It was UPA Chief Sonia Gandhi's desire and intervention that ended the 2G standoff between Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee and Home Minister P Chidambaram, Law Minister Salman Khurshid tells CNN-IBN in an exclusive interview. Salman Khurshid: Right, good question. You're saying let's begin with it, I'm hoping that we can end with this, now that he has said what he has said. I don't see scope for anymore questions. But you have asked a question, so I must answer it. Clearly, what we understand or I understand is a summary was needed, everyone had to be on board with one clear articulation, and, therefore, whoever knew anything and had participated to an extent, had to provide inputs and a lot of senior officers I understand, from different ministries provided inputs. But there was a relatively junior officer of the Finance Ministry who was putting it all together, collated it, signed it and then, of course, he sent it forward for the Prime Minister. There was an inference drawn in that, an inference, that was nobody's, at best you could say it was the author's inference, but it's an inference that was unwarranted and therefore, it's an orphan inference.
Karan Thapar: But you're saying that inference was nobody's which is a very odd sounding sentence to make because if you look at the number and seniority of the officers who contributed at various times to that memo, it includes the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Cabinet Secretary, the Law Secretary, Secretary of the Department of Economic Affairs including the DoT Secretary, now these are very senior critical officers. If this reflects their views, it's still very embarrassing for the government.
Salman Khurshid: It doesn't reflect their views. I'm sorry, I said that this is not anyone's view, because everybody would have only contributed the facts that they knew and those facts were collated together. Now you yourself say that several people were involved in collating those facts, but the actual narrative has been done by an officer of the Finance Ministry, that narrative should be of the facts. There is an inference, or a particular inference, which, I said is unwarranted.
Karan Thapar: You're pinning that inference solely and the only on PJ Rao, the officer who wrote that memo. Is that fair?
Salman Khurshid: Well, I don't know whether it's fair or not, but the fact is that I'm saying that inference is unwarranted.
Karan Thapar: Whether it's unwarranted or not is another issue. I'll come to that in a moment's time, but have you checked with people like Mr Nayyar, the Prime Minister's Principal Secretary, or Chandrashekhar, the then Cabinet Secretary, or the then Law Secretary or DoT Secretary, have they been specifically asked whether they agree with that inference or not or you're just saying this on your own?
Salman Khurshid: Are you suggesting that I should question what Mr Pranab Mukherjee has said?
Karan Thapar: Mr Pranab Mukherjee hasn't said anything about whether these people were questioned or not, that's why I asked you.
Salman Khurshid: What he said, "I do not agree with this inference", right? I am saying that the inference is unwarranted. Now between what Pranabji has said and what I am saying, is there scope to go and ask people do you own this inference, are you supporting this inference?
Karan Thapar: To be honest, yes, there is because it's hard to believe that a memo contributed to by such senior officers can be dismissed as if no one knows whose views it reflects other than the poor little author who seems to be the unfortunate person to take the blame. It seems very strange to people.
Salman Khurshid: I'm sympathetic to the officer. Whoever does work in an office and is getting information from a lot of senior officers ultimately unfortunately carries the baby. But we don't know, do we, that after this narrative was drawn up, it was actually sent back to everybody for their approval, for their okay to say yes, this is what we said. Now we assume that whatever they said and whatever they wanted to say was correctly reproduced here. The inference drawn, nobody has taken authorship or nobody is supporting it and the only person who…
Karan Thapar: Nobody wants to claim authorship may be a better way of putting it.
Salman Khurshid: Fine, fair enough.
Karan Thapar: But keeping that aside, let's come in fact to something else that Mr Mukherjee says, his exact words were that the inferences and interpretations do not reflect his views. He didn't say that he doesn't agree with the inferences and interpretations and the difference is glaring and striking. Has he deliberately left ambiguity there?
Salman Khurshid: No, I think that's the only way he can say it that these are not my views. Now if they're not your views, you don't agree with them.
Karan Thapar: No, hang on a moment; it's just quite possible to say that something doesn't reflect your view and yet not completely disagree with it. There are some things you don't choose to express; therefore, they don't reflect your views. He didn't say 'I don't agree'.
Salman Khurshid: Karan, you're a Cambridge man and you know Cambridge University gave Ludwig Wittgenstein to this world and entire linguistic philosophy approach to the world came from Cambridge University. But please, at least not here, not in the practical life of Indian politics.
Karan Thapar: It's so interesting you quote Wittgenstein, his critical sentence is what is the meaning of a word. The one word that Mr Mukherjee didn't use is that I don't agree with those views.
Salman Khurshid: So are we going back to the university now?
Karan Thapar: He has left ambiguity there.
