The Great Telecom Fudge

Thu Mar 10 2011, 18:01 hrs New Delhi:

‘Taan Shourie Saab, hun ki karn da irada hai?’ Giani Zail Singh asked. So, what do you plan to do now?

There had been another turn in my life. I had gone to call on Gianiji.

‘Sir, ki karana? Kitaabaan hi likhniyan. Kitaabaan likhanga’ — Sir, what is there to do? I will write books, I said.

‘Naeen, naeen,’ No, no, Gianiji said, ‘Tuseen samjhe hi naeen’ — You haven’t understood. ‘Siyaasat badi kutti cheez hai’ — Politics is a real bitch. ‘Jadon audaa hoye, taan yaar naeen chchadan dinde’ — When one has a post, one’s friends don’t let one leave it. ‘Jadon audaa hathon nikal jaave, taan dushman naeen chchadan dinde’ — And when one loses the post, one’s enemies don’t let you leave it!

I have been reminded of Gianiji’s prescience in the last few months. For the last year, I have been living far away from Delhi, immersed in religious scriptures for a book that I have completed. Telecom has been as far from my concerns as any other gutter in Delhi. It is the spate of lies which has been let loose that has compelled me to return to it. 

The falsehoods have been spread to divert attention from what are the two central issues. Who made the money? What were the heads and controllers of the Government doing when this loot was going on? Hence, ‘NDA’, ‘first come first served’, 2003, 1998... And, given the fact that media, etc. do not read documents, given that few would today remember what the condition of the sector was at that time, the Government has all but succeeded: ‘there has been no loss’; ‘in any case, it was only Raja who was doing something wrong, and we have already removed him’; ‘in any case, he was just following NDA policies’ ...

As fabrications have been put out, I will set out the facts that relate to the time that I was in charge of the Communications Ministry — from early 2003 to April 2004.

The sector at that time

When I was put in-charge of the Ministry, the sector was marred by the following features:

[A] The sector had all but collapsed after the excessive bids; the decision to shift to a Revenue Sharing Model had rescued it from collapse; but the sector was yet in a very precarious condition.

[B] Today, there is a rush for licenses; at that time few were coming forward to enter the sector or to extend the coverage of the services that they were providing. This is evident from the following table:

Click to look at table 1>>

Hence, one of the principal objectives of Government was to steer the sector on to a growth path.

[C] Such services as were being provided were concentrated in the relatively well-to-do parts of the country. This had led to a lot of acrimony in the ill-served areas and to criticism in and out of Parliament — namely, that telephony was being converted into a service for the elite and the rich living in just some favoured parts of the country. It had also reinforced deep resentment in areas such as the Northeast and J&K — in these areas the lack of service was taken as further proof that the Centre did not care for them and was actively discriminating against them. In fact, apart from BSNL, no Operator had come forth to provide services in the J&K circle. In some circles (like Assam, Bihar, North East, Orissa, MP), there was only one licensee or the second Operator had taken the license but was providing next to no service. There was not much growth even in Kolkata. Circles like Bihar, Haryana, Rajasthan, Punjab, UP (East), were also suffering from slow growth.

One of the principal concerns of Government, therefore, was to extend communications services to these under-served areas.

It is in this context that the figure that is being touted about — that 28 licenses were given by the NDA in 2003-04 — should be seen: not one of these 28 licenses was for lucrative circles or metros. The distribution of the licenses was as follows:

Click to look at table 2>>

[D] The sector was paralysed by litigation: the CDMA Operators and the GSM Operators were at each others’ throats. Almost nothing could be done and it would be challenged by one side or the other in TDSAT, the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The Operators would file cases not just against each other but also against the Government. Indeed, even the expectation that Government was considering a course of action would trigger one side or its rival to rush to the courts and obtain a stay. Two examples will suffice. A Group headed by the then Minister of External Affairs and Electronics, Mr. Jaswant Singh, had been constituted in the late 1990s to make recommendations for a New Telecom Policy. It had to get a special study done on ‘Possible Litigation Scenarios’. The exhaustive paper was considered by the entire Group in its sixth meeting held on 22 March 1999. Similarly, no sooner had the Cabinet decided to integrate the Limited Mobility and Full Mobility services, the GSM Operators had moved the Supreme Court to stay any order that the Government may issue in this regard.

A major concern of the Government, therefore, was to lift the sector out of this quagmire of litigation. Telecom service providers should compete for the goodwill of the customers rather than trying to block each other in courts, or by suborning ministers and civil servants in Delhi — that was the objective.

[E] One of the reasons for this litigious and paralyzing situation was the complexity of the licensing system at the time. The plethora of licenses had grown as a coral reef over the decades. They differed by the date on which they had been obtained; the type of service the Operator provided; the location at which the service was provided; the distance over which the service was provided; the technology that was being used to provide the service; the type of customer to whom the service was being provided . . . This had two consequences: (1) It triggered litigation; (2) Every decision was seen by one side or the other as discriminating against it. [In a lecture that I delivered at the time, and which the Indian Express published, I described the situation in regard to the licensing system as I found it. The text can be easily accessed today as it is reprinted in my book, Governance, The sclerosis that has set in, ASA, Rupa, 2004, pp. 69-92.]

On the other hand, it was becoming clear by the day that the licensing system was being rendered obsolete by the advance of technology. This was specifically noted in the 1999 Telecom Policy. In its Paragraph 1.3, the Policy had stated, inter alia,

‘In addition to some of the objectives of NTP 1994 not being fulfilled, there have also been far reaching developments in the recent past in the telecom, IT, consumer electronics and media industries world-wide. Convergence of both markets and technologies is a reality that is forcing realignment of the industry. AT one level, telephone and broadcasting industries are entering each other’s markets, while at another level, technology is blurring the difference between different conduit systems such as wireline and wireless. As in the case of most countries, separate licenses have been issued in our country for basic, cellular, ISP, satellite and cable TV operators each with separate industry structure, terms of entry and varying requirement to create infrastructure. However, this convergence now allows operators to use their facilities to deliver some services reserved for other operators, necessitating a relook into the existing policy framework. The new telecom policy framework is also required the facilitate India’s vision of becoming an IT superpower and develop a world class telecom infrastructure in the country.’

This is why the Government set up the Group on Telecom and I.T. Convergence in 2001. The way that technological advance was cutting the rationale of the licensing system, and also the way that the licensing system, in turn, was holding back the adoption of newer technologies and thereby harming the interests of consumers and the country were the major themes of the TRAI report of October 2003. These were also among the principal reasons on account of which TRAI recommended that Government should replace the plethora of licenses with a Unified License.

Three further facts should be borne in mind.

[F] First, in those days, spectrum was given as a part of the license: the licensee got the license, and the Government in turn undertook to allow him use of a start-up quantum of spectrum to provide the services for which he had got the license. Subsequent tranches of spectrum were to be released when the subscriber base crossed certain specified limits.

[G] Second, while we had been able to establish the bidding route firmly in Disinvestment, and for which reason I was keen to introduce it in the Telecom sector also, the experience with bidding in the latter had not been altogether a happy one:

* When the sector had been first opened up and private Operators had been invited to bid, they had filed grossly excessive bids as a result of which the sector had all but collapsed, and had to be rescued by abandoning altogether the obligations that ensued as a result of the bids.

* The fourth Cellular Licenses were given as a result of multi-stage bidding process in 2001. By 2003, the teledensity had not changed much since the bids in 2001.

* As several areas of the country had not been taken up by any Operator when the bids were invited for the 4th Cellular Operator, in March 2003 bids were again invited for these areas. But it became evident that not a single bid was going to be received. At considerable discomfiture, the Government had to call off the entire exercise.

[H] Terrorism had become a major problem. Grave apprehensions had developed among intelligence agencies that the spread of mobile telephony will enable terrorists to carry out their plots even more readily.

Government’s strategy

In view of these circumstances, the Government’s strategy became:

* Accelerate growth;

* In particular, in the under-served areas;

* But at the same time, meet the concerns of the intelligence agencies;

* Once telephony grows, spectrum will become a scarce resource; for this purpose

* Take measures that will make more spectrum available for civilian use;

– Devise a fair and transparent modus for distributing spectrum for the time it would have become scarce;

– The modus adopted should also ensure optimal usage of the spectrum;

* Pull the sector out of the mire of litigation and allegations. Operators should compete in the market not in courts and government offices.

* The licensing system should be simplified. In particular, it must be service and technology neutral, and it should spur the adoption of the best and latest technologies that would benefit the consumer.

