Severely criticising the inconsistencies in government policies, industrialist Ratan Tata said India was going against former leaders Nehru and Indira Gandhi's idea of being self-sufficient.
He said the Tata group had been disadvantaged repeatedly because of conditions becoming a little vague, implemented funnily and eligibility of capability being abused at the time of awarding major contracts.
Asked if he was seeing increasing unpredictability in the government policies from the investors' point of view, Tata said in an interview to NDTV: "Yes, I think so, I've always felt and said this openly that behind it is not government policy, what's behind it is the vested interests."
He replied in the affirmative on if he ever regretted being in telecom business and said: "Yes, because of inconsistencies in the policy... Because of the bias that exists... Yes, sometimes I do, but it is a great area."
To a different query, he said that telecom was an example where the government policy was not implemented in the manner and spirit it was intended to be. "It has been modified several times to suit individuals. Initially, it may have been public sector incumbencies. Then, it was one segment or the other...
"Usually behind any change, behind any deviation, it is a vested interest," Tata added.
He, however, said that nobody had asked for money from the group in the telecom sector.
He also denied reports that the group had paid a sizable amount of money to former chief minister of Jharkhand Madhu Koda for acquisition of mining concessions.
"It is absolutely untrue. As the Chairman of Tata steel, I can say, we have not done any such thing — directly or indirectly... Actually we have got no leases in his (Koda's) time which should in itself be an indication of the veracity, or the lack of veracity, of the stories being circulated."
Admitting that he had heard about such charges, Tata said Tata Steel had even been called and asked those questions by the enforcement agencies and gave the same response.
Tata expressed dismay that contrary to greater adherence to policies earlier, today the interpretation of the policy had become very vague.
"So, eventually you find that you are arguing on something that the other side interprets in a manner that is so vague that you come away of that meeting thinking that I am never going to be able to do so," he said.
