Favouring auction over revenue sharing seems to have become a test of virginity in policy making. Suggest that there was nothing necessarily wrong with the policy of revenue sharing and opting for continuity of policy on spectrum allocation and telecom licensing and one is bound to be dubbed a sinner and worse. Virtue is on the side of the votaries of auction. This in a country where bidders for various licences and contracts have mastered the art of rigging auctions! The highest bidder in an auction or the lowest bidder in a tender process is no angel. And, in any case, it has been repeatedly pointed out that the methodology for sale or leasing is a function of the market and the objective of such an exercise.
However, the political and media debate in India has progressed down the road where even the Supreme Court sees something sinister in the telecom regulator standing his ground on the advisability of auctions. As one of our columnists, Shyam Ponappa, reminded our readers earlier this year of the relevance of Peter Drucker’s dictum “what is your objective” to this case and answered, “The purpose of distributing telecom spectrum in India as for awarding franchises in infrastructure is to build enabling capacity in the public interest; it is not to collect maximum fees for the government.” After some initial bravado, the government has been needlessly pusillanimous in defending itself on the issue of spectrum auction. In providing the wherewithal to extend basic infrastructure, no government should be obsessed about revenue alone. The entire “pro-auction” argument, based on the claim that the alternative model adopted led to a revenue loss, misses this point. It may take judges some time to understand the simple economics of the argument and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India should not feel intimidated by the questions asked. Rather, it should educate public opinion as to why it took an eminently sensible view. Former telecom minister A Raja’s guilt, as alleged, was not that he bypassed auctions but in the manner in which he allegedly tweaked the first come, first served process. The notings on the file of a junior official in the finance ministry on the issue of 2G spectrum auction do not implicate P Chidambaram and it is a pity that a mountain is sought to be made out of a molehill.
This episode, however, raises a far more serious question about efficient policy making in government in the era of the Right to Information (RTI). In fact, this particular example is a good case study of why bringing the “notings” of junior officials in a ministry within the purview of RTI was a bad idea. At this rate, all policy making will come to a halt since every official becomes risk-averse and either puts nothing in writing or only writes what she thinks will not cause controversy. A minister has every right to overrule an official for wholly legitimate reasons. RTI has willy-nilly become the “Route to Indecision” in government and is damaging the decision-making process. This weakening of the government is the last thing India needs at this point in time when it is being buffeted by global uncertainties, the challenge of terrorism and slow growth. The long-drawn-out process of investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation – which incidentally asked a court not to grant bail to Ramalinga Raju of Satyam, seeking more time to gather evidence against him, more than two years after he was arrested! – and the half-informed and motivated media witch-hunt, combined with political infighting in the ruling coalition, have virtually crippled the Union government. While wrongdoing should be exposed and the corrupt caught, punishment through persecution, rather than prosecution, does the institutions of governance little credit.