Means for implementing the strategy

We decided to use a series of instruments to achieve these objectives:

* Unleash and enable BSNL/MTNL to provide intense competition to private Operators: in particular, (i) to spur them to extend coverage to under-served areas; (ii) to offer new services; (iii) to lower the exorbitant tariffs they were charging;

* Lower the Revenue Share being taken by Government;

* Unify licenses, eventually instituting a single unified license:

– To ensure competition, this should be given quasi-automatically: TRAI came to use the expression ‘automatic authorization’;

– Keep the entry fee at a minimum;

* Anticipate the situation when spectrum will become scarce. Hence,

– Commence work that is required for eventually delinking licenses from spectrum, and auctioning the latter;

– Allocate Rs. 1400 crore to Defence Forces — this was their estimate of what they needed — so that they may modernize their signaling equipment, and thus free excess spectrum for civilian use;

– Devise incentives for optimal use of the spectrum and penalties for its inefficient use: existing inefficient use of what would become a scarce resource if the growth that it was projecting would materialize, was ‘of utmost concern’ TRAI observed, and hence it emphatically recommended that these incentives and penalties be devised. [See, for instance, Para 7.30 and Annexure IV of its Report of October 2003. These reports are all available on the website of TRAI.]

* Ensure that every thing is done so openly and with such manifest fairness that litigation ceases.

It is a matter of great pride that these steps indeed more than fulfilled the objectives that Government had sought to pursue:

a) From a situation of near collapse, the sector set on to a course of massive growth: this has made a major contribution to growth — could the IT sector have become what it is today without the growth that we have recorded in the telecom sector?; it has generated large employment; it has helped integrate the country further;

e) From being a rich man’s toy, the mobile has become an adjunct of everyman’s daily life. It has enabled the poorer craftsmen to improve their businesses. It has enabled migrant labour to keep in touch with their families. In a word, it has been a boon to the poor as much as to anyone else.

f) At that time, Operators used to charge Rs. 28 to 32 per call — both the caller and the person called had to pay. Today, our rates are the lowest in the world.

g) At that time, our teledensity was far below the world average. Today, the Indian telecom network is the second largest network in the world, and the fastest growing network in the entire world. In 2002, the mobile density was 1 per cent. Today it is 70 per cent. In 2002, the country was adding 2 lakh subscribers a month. Today, it adds close to 20 million subscribers every month. This is one sector in which targets set by Government have been exceeded manifold: the Plan target for 2010 was exceeded by 300 to 400 per cent; rural connectivity targets were exceeded by 400 to 500 per cent. This happened because of bold decisions of Government, the growth-oriented approach of the Regulator, the alacrity with which Indians adopt to new ways and things; most of all, it happened because of the entrepreneurship of several Operators, an entrepreneurship which the policy decisions of those days unleashed. Contrast the way the country has always fallen woefully short of targets in the power sector, a sector in which corresponding decisions have not been taken and implemented.

h) At that time, the sector was mired in a host of legal cases — with private Operators fighting each other, with all of them challenging every decision of the Government; litigation was brought to an end.

i) The Government used to spend an amount close to Rs. 20,000 crore every year for growth of telephone services in the country. Now, the telecom sector is contributing to the Exchequer more than Rs. 50,000 crore every year by way of licence fees, spectrum charges, service tax and other corporate taxes.

That this entire transformation is the result of policies adopted during the NDA period is evident from the repeated affirmation of the current Minister of Communications, and none other than the Prime Minister that the UPA has just followed policies of the NDA Government!

How people are sought to be misled

‘It is Arun Shourie who introduced the first-come-first-served principle. Raja merely followed it,’ Government spokesmen have been declaiming again and again.

Typical of the devices that these people specialize in deploying, it is a red-herring that has been thrown in the way to lead everyone away from the central fact: Raja followed no principle, no procedure, no policy. He certainly did not follow the first-come-first-served procedure:

* There were 167 pending applications. Under first-come-first-served norm, these are the ones that would have been dealt with first. He just discarded this norm, and called for new applications.

* On 24 September, 2007, he announced that the deadline for receiving the applications would be 1 October, 2007. There was a spurt of applications: 408 were received.

* Under Raja, the DoT announced that these would be considered on a first-come-first-served basis.

* Months later, he arbitrarily changed this to 25 September and thus eliminated a slew of competitors. This edict cut out the applications from 575 [the 167 that were pending and the 408 new ones that were received] to 232.

* Next, he changed the basis of adjudging the order in which applications would be considered: the basis was to be the date and time of receipt of application; he now ruled that it shall be the date and time of fulfilling the conditions that were being specified in the Letter of Intent. Among these conditions, as the CAG has pointed out, was the condition that the applicants bring a banker’s draft of Rs. 1650 crore within 41 minutes. The favoured companies had prior knowledge that this would be one of the conditions, and hence had come with the drafts. Others were physically assaulted and prevented by musclemen from accessing the office.

* As even these manipulations did not secure for Swan and other favourites the quantum of spectrum which had been agreed upon, Raja changed the priority list in circles like Punjab and Maharashtra.

Is this the way the first-come-first-served principle is adhered to? Indeed, does this sequence betray that he and the UPA Government were adhering to any principle at all?

The first-come-first-served principle has been in vogue for long, certainly before the time when the Ministry was put in my charge — in fact, I would be surprised if the Prime Minister with his intimate acquaintance with the license-permit raj does not remember that there was a time when such norms were used to allocate licenses for a host of things: from railway rakes to imports. Here are just three examples of documents in the telecom sector that refer to it:

* Guidelines for Issue of Licence for Basic Service [No. 10-2/2000-BS-II, Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunications , Licensing Cell (Basic Service Group), Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi, dated 25th January, 2001.] Clause 26 of this document reads in part: ‘. For Wireless Access Systems in local area, not more than 5+5 MHz in 824-844 MHz paired with 869-889 MHz band shall be allocated to any Basic Service Operator including the existing ones on first come first served basis. The same principle shall be followed for allocation of frequency in 1880-1900 MHz band for Micro cellular architect based system.’

The title of the next document itself is Procedure for Allocation of Spectrum on First Come First Served Basis, [No: 10-2/2000-BS-II, Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunications, Licensing Cell (Basic Service Group), Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi, dated 23rd March, 2001]. Apart from the title itself, Para 1 of this document states, ‘As per Guidelines issued for Basic Telephone Service providers, the spectrum for WLL service in the frequency of 824-844 MHz paired with 869-889 MHz is to be allocated on first come first served basis.’

And, remember that, at that time licenses and spectrum were joint-twins: so it is not that this principle was confined to spectrum and had nothing to do with licenses.

Later that year, The Group on Telecom and IT Convergence submitted its 'Report on Limited Mobility'. The Group was headed by the then Finance Minister, Mr. Yashwant Sinha, It elucidated the meaning of the principle ‘first come first served’ in regard to allocation of spectrum. Para 25 of this Report stated as follows:

‘25. The Group noted that the description of “first-come-first-served” used in the Guidelines of January 2001 was not an accurate description of the content of policy as announced and as implemented with reference to existing Fixed Service Operators. It does give the impression that immediately on application the applicant would become eligible for a spectrum license, whereas in fact the Guidelines — especially when read with the spectrum allocation procedure of 23rd March 2001, which stipulates the conditions under which the spectrum would be allocated — clearly require that the Operator seeking spectrum must have established a Point of Presence (POP) in an SDCA in order to be eligible for the first tranche of spectrum; further installments of spectrum being given subject to fulfillment of roll out obligations which would include the obligation now mentioned in this advice, and to ensure that the spectrum already given has been optimally utilized. The 23rd of March, 2001 Procedure also stipulates that in the event of roll out obligations not being fulfilled the spectrum allocated would revert back to the Government. Hence, “first-come-first-served” on a true interpretation only means that allocation of spectrum is and must be considered inextricably linked to performance. The Group noted that the quantum of spectrum to be allocated to the fixed service providers for WLL with limited mobility is in accordance with the recommendations of TRAI.’

Each of these documents is from 2001 — two years before I was given charge of the Ministry. In a word, ‘first come first served’ was a well-established and recognized method of processing applications.

Here is another example — this one from TRAI whose recommendations everyone are always holding up as if we violated them. In the Report, Recommendations on Unified Licensing, that TRAI submitted in October 2003, in Para 7.29, it stated, inter alia, ‘... The allotted spectrum varies from 4.4+4.4 MHz to 10+10 MHZ depending upon the number of subscribers in each service area. Existing BSOs [Basic Service Operators] shall be allocated 5+5 MHz in 824-844 MHz paired with 869-889 MHz bands on a first come first served basis. The same principle shall be followed for allocation of frequency in the 1800-1900 MHz band.’

[E] In contrast to what happened during Raja’s time — when the Finance Ministry repeatedly objected to what he was proposing to do — during the time that the Ministry was under my charge, no objection was ever raised by the Finance Ministry. In particular, the record on file establishes that the Member (Finance) — who represents the Finance Ministry on Telecom affairs — specifically approved the decision that the first-come-first-served principle shall be observed. By contrast, during the UPA tenure, the then Member (Finance) was so outraged by what Raja was doing that she sought premature retirement and left Government service all together.