Salman Khurshid: This is the practical language that we use in everyday life, particularly in Indian politics.
Karan Thapar: You know on something as critical as this, I'm surprised that he hasn't dotted every 'I' and cross every 'T'. To leave ambiguity is to leave room for doubt.
Salman Khurshid: I'm sure he did what he thought was best and Mr Chidambaram promptly said 'I agree'.
Karan Thapar: That's the point. He did what he thought was best and he distanced himself from the note but he didn't disagree explicitly with the inferences, that's the point I'm making.
Salman Khurshid: Perhaps what you need is an interview with him instead of interviewing me. You should interview him.
Karan Thapar: That may well be the case, in the sense when you say that you're half conceding the point I'm making.
Salman Khurshid: I'm not conceding anything at all. I assure you I'm not conceding anything at all.
Karan Thapar: Let me now come to what many believe is the real critical question. It's one that's been posed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley. Arun Jaitley said that when Mr Chidambaram gave up his initial insistence upon an auction and agreed to Mr Raja's idea that 2G should be allocated by first come first serve at 2001 prices. What he did was to facilitate the handing over of an unwarranted pecuniary advantage to allottees of the licences and Mr Jaitley adds that this is in fact under Section 13 (1) D 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act - a criminal misconduct. Those are very serious allegations.
Salman Khurshid: I assume that Mr Jaitley, an outstanding lawyer, is much better in civil law than he is in criminal law.
Karan Thapar: That's not an answer to the question.
Salman Khurshid: That's only my assumption. But let me, I'll give you an answer. The 2001 decision to give spectrum at a particular price was taken by Mr Jaitley's government; I don't know what ministership he held at that time. 2003, for further licences to be given, 2003 decision was taken by Mr Jaitley's government.
Karan Thapar: But come to 2007-08.
Salman Khurshid: Just all we did is we took a conscious decision, the Cabinet, not Mr Raja, not Mr Chidambaram, the Cabinet took a conscious decision to follow the 2003 Cabinet decision and continue with first come first serve.
Karan Thapar: No, hang on a moment. The 2003 Cabinet decision explicitly left the handling of pricing of spectrum to two ministers, the Minister of Telecom and the Finance Minister. The point is that the two ministers had a disagreement. The Minister of Telecommunication wanted to go by the 2001 pricing and the then Finance Minister Mr Chidambaram wanted a fresh determination of market prices, therefore, an auction. Now when the Finance Minister gave up his position, and changed to Mr Raja's position, he knew that the spectrum would be undersold, therefore, he also knew that an unfair pecuniary advantage was also being given to the allottees of the licences. Therefore, under Section 13, he becomes culpable of a criminal act. This is the charge made against Mr Chidambaram by Arun Jaitley. Why is your government not answering it head on?
Salman Khurshid: I am. When I answer, you don't listen. The decision of first come first serve was the Cabinet decision, a decision that continued with the decision taken by Mr Jaitley's government – first come first serve. Now if you're first come first serve, auction is out, please understand.
Karan Thapar: But the question is at what price. That's a critical issue. It doesn't have to be first come first serve like 2001 prices.
Salman Khurshid: I'm coming to that. No auction, please agree. No auction because the auction option was closed by the government.
Karan Thapar: But you can freshly determine the market price to come to 2008 levels.
Salman Khurshid: I'm coming to that. Mr Chidambaram, even after the Cabinet decision continued to argue for auction.
Karan Thapar: Precisely, why then did he give up?
Salman Khurshid: Because it was the Cabinet's decision. Could Mr Chidambaram alone have overturned a Cabinet decision?
Karan Thapar: Hang on a moment.
Salman Khurshid: Please, I'm answering everything if you let me answer, I'll answer everything. You have to first agree that Mr Chidambaram insisting on auction could not have overturned a Cabinet decision which said first come first serve.
Karan Thapar: But it didn't stipulate what price first come first serve should happen and that is where the dispute between Chidambaram and Raja was, not over first come first serve, but market determination of price.
Salman Khurshid: Please concede that auction was closed.
Karan Thapar: But not market determination.
Salman Khurshid: I'm not saying that.
Karan Thapar: And that's what Chidambaram wanted and that's what he gave up.
Salman Khurshid: I'm asking you to concede that there was to be no auction.
Karan Thapar: Okay, but that's still not a relevant point.
Salman Khurshid: Mr Chidambaram wanted auction, you have conceded there could have been no auction.
Karan Thapar: He wanted auction for market determination, not for the sake of it, that market determination didn't happen.
Salman Khurshid: Sure. He wanted auction for market determination.
Karan Thapar: That didn't happen.
