New Delhi on September 22