And it was a perfectly reasonable principle. Two points are noteworthy. As will be obvious, for instance from the extract given above from the Group headed by Yashwant Sinha, it was never the sole criterion: the applicant was to have fulfilled a number of other requirements. Only after the competitors had fulfilled these criteria, would the first-come-first-served criterion come into play. And these requirements were known to all at the time they submitted the applications. They were not injected ex post facto as in Raja’s tenure. Second, it was a necessary and entirely open and fair criterion: consider a situation in which two operators have fulfilled the requirements — for instance, regarding establishing Points of Presence, and getting the specified number of subscribers; but Government has at that moment spectrum that is sufficient to meet the operational requirements of just one of them. How would it choose between the two? On the basis of which of them came to it with evidence of having fulfilled the other criteria first. What could be fairer? What could be more open?

Cabinet decision and what DoT did

One of the fabrications that has been put out is that during the time the Ministry was in my charge, it exceeded what Cabinet had authorized us to do. Forget my personal temperament, the fools who put out such a lie should remember that that was not the Cabinet of Manmohan Singh. It was the Cabinet of Atal Behari Vajpayee — the slightest excess would land one out of the Government. And he had as his Principal Secretary, Mr. Brajesh Mishra, one of the most powerful and most effective Principal Secretaries that any Prime Minister of India has had. He kept a hawk’s eye over whatever was happening in departments of Government. It is beyond imagining that a decision of Cabinet would be violated — and that too in such a contentious sector — and the contenders — the private Operators who were always rushing to court — would not raise Cain; that Mr. Mishra would not know; and that Mr Vajpayee would condone the transgression.

The Cabinet decision is clear as can be. In its meeting on 31 October 2003, the Cabinet had decided as follows:

‘The recommendations of TRAI with regard to implementation of the Unified Access Licensing Regime for basic and cellular services be accepted.

‘DOT be authorized to finalise the details of implementation with the approval of the Minister of Communications & IT in this regard including the calculation of the entry fee depending upon the date of payment based on the principles given by TRAI in its recommendations.

‘The recommendations of TRAI in regard to the course of action to be adopted subsequently in regard to the implementation of the fully Unified Licensing-Authorization Regime be approved.

‘DoT be authorized to finalize the details of implementation with the approval of the Minister of Communications and IT on receipt of recommendations of TRAI in this behalf.’

The Cabinet decision clearly recognized that, as recommended by TRAI and by the Group of Ministers, the process of implementation would be in two phases. In the first phase, the Unified Access Licensing Regime would be introduced: that is, the licenses that had been differentiated by technology — CDMA vs. GSM — and range of service — limited or full mobility — would be unified. In the second phase, after recommendations of TRAI in regard to a fully Unified Licensing Regime had been received and approved by Cabinet, that Regime would be introduced. In both phases, the details of implementation of the UASL regime and of the fully Unified Licensing Regime were to be worked out by the Department of Telecommunications with the approval of the Minister of Communications and IT.

2. The implementation action was taken in the background of the following aspects of the TRAI recommendations which had also been accepted by the Cabinet [Para numbers in the following refer to the TRAI Report of October 2003, which can be readily accessed on its website]:

(i) Within six months ‘Unified Licensing’ regime should be initiated for all services covering all geographical areas using any technology. (Para 7.1)

(ii) Unification of access services at circle level [a ‘circle’ roughly coincided with a state] should be taken up forthwith: for this consultations with various stakeholders had already been completed. This should be without delay followed up with steps to set out the guidelines and rules for Fully Unified Licensing/Authorization Regime by gathering details of international practices and through the consultation process. (Para 7.6)

(iii) To determine the benchmark of the entry fee for the UASL regime — that is, the interim period before the fully unified licensing regime is ushered in — TRAI had considered the option of inviting bids from existing as well as new prospective players. It had concluded explicitly and emphatically that this option should not be adopted. TRAI had advised that this option would be time consuming and that it would delay the implementation of Unified Licensing. TRAI recommended that instead the existing entry fee of the Fourth Cellular Operator be accepted as the basis for fixing the entry fee for migration to Unified Access Licensing regime for Basic and Cellular services at the Circle level. (Paras 7.16 to 7.20) This was an eminently logical proposition: the mobile density in 2003 was just about the same — a miserable 1 per cent — as it was in 2001 when that price had discovered through multistage auctioning.

(iv) TRAI had stated that it would give its recommendations on efficient utilization of Spectrum, its pricing and Spectrum allocation procedure in the near future. DoT was to issue spectrum related guidelines based on the recommendations of TRAI after receiving those recommendations. (Paras 7.28 & 7.29)

(v) TRAI had stated that it was not in favour of high spectrum pricing since such a regime would make the services more expensive and the desired growth would not take place in telecommunications. (Para 7.33)

(vi) It had advised that the formulation of an appropriate environment for growth, regulation and strategy had to be based on the single priority of the moment, viz. increasing the availability of phone connections at affordable costs and tariffs and ensuring a rapid roll out of services. Growth of teledensity, it said, revolved around developing access networks and making access to them available at low cost. (Para 6.2)

(vii) To achieve 100 million wireless subscribers, TRAI estimated that an investment of the order of Rs. 50.000 crores would be required. It said that for investment of this order to come forth, the prerequisite was that the sector be freed from litigation. (Para 6.5)

(viii) TRAI recommended that induction of new cellular mobile operators should preferably be done under the ‘Unified Licensing Regime’ which it expected to come into being soon after it finalized its recommendations on the matter. (Para 7.37)

(ix) Yet two paragraphs later, TRAI recommended that, if adequate spectrum was available, then in the existing Licensing Regime, Government may introduce additional players through a multi-stage bidding process as was followed for the Fourth Cellular Operator. (Para 7.39)

The words ‘existing regime’ referred to the pre-UASL regime — for that was the regime that was existing at the time that the Report was submitted in October 2003.

3. Thus, as will be evident from both — the recommendations of TRAI and the decision of the Cabinet — the UASL regime was a transitional phase. It was to be the first step towards putting in place a fully Unified License Regime.

4. During this transitional phase, the DoT was to proceed with its usual duties using the price paid by the Fourth Cellular Operator as the benchmark.

5. The Cabinet never intended that the Department should halt all expansion of services and, to take one instance, leave the under-served and unserved areas of the country in a state of neglect. Nor did the Cabinet, to take another instance, put any bar on giving Basic Service licenses. What happened as a consequence of its decision was that an addendum was added — nothing was subtracted from the NTP of 1999 — and two additional categories were introduced: henceforth, the DoT could issue licenses not just for Basic Services, NLD, ILD, etc. It could in addition issue UASL and Unified Licenses.

6. Subsequent events showed the wisdom of this decision — for, in the event, TRAI took not six months but one and a half years to finalize its recommendations regarding a fully Unified Licensing Regime: by that time the NDA Government had long gone. And in the Report that TRAI eventually gave in 2005, there was no recommendation for multi-stage bidding at all. Had the Cabinet directed the DoT to stop all further steps for extending services, the sector would have been per force frozen for over a year and a half — and that on the basis of an imagined recommendation that TRAI itself did not reiterate in its subsequent Report on the matter.

7. No sooner had the Cabinet decided to introduce unification of licenses, the Cellular Operators filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the implementation of UASL regime. This application became part of the Appeal that had been filed earlier by the Cellular Operators against the TDSAT order of August 2003 in the Limited Mobility Case. Implementation of the Cabinet decision therefore required careful handling of the litigation before the Supreme Court. DoT accordingly proceeded with the following objectives in mind: (a) ensure that the decision of the Cabinet regarding the UASL Regime is not stayed as a result of the petition of the Cellular Operators; and (b) implement the UASL Regime in so transparent and fair a manner that the sector indeed becomes litigation-free. Through the Law Ministry, the services of the then Solicitor General were availed of by the DoT for handling this matter.

8. Implementation of the Cabinet decision then proceeded as follows:

(i) Since there were pending applications for Basic Service Licenses, these were dealt with in accordance with the usual procedure. Tata Teleservices had applied for providing Basic Service in four service areas in early September 2003. Letters of Intent were issued against these applications in the normal course for Basic Services on 7 November 2003.

(ii) On legal advice, including that of the Solicitor General, in the Guidelines for issue of UASL’s resulting from migration, it was provided that all new applications for Access Services would be in the UASL Category. The rationale for this was manifest: issuing of Service based licenses, as was the practice till then, would have perpetuated the very aberrations which were sought to be corrected by the UASL Regime that the Cabinet had directed the DoT to implement. These Guidelines were issued on 11/11/2003. This meant that henceforth neither applications for Basic Services nor from new cellular mobile Operators would be entertained. The new operators for access services could only be of the UASL category. Going in for bidding for the new UASL’s would have required determination of slots for auction in each service area in the CDMA technology and separately for those involving GSM technology. The bidding process would have been time consuming. Government also had before it the fate of the bidding process that it had initiated as recently as March 2003 when bids had been invited for the vacant slots for the Fourth Cellular Operator, based on GSM technology, no bids had been received and the process had to be cancelled at the last moment. The main reason for this lack of response was evident to Government: the Telecom Sector had got entangled in litigation and, except for the existing lot of Service Providers, new entrants were not forthcoming.