Salman Khurshid: There was no auction because the Cabinet said no auction. What was the other way for market determination?
Karan Thapar: The market could have been determined through surveys of market price. You can do a sounding of the market to find out what the price available is.
Salman Khurshid: How, please tell me how?
Karan Thapar: By simply trying to find out from people what they're willing to pay.
Salman Khurshid: How? That's an auction.
Karan Thapar: No, it's not an auction. An auction happens only when you actually sell through a particular process of bidding. You can do surveys to find out market price.
Salman Khurshid: Please tell me, let's go to something else that's easier to understand. If you're selling land, if you're buying land, or if you're acquiring land, how do you decide the market price, you don't go and stand in the market place as government to say how much would you pay for this. You actually go to the circle rate, if not the circle rate, then you can go to the registry and see at what rate the neighbouring lands in the previous two years have been sold.
Karan Thapar: And in this case the registry would only reflect sales that had happened in 2001.
Salman Khurshid: In 2001.
Karan Thapar: No 2003, 2005, 2007 as well so leave that aside.
Salman Khurshid: Okay, which was the same price.
Karan Thapar: The point I'm making here is this – given that Mr Chidambaram was insistent on a market determination of price, given that he had serious concerns about selling at 2001 prices in 2008, why did he not clearly indicate to the Cabinet by taking the matter up there that Raja was going ahead with 2001 prices?
Salman Khurshid: You can't keep going back to the Cambridge.
Karan Thapar: Subbarao, who was finance secretary has told the PAC in February this year that in his opinion, not taking the matter back to the Cabinet was a mistake, he says he regretted it.
Salman Khurshid: In his opinion.
Karan Thapar: Yes, obviously in his opinion. That opinion could have been shared by Mr Chidambaram, it wasn't. I'm asking you why wasn't it?
Salman Khurshid: Listen, I can regret at something that happened the last time when I was in the government should not have happened. I can regret that Babri Masjid should not have been destroyed.
Karan Thapar: This is a critical issue. This is not something as vague as what happened last time.
Salman Khurshid: I'm sorry, it is not a critical issue and certainly what Mr Arun Jaitley has said, it's not a critical issue at all.
Karan Thapar: Let me put it like this. The charge is not just that Mr Chidambaram in changing his mind and taking up Mr Raja's position as guilty of corruption under Section 13 (1). Leave that aside, the second charge is that as a Cabinet minister when there was a difference of opinion between him and Raja over pricing, he did not take up the issue with the Cabinet, his own finance secretary has gone on record to say it should have been done. But he didn't do it.
Salman Khurshid: But they're still talking in the context of auction. Raja had no business to depart from first-come-first-serve. And Mr Chidambaram could not have questioned first-come-first-serve.
Karan Thapar: Let me put it like this, when Raja eventually on the 10th of January 2008 allotted the licences there were still, as the finance ministry memo makes explicitly clear, a disagreement between him and Chidambaram over pricing. They only came to an agreement, as the Prime Minister revealed, on the 4th of July 2008, almost seven months later. So at that point of time in January 2008, when Raja allotted licences, because there was disagreement Chidambaram should have taken up the matter with the Cabinet. Why didn't he?
Salman Khurshid: You ask him.
Karan Thapar: Listen, I am asking you because he is not available. He won't answer questions.
Salman Khurshid: No, no, because when there is disagreement between a large number of ministers and one minister, or between two ministers, and that disagreement is in the context of a decision by the Cabinet, there is a point at which you have to say 'well okay, that's far enough, we can't go much further'.
Karan Thapar: But in this issue he should have gone back to the Cabinet and said that 'Mr Raja has gone ahead with a lot more even though I disagree with him over pricing'.
Salman Khurshid: I am sorry I don't know what he should have done but what he did, I know. What he did is to say 'whatever you have done until now based on the Cabinet decision, but henceforth, the additional spectrum required, and it will be required, must be done on a different context'.
Karan Thapar: A second critical question that Mr Chidambaram needs to answer is this...
Salman Khurshid: What?
Karan Thapar: Does he not owe the country an explanation why he (a) chose not to take the matter back to the Cabinet; and (a) why he changed his mind and gave up his insistence on auction on market determination and accepted Raja's stand for first-come-first-serve with 2001 prices? Those two explanations is, something I am saying to you, he owes the country yet he is silent.
Salman Khurshid: The point is, whether he's silent or he has to give or he will give an explanation, I am worried about people who are saying that all this means criminal culpability. Can you please explain how?
Karan Thapar: Because there's a suspicion of motive, of intent. He needs to prove that he didn't change his mind for dishonest purposes. Iif he can there will be no suspicion of corruption. Because if he can't there will be a problem.