(iii) There was another very important aspect which could not be ignored. Had all further permissions been stopped, and Reliance had proceeded to migrate on the basis of the Cabinet decision of 31/10/2003, Government would have been opened to the charge that it had favoured Reliance by blocking its competitors. Apart from being manifestly unfair, such an outcome would have definitely resulted in the Courts staying the UASL Regime.

(iv) Para 7.39 of the TRAI Report regarding multi-stage bidding process related to the introduction of additional cellular operators under the pre-UASL regime. If it had been intended for new UASL operators, it would have been worded differently and the words ‘existing regime’ would not have been used. Thus there was no violation of the Cabinet decision in this regard.

It is in this background that clarification was sought from TRAI by the then Secretary DoT about how pending applications, applications from existing Operators who may opt to migrate, and new applications for UASL’s were to be dealt with. Chairman TRAI and the Regulatory Authority as a whole put the position beyond doubt.

The entry fee recommendation which was benchmarked to that paid by the Fourth Cellular Operator and which had been adopted for the purpose of migration in November itself, had to be used for others also — otherwise the latter would at once get a ground for charging the Government with tilting the playing field in favour of one or some Operators. This was a very important consideration. Even the majority of TDSAT in its judgment delivered as recently as August 2003 had held that, while the introduction of limited mobility had been legal, it had upset the level playing field. Tata-Teleservices were the major competitor of Reliance, and the Cellular Operators, namely Bharti and Hutch, who had applied for new UASL’s. Neither set would, and with eminent justification, have reconciled to anything which would have put them at a disadvantage vis-a-vis Reliance. On this basis, in accordance with the recommendations of TRAI, a procedure was adopted for dealing with applications for new UASL’s, and the new applications, which were few in any case and which were from Operators with great experience in the sector. TRAI had made it clear that this procedure was to be followed for an interim phase, till Guidelines for spectrum were finalized in the future.

That TRAI recommendations covered applications from both existing limited mobility Operators who were migrating as well as new applications is evident from the repeated references in the communications of TRAI to both categories. Similalrly, consider the last exchange on this subject — about the application for West Bengal and Andaman and Nicobar Islands: this was to be a new license. TRAI reiterated its recommendation.

And the communications were from the Authority as a whole. By no stretch of imagination can they be dubbed as private letters from the Chairman in his individual capacity. This is evident from the Agenda item dated the 17th November 2003 for the meeting of TRAI. It is evident from the communication of the Secretary and Principal Advisor of TRAI dated 19 November 2003. And it is evident from the communication of TRAI dated 5 December 2003 in regard to West Bengal and Andaman and Nicobar Islands. I have just not been able to fathom how responsible persons — who have had access to these communications — have suppressed them from public knowledge and made out that the Chairman of TRAI and the Secretary of Telecom Department entered into some surreptitious, private conspiracy to grant licenses to TATAs or Bharti or someone else.

The procedure adopted and the decisions taken were so manifestly fair and transparent that there was no controversy or allegation by anyone of any discrimination. No one challenged the approach or decisions in any Court. There was no criticism in the media.

All this in a sector that had been marred by acrimonious allegations and litigation.

And who got the licenses and for which areas? Some Swan? Some real estate racketeer?

The licenses

The procedure adopted for grant of new UASL’s was simple and straightforward. The entry fee payable was based on the same principles as were followed for migrating from Basic Services to a UASL. In November itself, Reliance migrated in 18 Service Areas; Tata-Teleservices in 6 areas; Bharti, HFCL and Shyam in one area each.

Tata-Teleservcies surrendered the Letters of Intent for Basic Service Licenses that had been issued to them on 7/11/2003. They applied for UASL’s for providing services in Haryana, Kerala, Punjab, and UP (West).

Tata-Teleservices applied for UASLs in 8 service areas on 12/11/2003. These were Bihar, Orissa, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Kolkatta and UP (East). These were all underserved and unpopular areas with very low tele-density.

Bharti applied for UASLs 6 service area — namely Bihar, Orissa, Rajasthan, UP(East), West Bengal including Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and J&K. Once again, all these were underserved and unpopular areas with very low tele-density. Out of these service areas:

* In the Jammu & Kashmir circle, apart from BSNL no other Operator had ventured forth to provide services.

* While, Bihar, Orissa & West Bengal circles were offered during 2001 auction, no bidder had expressed any interest.

* In March 2003, DoT had again tried to auction these service areas. As it became evident that there would be close to nil response from possible Operators, the auction process was abandoned at the last moment.

* A glance at the teledensity in the circles for which licenses were given will show how the situation that prevailed then compares to 2010:

Click to look at table 3>>

As noted above, it is a matter of pride that the decisions of Government were implemented with such fairness and transparency, and the migration and other licences were given with such fairness and transparency that not a single objection was raised by any party — and this in a sector in which every step of Government had hitherto been challenged and denounced by one side or the other. When they saw the fairness and openness with which Cabinet decisions were being implemented and licences being granted, the petitioners who had filed a petition in the Supreme Court to stay the implementation of the UASL licensing regime withdrew the petition.

There are several other fabrications that the spokesmen of this Government have put out to deflect people from the issues at hand: who got the money? What were the seniors doing when this loot was going on? But they are at par with the fabrications that I have listed above.

In addition to attending to the routine tasks that had to be implemented during the interim period, as directed by the Cabinet, we began exchanging views about elements of the Unified Licensing regime. Should the bids be single-shot bids — as was the case in disinvestment? Or should the bidding be multi-stage — as had been the case, for instance, in selecting the Fourth Cellular Operator? Should the bidding process be conducted by the DoT — a Department that had itself been dragged into much litigation, and was the object of strident allegations — or should they be conducted by an independent agency? How should incentives be built into the bidding process to induce optimal use of the spectrum, and penalties for hoarding or inefficient use? What should be the stance of Government if, once again, the competitors overbid and then cannot sustain their operations at the high prices they have paid? Should they be rescued as had to be done when the sector was first opened up? Or had the sector become mature enough by now so that firms that overbid should be allowed to go under?

These were the sorts of questions on which we had begun work in the wake of the six-month framework suggested by TRAI.

The Government changed.

No one could have imagined that the advance towards the Unified Licensing regime would be halted. And that what had been the procedures to be followed for the interim period of six months would be made permanent. And that without any authorization from the Cabinet.

That is one reason on account of which the current problems have arisen. Another one is that in UPA-I lines were slipped into the Guidelines without recommendations of the Regulator, without any reference to Cabinet. In UPA-II, the terms of reference of the Group of Ministers were altered without reason or authority. On matters on which the Government is bound by law to seek TRAI’s recommendations, TRAI was specifically told that it had no business to seek to advise Government . . . But the main reason, as stated above, is that in Raja’s case, he followed no procedure, he followed no policy, he adhered to no norm at all. And, even though his misdeeds were known publicly, he was allowed to continue to make a business of his office. In what way does this represent a continuation of anything done during the Government led by Mr. Vajpayee?

'BJP and Congress are one party' : Arun Shourie

Source: Rediff

Arun Shourie discusses the real meaning of the Radia tapes with Rediff.com's Sheela Bhatt Arun Shourie is a former newspaper editor, twice a member of the Rajya Sabha, a former Union minister, right-wing thinker and author of 25 books.
He is currently working on this 26th book at the Lavasa complex near Pune, an attempt to understand human suffering through various religions.

Despite the spiritual thrust of his latest book, Shourie, 69, keeps a sharp eye on New Delhi [ Images ].
Here he takes readers through the minefields of the 2G spectrum scam and the Niira Radia tapes and explains how the political milieu in New Delhi has reached the tipping point.
The first of a two-part conversation:
How can we make sense of what is happening in New Delhi after the expose of the 2G spectrum scandal and the release of the Niira Radia tapes?
What's the bigger message that comes out of Radia's conversations?
This shows the extent of corporate penetration into government, into the media and into details of policy making.
The main point that emerges from the tapes is the level of corporate penetration. These tapes have shown that everybody is now linked to everybody else.
Democracy survives on counter-rallying power. It survives when there are alternate sources of authority. But now those have joined hands. There is, what my friend (Union Urban Development Minister S) Jaipal Reddy has once called, an invisible government of India [ Images ] which is completely stable.
The visible Government of India keeps changing, but that invisible government of India remains completely stable.
That is the real danger because now the Opposition is no different from the ruling party, whichever is the ruling party. The influence of those puppeteers behind the scene works on both sides. As a result, no issue is pursued to conclusion.
Is the 2G issue a new one? No. It is two years old. I know how I have taken documents to editors, to senior people in government. How can it be that only one reporter in one newspaper The Pioneer was following it? He was not withholding information, but not one newspaper or television channel touched it.
Today also the reportage is about what (former telecom minister) A Raja says, what Arun Shourie says. Is that the end of the story? I hardly read newspapers now. I just don't watch television. There is nothing to be learnt.
Why are journalists going for sound bytes? Why don't they take the documents home, study it and come to their own conclusions? I can't understand.
I feel completely distanced from this profession (journalism) and, of course, politicians. They are in bed with each other and with everybody.
Don't you think the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party [ Images ]) also has a lot to answer for in the current situation?
I don't see the difference between the two. I feel they (the BJP and the Congress) are one party. They are jointly ruling. It is a dinner party. They meet at dinners. They meet socially. They decide on what has to be done about issues.
It is all very cooperative behaviour. They (the BJP) are shouting (for a Joint Parliamentary Committee). They know that it will kill the investigation.
A JPC will raise side issues and that is what both sides want. Because the corporates behind both sides are the same. They don't want the 2G spectrum investigation to proceed.
If you see the bigger picture of 2G spectrum, it is a battle between the old operators and the new operators in telecom...
But that's the separate issue...
It was during the NDA (National Democratic Alliance) government led by the BJP that (then Union minister) Ananth Kumar introduced Niira Radia to the New Delhi set-up.
Yes, that's one point. I remember there was a report in that regard in the Indian Express which had an eight column front-page story just below the masthead. The story was about Ananth Kumar and Niira Radia's association with each other. I don't recollect if Annath Kumar was then the civil aviation or tourism minister.
I was astonished to read that such person has been named in the report. I was told by a very senior official about the observations made by some agency. He was in a position to know about the minister. He told me that the report about Ananth Kumar and Radia's association is correct and that is why no action was taken against the published report.
See, issues are not taken up in New Delhi by anybody. The political parties and corporates have complete liaison with the media. Its not just Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi, it is the whole lot involved with each other.
That's why political parties are not taking up the issue of the Radia tapes. The cpi-m (Communist Party of India-Marxist) shouted about the tapes, but the next day the story came that West Bengal [ Images ] Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya [ Images ] was dealing with Radia for the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation.
Now can the CPI-M [ Images ] shout 'crony capitalism' in the same way?
The problem is the homogenisation of India's political parties. All are becoming clones of each other. That means there is no counter-wheeling power any longer in the country.
Do you accept the argument of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's [ Images ] supporters and Congress leaders that there are limitations to a coalition government?
Also, a Congress leader claimed that you can't ask the government to abdicate the duty to govern by taking action under pressure.
Why have they taken action now? Has the coalition fallen? No. These arguments are not right.
The prime minister of India has unlimited power. Our system is so structured that the PM knows everything.
Yashwant Sinha [ Images ], when he was finance minister, told me an incident. He got a message from a leader of the state that s/he wanted to see him. He asked Prime Minister (Atal Bihari) Vajpayee if he could can meet that person. Vajpayee said he could meet her/him.
When Sinha went to the state he met the particular leader without anyone knowing about it. He had lunch and talked about all sorts of things. At the end of it, the leader gave him an envelope. He kept it in his pocket. He came to New Delhi and only then opened it.
It was a legal brief on why cases against that leader should not be pursued by the Enforcement Directorate. He put the envelope in his drawer and did nothing about it. He forgot the case.
Several days later he met Vajpayee and spoke about his meeting with the state leader. Vajpayee listened quietly and kept looking at him. At the end of the meeting he asked Sinha, 'Aur woh lifafa (what about the envelope)?'
Sinha was astonished since he had told no one about the meeting and he did not act on what was requested.
Unless the prime minister deliberately shuts his eyes there is no difficulty in knowing everything. It would be incredible that the prime minister would not know. The system is so structured.
Second, all the telecom dealings were done in public. The Prime Minister's Office would certainly read the newspapers. There was so much commotion in Sanchar Bhuvan that people were beaten up the day the allotment of 2G spectrum was announced.
The point is that the prime minister himself wrote a letter and as politely as possible gave instructions that please examine the issue of auctioning of spectrum and determining its price in a fair and transparent manner.
And his minister disregards that.
Do you think that the PM would not know that?
It was the letter signed by him that was ignored.
Coalition dharma doesn't mean that I will become protector of the corrupt.
I feel the prime minister must have known about the 2G issue. That's evident from all sorts of facts.
Second, coalition compulsions do not give you the licence to abdicate your duty.
If your minister is doing something wrong, as captain of the team, the prime minister owes the responsibility to the country to stop the minister.
If the PM had confronted (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam [ Images ] chief M) Karunanidhi with all the evidence, I don't imagine he would have told the PM, 'Don't take action against Raja'.
It is possible that the Congress party must have prevailed over the PMO in that matter.
I don't know. I have heard the opposite. Six months ago, the Congress party had told the prime minister that you remove Raja and it is your responsibility to explain this matter to Karunanidhi. That is what senior leaders of the party have been saying.
I don't know the inner party politics of the Congress. But your point of view or mine is immaterial.
The material fact is that nothing was done. People are asking, 'Raja ke khilaf karwai kyon nahi ki? (Why was action not taken against Raja?)'

The "Roman Brahmin"

Arun Shourie
"Zee News at 9.40 p.m. on Saturday (August 21) showed clipping of Vajpayee addressing an election rally at Thiruvananthapuram," declared the spokesman of the Congress (I) in a written statement on 24 August.

"He declared that the building of Ram Mandir, abrogation of Article 370 and bringing in the uniform civil code were an intrinsic part of the BJP's manifesto."

In fact, Vajpayee had addressed no public meeting at Thiruvananthapuram at all. But hardly one to be deterred by facts, the Congress (I) went on to describe Vajpayee as "a habitual liar," as one who was making a "completely ridiculous" statement when he expressed surprise at what Govindacharya, a General Secretary of the BJP was reported to have said.

In fact, the answer Govindacharya had given to a journalist's question had been twisted, and words had been put in his mouth in the first place.

A day had not passed, and The Indian Express made out that the BJP's candidate for New Delhi, Vijay Kumar Malhotra had said that Dr Manmohan Singh should take off his turban so that people could see whether he was a Sikh. In fact, Malhotra had said nothing of the kind. He tried repeatedly to contact the paper to have it correct the concoction, to no avail. He sent a strong denunciation of the report, his contradiction was not published.

The concoction was picked up. It became the ground for much moral-breast beating by the Congress (I), and by secularist newsmen. The latter were led by the very editor who had done most to invent "atrocities on Christians". The damage done, after three days The Indian Express put out the truth -- but as Malhotra's version!

Such lies have by now become a hallmark of campaigns of the Congress(I). One day it is "Rs. 50,000 crore loss because of the telecom scam," the next it is some other concoction about purchases of telephone exchanges.... The amounts involved being so huge, the least you would expect is that they would follow up their allegations, that they would produce at least an iota of proof. None has been produced on any allegation. Just "spit and run."

And so confident are they that no one else will examine their allegations that they do not bother to check even the basic facts before hurling the accusation -- as in that concoction about the Prime Minister addressing a public meeting at Thiruvananthapuram. The Prime Minister and his family being involved in the purchase of telephone exchanges? I checked. The purchases are handled entirely by the Telecom Commission. The head of the Commission told me that files concerning purchases do not come even to him, that these are handled entirely by two subordinate members of the Commission, that the file on them just never goes to the PM's office. But what concern is that of the Congress' Spit-squad?

The other feature of the Congress (I) campaign has been, "No to this, No to that, No to everything." Pokharan-II, Lahore, economic revival, communal harmony, Kargil -- "No, No, No." No, even when the step is one that their own governments had been trying to take.

Recall what had been declared as far back as 1991, "We are deeply concerned that Pakistan is developing nuclear weapons. It is hoped that they will desist from this disastrous path. They have already inflicted four wars upon India. In case Pakistan persists in the development and deployment of nuclear weapons, India will be constrained to review her policy to meet the threat." And which party had said this in its 1991 manifesto? The Congress(I)!

Pakistan certainly persisted in its clandestine programme to develop and deploy nuclear weapons. Congress(I) governments scheduled nuclear tests in 1983, and again in 1995. On both occasions, western powers got to know of the preparations. They brought pressure to bear. And Congress (I) governments cancelled the tests. By contrast, Vajpayee's government successfully carried through the tests.

Buddha's tradition abandoned, Ashoka's tradition abandoned, Gandhiji's non-violence abandoned, shouted spokesmen of the Congress (I). When the backlash of popular sentiment hit them, their Working Committee turned turtle: we congratulate the scientists, it said in its Resolution, but the government is yet to go in for nuclear weaponization!

When the weapons were developed, the party was back at shouting, "This government has plunged the sub-continent into an arms race"! And the latest, "No, whatever its merits, why did they release the nuclear doctrine paper at this time?" That is always a favourite: when you can't find fault with something on merits, demand, "But why now?"!

But what could be a better time for releasing the paper? Elections are supposed to be a time when different parties acquaint the people with their views on issues. Here is an issue central to our future. An expert group has prepared a formulation about what our stance to nuclear weapons should be. In the main, the government agrees with the formulation. What better time than elections could there be for circulating the proposed doctrine among the people? It really would be good, wouldn't it, to hear the great thoughts of Sonia Gandhi on the nuclear doctrine?

Moreover, the paper is a reminder that the country is now a nuclear power. The person who becomes prime minister shall have his or her finger on the nuclear trigger. In whose hands they want to place that trigger is surely something people should reflect upon. But as that reminder is ever-so-inconvenient for the Congress (I), they cry, "But why now?"