Salman Khurshid: Simply because somebody is curious? Simply because somebody is on the other side of the politics?
Karan Thapar: It is not curiosity. It is because he knew that by not market determining price he was selling it cheap and therefore giving a pecuniary advantage. Because he knew it and he then did it, people suspect why he did it.
Salman Khurshid: Today I am defending it. I know and I am defending it, so tomorrow will I also have to explain why if people get suspicious?
Karan Thapar: Are you saying to me that there is no need for an explanation on these two counts from Mr Chidambaram?
Salman Khurshid: For the simple reason that what was the entire telephony position of the Congress party and the UPA government must be very clear. Our position based on Planning Commission documents was 'we were not there to make money. We were there to ensure that there should be maximum coverage. There should be affordable telephony available to people'. And today we have the largest coverage in the world and today we have the lowest tariffs in the world. So if that was our policy, we succeeded. Now Mr Chidambaram and the government, UPA-I, is today being pilloried for successful implementation of a policy because one of our ministers, in the implementation process might have made some mistakes on which the court is going to pass a judgement.
Karan Thapar: I will let you say it because for once, here was a minister of the government coming up with a ringing endorsement which people have been waiting to hear from the Prime Minister or the Telecom Minister, but they haven't heard. You've said something you should have said, your government should have said months, if not years, ago. Let's ask you now about the truce between two ministers, the press think are warring. How long will it last? And has it really achieved a genuine truce or is it only imposed because Sonia Gandhi cracked the whip?
Salman Khurshid for public purposes Pranab Mukherjee and P Chidambaram have papered over their differences but I put it you, standing there on the steps of North Block they looked glum, they looked grim, they looked totally uncomfortable in each other's presence. How long will this patch up last?
Salman Khurshid: I don't think anyone was uncomfortable. We all were uncomfortable to the extent that the press was pushing us from all directions. We thought that this was an important statement to make.
Karan Thapar: But the two men didn't even manage a smile?
Salman Khurshid: Of course, we had coffee together after that.
Karan Thapar: Well maybe in private but in public they looked as if there were daggers drawn.
Salman Khurshid: Well because it was a serious matter and it would be a serious matter when you have people in the press saying "Mr Chidambaram should be tried for this", and "the Finance Minister has let down the government". These are the kind of questions that were going to be asked. I believe that if we were serious about something and there was nothing wrong with it.
Karan Thapar: Let me put it this way, most people say that this is not a genuine patch up, that this happened because Sonia Gandhi cracked the whip.
Salman Khurshid: What's wrong with that?
Karan Thapar: So you accept it?
Salman Khurshid: She's our leader
Karan Thapar: So you accept it?
Salman Khurshid: No, no. I'm saying what's wrong with Mrs Sonia Gandhi saying to anyone of us, 'this is what you have to do'. She's our leader, we respect her. We don't want to do anything that disappoints her or hurts her. What's wrong? But, be that as it may, let me just tell you this I don't think that there was a vast difference between the two of them. You certainly, while Mr Pranab Mukherjee was not in India, the media put it out that there was a major difference. There never was a difference. There was a disagreement that was projected because of that one or three lines that somehow put a question mark on Mr Chidambaram. We all said, then, it was wrong. Pranab Mukherjee came back and said it was wrong, it wasn't his view and that was the end of the matter.
Karan Thapar: You call it a disagreement. One man's disagreement is another man's difference. But the critical thing that you've almost confirmed is that in fact Sonia Gandhi did give instructions that she wanted the matter sorted out.
Salman Khurshid: I didn't say that but Mrs Gandhi certainly desired that the press should not make a meal out of something that maybe like a working difference, disagreement you have in daily working. Now why should that be projected as a clash of egos? As a clash or confrontation of two major ministers of our country? And I think she was absolutely justified in expecting that we will quickly put things to rest and that's what we did.
Karan Thapar: My last question to you. Many people believe that Pranab Mukherjee has emerged somewhat embarrassed perhaps even a little humiliated, some say, are you sure he's not looking to settle scores with Chidambaram?
Salman Khurshid: Not at all. I've told you we went back we had coffee together. They are the best of friends. I have seen them in Cabinet, thereafter, they are the best of friends. They rely and lean upon each other tremendously. They are pillars of strength to our government and I do believe that it's time for the press to stop trying to create a problem between any one of us, particularly between those two.
Karan Thapar: Salman Khurshid, a pleasure talking to you.
(Follow IBNLive.com on Facebook, on Twitter, on YouTube, and on Google+ for updates that you can share with your friends.)
Source ibnlive.in.com
No comments:
Post a Comment