The third feature of their campaign has been a peculiar species of logic. Who is to be given credit for the 1971 victory? Indira Gandhi, of course. Who is to be given credit for the Kargil victory? The army alone!

For the victory, the credit goes to the army. But if some section of Military Intelligence did not detect the intruders in time, the Prime Minister is personally responsible!

If intelligence was not collected in time, it is the failure of the Prime Minister personally. On the other hand, for the Harshad Mehta bank scam, neither the then Congress (I) Finance Minister nor the then Congress (I) government is to be considered responsible. That was a "systemic failure"!

The lies, the casuistry, the foreign-ness put me in mind of days long past. "Through Madura there ran one day a striking piece of news," writes J. N. Ogilvie in his work, Apostles of India. "It was told how a strange ascetic from some far land had arrived, drawn to the holy city by its great repute, and that he had taken up his abode in the Brahman quarter of the city. Soon visitors flocked to the house of the holy man to see what they should see, but only to find that the Brahman's servants would not permit their entrance. 'The master,' they said, 'is meditating upon God. He may not be disturbed.' This merely helped to whet the people's desire and increase the fame of the recluse. The privacy was relaxed, and daily audiences were granted to a privileged few."

The account is about that great Italian hoax, Father Robert de Nobili. A missionary, De Nobili came to India in 1608. In Church lore, he is credited with having secured among the largest harvest of converts for Jesus. What a current ring accounts about de Nobili have! The personage in seclusion, and then, ever so carefully, "The privacy was relaxed, and daily audiences were granted to a privileged few."

Mosheim in his Ecclesiastical History described the key insight of this fake: "....Considering, on the one hand, that the Indians beheld with an eye of prejudice and aversion all the Europeans, and on the other, that they held in the highest veneration the order of Brachmans (sic) as descended from the gods; and that, impatient of other rulers, they paid an implicit and unlimited obedience to them alone, he assumed the appearance and title of a Brachman, that had come from a far country, and by besmearing his countenance and imitating that most austere and painful method of living that the Sanyasis or penitents observe, he at length persuaded the credulous people that he was in reality a member of that venerable order. By this stratagem, he gained over to Christianity twelve eminent Brachmans" -- does the Working Committee of the Congress too consist of twelve members?! -- "whose example and influence engaged a prodigious number of people to hear the instructions, and to receive the doctrine of the famous Missionary...."

De Nobili put out the fiction that he was a "Roman Brahmin" -- Romaca Brahmana was the title he gave out. Francis Ellis, in his contribution to the 1822 Transactions of the Asiatic Society, explained, "Nobili, who was looked upon by the Jesuits as the chief apostle of the Indians after Francois Xavier, took incredible pains to acquire a knowledge of the religion, customs, and language of Madura, sufficient for the purposes of his ministry. But this was not all: for to stop the mouths of his opposers and particularly of those who treated his character of Brachman as an imposture, he produced an old, dirty parchment in which he had forged, in the ancient Indian characters, a deed, showing that the Brachmans of Rome were of much older date than those of India and that the Jesuits of Rome descended, in a direct line from the god Brama. Nay, Father Jouvence, a learned Jesuit, tells us, in the history of his order, something yet more remarkable; even that Robert De Nobili, when the authenticity of his smoky parchment was called in question by some Indian unbelievers, declared, upon oath, before the assembly of the Brachmans of Madura, that he (Nobili) derived really and truly his origin from the god Brama. Is it not astonishing that this Reverend Father should acknowledge, is it not monstrous that he should applaud as a piece of pious ingenuity this detestable instance of perjury and fraud?"

It turns out that forgery was a regular industry with de Nobili. He produced a "fifth Veda" into which he had smuggled notions which would help inveigle people into Christianity. Ellis found the original forgery in the possession of Catholic missionaries in Pondicherry. He found that our artful missionary had similarly produced versions -- with convenient alterations and interpolations -- of the Rig, Sama, and Atharva Vedas too. And several other "scriptures"!

To deceive people into conversion, de Nobili not only altered his own appearance, he disguised rites such as baptism, the service etc. And he asked his disciples as well as the new converts to retain Indian appearances: "....His converts retained the 'Shendi' or tuft of hair which marked the caste Hindu," Ogilvie writes, "they wore a sacred cord indistinguishable from that of their Hindu neighbours, and they bore an oval caste mark on their brow, the paste composing or being made of the ashes of sandalwood instead of as formerly the ashes of cow dung."

When his rivals in the Church charged de Nobili with dissimulation, he argued that what he was doing was in accord with the prescription of Saint Paul: for had Paul not advised missionaries to be sure that they became "all to all"?

But one problem continued to dog our benefactors. In spite of all that dissimulation, the wretched natives never quite got over the foreign-ness of de Nobili and his associates. In his Annual Letter of 1651, Father Antony Proenca pleaded with his readers, "Among my readers, there will surely be some who could procure for us some lotion or ointment which could change the colour of our skin so that just as we have changed our dress, language, food and customs, we may also change our complexion and become like those around us with whom we live, thus making ourselves 'all to all', Omnia Omnibus factus. It is not necessary that the colour should be very dark; the most suitable would be something between black and red or tawny. It would not matter if it could not be removed when once applied; we would willingly remain all our lives the 'negroes' of Jesus Christ, A.M.D.G. [to the greater glory of God]."

After his death, de Nobili's mission went through many vicissitudes. But the techniques -- that of deceiving people into believing that they were "Roman Brahmins," the show of austerities -- remained the ones he had pioneered. Mosheim recorded of de Nobili's successors, "These fictitious Brachmans, who boldly deny their being Europeans or Franks, and only give themselves out for inhabitants of the northern regions, are said to have converted a prodigious number of Indians to Christianity; and if common report may be trusted to, the congregations they have already founded in those countries grow large and more numerous from year to year. Nor indeed, do these accounts appear, in the main, unworthy of credit, though we must not be too ready to receive, as authentic and well attested, the narrations that have been given of the intolerable hardships and sufferings that have been sustained by these Jesuit-Brachmans in the cause of Christ. Many imagine, and not without good foundation, that their austerities are, generally speaking, more dreadful in appearance than in reality; and that, while they outwardly affect an extraordinary degree of self-denial, they indulge themselves privately, in a free and even luxurious use of the creatures, have their tables delicately served, and their cellars exquisitely furnished, in order to refresh themselves after their labors."

The dissimulation is on display on the public platform every day. In the beginning, the recluse. Then the carefully planned public exposure. The daily audiences to the privileged few. The central claim of being the "Roman Brahmin". The stout denial to being European. The falsehoods which are put out on behalf of, and for the advancement of the Romaca Brahamana.... Alas! The "lotion or ointment" is still not at hand...

Pocket Edition

Arun Shourie

"Not one paisa has been taken from the Trust," declared the Congress spokesman with a show of righteous indignation. He was declaiming on the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts. But the charge had been altogether different -- that the Trust had been a Government-trust, that it had received Rs 134 crores of Government money and 23 acres of invaluable land, that it had been converted into a private Trust by fraud, that the conversion had been sanctified by collusion between a trustee and the President of the Trust, Sonia Gandhi. Not one of these facts had been disputed by the Congress. Within days, the Delhi High Court itself came down in the strongest possible words on the fraud. It went so far as to say that the pendency of the writ before it must not come in the way of the Government undoing the usurpation.

But the Congress was following the rule: when cornered, deny -- with great passion -- what has not been alleged!

That "denial" was typical. The entire campaign of the Congress has been crafted around the all-too obvious rules of advertising companies, and the all-too obvious propagandists!

"The bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed" -- Hitler, not Goebbels; the latter counseled against outright lies! As Congress has become a synonym for corruption, allege corruption in everything the present Government has done -- even when, as in the case of the Telecom policy it has been done at your urging; as Kargil was a striking victory, assert that in fact it was a defeat; as Sonia Gandhi's foreign-ness is an issue, portray Vajpayee as a traitor.

"Confine yourself to little, and repeat this eternally," "A thousandfold repetition of the most simple ideas" -- both Hitler and Goebbels. That rule in turn rests on what is a fundamental proposition with such cynics: that the people have an extremely limited understanding. One must have the "courage", they said, to go on repeating those few points endlessly. "The nature of propaganda lies in its simplicity and repetition," Goebbels wrote in his diary, "Only the man who is able to reduce the problems to the simplest terms and has the courage to repeat them indefinitely in this simplified form despite the objections of the intellectuals will in the long run achieve fundamental successes in influencing public opinion. If other methods are pursued he may influence a circle of unstable intellectuals here and there but will not even scratch the surface of the people."

Sugar scandal, sugar scandal, sugar scandal.... Even after the lie has been nailed, in fact specially after the lie has been nailed you must go on repeating it. When, in the face of facts, you keep repeating the lie, the people -- of limited understanding as they are on this theory -- are liable to infer, "There must be something to it, the fellow would not go on sticking to the allegation."

Hence,

(i) hurl a few simple allegations;
(ii) specially those of which the propagandists themselves are guilty;
(iii) repeat these endlessly;
(iv) specially in the face of facts.

The impression you want to convey about the adversary should be simple. To drill it in, you must have not one lie, but a barrage of them. In fact, you must not stick to one lie for long: the adversary will prove the truth with evidence. So, keep running. A fabrication every other day. True, soon enough that they were all falsehoods will be established, but by then the campaign will be over, the people will have been overwhelmed by other problems. Hence, Bhagwat. Then Mohan Guruswamy. Then Telecom Policy. Then telephone exchanges. Then sugar. Then wheat. Then planes. Then a Category-III flat! Back to sugar....

That Category-III flat was a quantum leap! The Congress spokesman had told all and sundry in Delhi with much flair that he was going to Lucknow to reveal a sensational, explosive scandal. The UP Congress scheduled a special press conference at noon for the explosion. A number of newspapermen turned up. Vajpayee applied for a flat and got an out-of-turn allotment in Delhi, announced the spokesman -- that was the explosion.

Pressmen were incensed. Is this what we were called for?, they remarked. At least Vajpayee paid for the flat. What about the persons sitting to your left and right? These leaders of your party in the state have not purchased a flat or two, they have just taken over government bungalows -- what are you going to do about that?....

Vajpayee has spent fifty years in public life. The "sensational, explosive" revelation of the Congress spokesman reminded people that he hasn't even a house to his name. That all he has is a Category-III flat. That too something he paid for. And who was the Prime Minister when this allotment was made?, the pressmen asked. Narasimha Rao, it turned out!

Soon it was established that some notable Congressmen too had been allotted flats from the same quota. The government had made the allotments for the distinguished services they had rendered to the country.

Not just that, the Supreme Court had instituted a detailed inquiry into out-of-turn allotments. Every irregular allotment had been scrutinized. The allotment to Vajpayee had never been called in question as being even faintly irregular. On the other hand, two Governors -- conspicuous members of the Congress -- had felt constrained to resign. Cases were going on against the then Congress ministers for converting their discretionary quotas into commerce....

The footnote to the story was truly delicious. It turned out that the spokesman who had traveled all the way to Lucknow to make this sensational disclosure, and his family members had received not a Category-III flat, but five plots of land from Bhajan Lal, the then Chief Minister of Haryana! Each one of the five had been an out-of-turn allotment. Bhajan Lal's largesse had been taken to court. A Division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had found the allotments to be so bereft of merit that it had canceled all of them in March 1997. Of the five plots, the spokesman and his family had to forfeit three -- the remaining two had survived because the Court chose to put the cut-off date at 1995, and these two had been made over earlier.

But it would be wholly wrong to think that there was any remorse at having hurled such a silly allegation. The purpose of such hurling is not to convince, but to confuse. Corruption was your characteristic. By these allegations -- wild as they are -- you convey that the facts which have been established about your misdeeds are also just allegations. Second, that similar allegations exist about your adversary too.

The Congress seems to have been advised about an additional advantage. Should your adversary bring up some new embarrassing facts about you during the campaign, you can take the high road, and regret that the campaign, "instead of focusing on real issues," has descended to personal attacks! Better still, you can get friendly journalists to lament "the levels to which the campaign has descended"! This in turn yields several advantages.

(i) You are seen to be concerned about "the real issues".
(ii) That you are the one who has been hurling baseless allegations is covered up.
(iii) You and the adversary are put at par.
(iv) Once you have conditioned the people to believe that everybody is hurling allegations and charges, you don't have to answer the facts that have been revealed about you -- they are no better than the baseless allegations which you have been hurling!

The more unverifiable the "event" the more useful it is for lies! Summarising the practice of master-liars, Jacques Ellul cautions, "Such lies must not be told except about completely unverifiable facts. For example, Goebbels' lies could be on the successes achieved by German U-boats, because only the captain of the U-boat knew if he had sunk a ship or not. It was easy to spread detailed news on such a subject without fear of contradiction." Hence, fables about unrest in the Army "because the Prime Minister is not speaking up to shield the higher command in the wake of the controversies that have risen as a result of the letters that Brigadier Surinder Singh is said to have written..."

As there is always the risk that some damned fool may come out with the facts sooner than you expect, a handy device is to demand, "All we are asking is that the Prime Minister come clean with all the facts." That leaves a way out: "After all, what did we demand? All we said was that the Prime Minister come clean with the facts." Even better, the demand sets you up as the referee! The Prime Minister is to state the facts, and you will decide whether what he has disclosed amounts to "all the facts"!

Recall Sonia Gandhi's response to questions about her friend, Ottavio Quatrocchi. There are no papers which link him to Bofors, she said. If there are any such papers, let them show us the papers, she demanded. The first part was an outright lie: when the judgments of the highest court in Switzerland, of the Delhi High Court, of the Supreme Court were given out, sudden silence.

A glance at the advertisements they have placed in the newspapers -- and even more, the advertisements worth crores which they have had placed in the name of a near-bankrupt organization, "Communalism Combat" -- will show that there are other Goebbelsian maxims too which the Congress has been following in this campaign.

The negative is stronger than the positive: not one positive advertisement in their entire series.

Hatred is stronger than love: killers of the Mahatma, butchers of Christians....

Fear is stronger than hope: the advertisements placed in the name of "Communalism Combat" are textbook illustrations of this maxim.

The central ingredient here is an instrumental view of truth! The test is not whether what one is saying is true or false. The only test is whether it serves the purpose!

In a sense, therefore, it is indeed appropriate that the Congress fielded a lawyer as its spokesman! In theory, lawyers are supposed to be officers of the court. In fact, large parts of the profession have come to believe that their job is to serve their client --- and for the purpose use whatever device seems handy.

So, it has been entirely in character, that the spokesman should -- in his capacity as a lawyer -- have appeared for private cellular operators and argued that the then Telecom Policy with its high license fees was a disaster, and, when the switch was made to a revenue sharing regime, the very same person should -- in his capacity as spokesman for the Congress -- have denounced the changeover, and alleged a scam. It was entirely in character for the spokesman to have raised doubts about the Prime Minister having acquired a Category-III flat in a perfectly normal manner, when he and his family members had got Bhajan Lal, the then Chief Minister of Haryana, to grant them -- not one but -- five plots out of the discretionary quota. It was entirely in character for him as the spokesman of the Congress to cast doubts at the professional integrity of the Attorney General, without mentioning that in his other capacity he is the lawyer for a paper in a suit which the Attorney General has been constrained to file against it for the falsehood it published about him. It was entirely in character for him to be releasing fabricated letters ostensibly written by a Brigadier, and thus, apart from advancing the interests of the Congress of which he was the spokesman, building up a sort of defence through the press, without disclosing that he was himself the lawyer of that Brigadier.

Of course, I do not want to push the parallel too far: Goebbels and his kind -- Lenin and his lot, to take an allied example -- were masters -- diabolic masters. These fellows are just pocket editions! Those masters would never have put out statements which were so patently false: that Vajpayee is a traitor, that he was arming the ISI and the Pakistan Army to invade Kargil... The lies of Goebbels, Lenin and company held the field for decades. These fellows' allegations could not withstand a simple miscalculation: that the campaign was a little longer than usual turned out to be enough for their allegations to be shown up to be the falsehoods that they were...

Saved again! In 1987-89 we had been saved by the ham-handedness of the forgers. This time we have to thank the incompetence of these fabricators.

India Connect
September 27, 1999

Two Questions Recent Crises Throw at us

Arun Shourie
"A thousand Pakistani militants have entered the Baramula and Poonch sectors of Kashmir" -- that was the lead story on the 9 pm news bulletin of a leading TV channel on 27 July. I was properly alarmed. Pakistan had been soundly thrashed on the ground, its government was still trying to explain the retreat to the Pakistani public, the country had been roundly censured by the US, by the UK, by foreign ministers gathered at Singapore. And yet it had so swiftly resumed pushing terrorists into India.

And so I was even more surprised when the next morning not one paper carried anything about fresh infiltration. But it might have been a scoop of the TV channel, I thought. And was therefore triply surprised to see that the TV channel itself had no follow-up on the story the next day. The story vanished as swiftly as the terrorists.

But in such matters it is the single shot that serves the purpose: "Once again, while this Government is busy celebrating victory, the Pakistanis have come in," "Kargil is no victory, see the terrorists have spread even farther," viewers would have concluded from that broadcast. Now, if you go on repeating it, someone is bound to ask what the source for the story is, someone else is bound to start following it up, and discover the truth. As elections approach, such stories will multiply. The President has written a letter to the Prime Minister about the telecom policy, ran the lead story of "one of the world's greatest papers" the other day. There had been no letter. "Vajpayee and Advani at logger-heads" -- an item which had become a staple of some papers, and journalists has resurfaced as a regular feature again, as has its companion, "RSS unhappy with..."

For years now, Delhi reporting in The Hindu has been in a class by itself: its correspondent does not report what has been said at the press conference; the correspondent gives her opinion on what the person should have said and, in her reckoning, didn't, she lists the questions which were asked, and, as for the answers which were given, she merely adds, "To none of these questions did the BJP spokesman have a convincing answer"! That is a news report! A breakthrough: day after day, report only the questions which are asked, indeed the questions you and one other correspondent ask, omit the answers as you have decided that they are not "convincing"!

It isn't just the political parties that are running for elections. A TV channel and some papers are too!

With these "natural allies" being so enthusiastic, the Congress and our Comrades are able to deploy their customary devices all the more easily. Their sparkling logic for one! Pokharan-II? The credit goes to our scientists, they say. Agni-II? The credit goes to our scientists, they say. The victory in Kargil? The credit goes to our Army, they say. The inability of Military Intelligence and RAW to detect the infiltration into Kargil? The responsibility is that of the Government! In any case, what worked was American pressure, not anything this Government did, they declare. Would Pakistan have succumbed to any pressure had it not been for the fact that it was being driven out from peak after peak? "But the Government has given the Americans the opportunity to mediate, to meddle," they declare. Clinton is saying the USA has no mediatory role, the American spokesman, Karl Inderfuth has said this time and again, the US Government has conveyed the same message through diplomatic channels on several times -- but we should believe Natwar Singh!

And the other favoured device: sow a doubt, and run! Bhagwat, Mohan Guruswamy? Recall what a din they raised? The Defence Ministry put out an entire compendium of facts on Bhagwat and his allegations. Ever heard them mention the matter recently? Guruswamy? "Scam, scam," they shouted. Their leader, Dr. Manmohan Singh, had to acknowledge in Parliament that they had no information on the "serious questions" Guruswamy had raised beyond the articles he had written. But Guruswamy had said more than once in his articles that he was leveling no charge of corruption against anyone! Have you heard any of them raise the matter since?

Even more telling is the case of "atrocities against Christians". What a din was raised. Most of the incidents had not taken place at all. Of the three that had, persons were arrested in regard to two -- the rape of the nuns in Jhabua, the incidents in Gujarat. Have you heard any of them demand that the trials of those arrested proceed swiftly? In regard to the third, the murder of Staines and his sons, the Wadhwa Commission submitted its report several weeks ago. Have you heard any of them demand that it be released, or make even a pro-forma, nominal effort to have the Government act on its recommendations?

That was the sum total of their war-effort during the Kargil operation: ask questions, sow doubts. My favourite of that series was one by their Inquisitor-in-Chief, the head of their mental activity on foreign policy, Mr. Natwar Singh. Mr. Jaswant Singh, the Minister for External Affairs, had gone to Europe. He was meeting one representative of the P-5 after another. His meetings were being reported in newspapers. That they had telling effect has become more than evident. What was the Congress expert on foreign policy -- of the "inhein chullu bhar pani mein doob marna chahiye" fame -- saying? We have their house-journal, the National Herald to help us: "The Union Minister for External Affairs has not yet returned to India," the paper's issue of 29 May reported Natwar Singh as declaiming. "May be, he has been asked to stay abroad by the Prime Minister. Why is he taking so much time? All these questions are to be answered by the Government. The people have a right to know..."

A din having been raised, doubts having been created, the purpose of our friends having been served, they have forgotten each of the matters! And in this they are true to pattern. Remember the Thakkar Commission they had set up to unravel the "wider conspiracy" behind the assassination of Mrs Indira Gandhi? Ever heard any of them mention it after, their lies about it having been nailed, they were compelled to place it in Parliament? Remember the Jain Commission set up to unravel the "wider conspiracy" behind the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi? Remember how they pulled down two governments, and plunged the country into uncertainty using that report, -- to say nothing of how they buffeted one of their own governments, that of Mr Narasimha Rao, using that Commission? Remember how they paralysed Parliament on the charge that the Action Taken Report on that Commission's findings was designed to shield some of those responsible? Ever heard any of them so much as mention the matter recently?

The penchant of the Congress for falsehood remains unimpaired -- that is an important fact that we should remember as elections near. It has been compounded, I would say. For the Congress has been taken over by high-school debaters, it seems. A smart one-liner, a sly phrase, a seemingly penetrating question for the day -- the Party seems so satisfied with these. And so oblivious of the consequences: you would have to watch Pakistan TV for just two-three days to learn what comfort Sonia Gandhi's falsehoods on Kargil have been to the Pakistanis.

When this is their facility with untruth when they are out of power, what will they not do should they gain control of the State apparatus?

Event after event during the last year has been a reminder of the perilous times through which we are passing. The economic breakdown in South East, sanctions, the invasion in Kargil... In a word, in addition to our long-standing problems, here is a new danger: a squall can hit us suddenly from any side.

On the other side is what is by now a central feature of our system of governance. We style ourselves as a Parliamentary form of government, as a Cabinet form of government. Such characterizations are only partially correct. A Prime Ministerial form of government -- that is much nearer reality. The Prime Minister is not what the outdated phrase suggests, the first among equals. He is the one person who matters. His instincts, his nature, the kinds of persons he is comfortable with -- these determine policy and performance much more than almost any other feature. Mrs. Indira Gandhi's instinct -- for timing, as well as for not tolerating an assault on the country -- that determined more than anything else what the country did to Pakistan in 1971, her instinct for self-preservation more than anything else caused the Emergency in 1975. In the face of the collapse of what was then, in effect, our patron State, the Soviet Union, it was Mr Narasimha Rao's adroitness more than anything else which ensured that our foreign policy landed on its feet. Similarly, it was his nature -- of benign neglect -- which ensured that institutions which were fortunate to have good persons heading them at the time -- the Supreme Court under Justice Venkatachalliah -- were restored. The same facet of his nature ensured that several ministries stagnated.

In Kargil too, the instinct and long experience in public affairs of Mr Vajpayee have made all the difference. The pincer that caught Pakistan in the end -- that our response was massive, and simultaneously so restrained, so carefully calibrated -- has everything to do with those two personal traits of the Prime Minister: his instinct and his experience.

Another circumstance, all too visible in the case of the Congress, compounds the apprehension. Even when the cabinet and party are robust it is the nature and inclination of the one who is Prime Minister which determines the outcome more than almost anything else. Now that the Congress is reduced to a sack of domesticated "jee memsahib"s this becomes all the more certain. Among the developments which have struck me since I got to sit in Parliament, this has been one of the most disheartening ones: to see persons for whom I had developed great regard become so totally servile, to see them agitate, to see them take positions which are so plainly alien to their nature has at times well-nigh broken my heart. What this internalised servility spells for the future is evident. Recall June 1975. The prime impulse for imposing the Emergency was of course Mrs Gandhi's scale of values -- her continuance in office ranked higher in that scale than law and institutions. But what made the Emergency inevitable, what made it to so easy to throw a lakh and half people into jail was the servility to which the Congress had already been reduced: what with the then Congress President being so proud of his enunciation, "India is Indira, Indira is India," how could there spring any corrective from within? But that was twenty five years ago. Since then the Congress has become infinitely less of an organization. So, should the party be catapulted to power, Sonia's instinct -- the greed for the Prime Ministership that led her to lie to the President and the press, the imperious streak, "Those who do not agree with me should leave the party here and now" -- her ignorance will act completely unimpeded on the country and its future.

Thus, perilous times on the one hand, and, on the other, the fact that in our system of governance everything depends on the person of the Prime Minister. That is the central question that the crises of these months -- the South East Asian economic collapse, sanctions, Kargil -- pose for the electorate. In such a time, is the country to be put in the hands of a person about whom it knows nothing?

About whose views on no matter does it know anything -- save her anxiety to become the Prime Minister?

Is the country to be placed in the hands of a person about whom, as she merely reads speeches written by someone else, no one knows whether she even has a view on any matter -- save that one exception of becoming the Prime Minister?

About whose associates, the persons she trusts, the ones she listens to, even the ones who write her speeches the country knows nothing?

Is the country to be put in the hands of a person who has absolutely no experience of any governmental office?

Is the country to be put in the hands of a person who is so much at ease with falsehood -- "I have the support of 272 M P's" "The President has asked me to continue my efforts to form an alternative government," to say nothing of what Mr. P. A. Sangma has since revealed -- that the Congress Working Committee had not authorized her to stake a claim to be the Prime Minister at all, that all it had authorized her to do was to see whether an alternative government, one not necessarily headed by her, could be formed.

The other point is as important. Even the most astute Prime Minister can do little if he does not have sufficient numerical strength in the Lok Sabha. It was a stroke of luck for the country that the war broke out after the Lok Sabha had been dissolved, and hence Mr. Vajpayee and his team were able to craft a coherent and massive response. Had the Lok Sabha been in session, he and the Government would daily have been baited and jostled in Parliament. The war effort would certainly have been impaired. Short of insulating the conduct of governance better from our legislators, the crises teach us that we must give sufficient numbers to the government we vote into office.

And in today's context the key to that is to rise above caste.

India Connect
August 2, 1999