I am a supporter of Affirmative Action, even though I worry that there is too much dirty politics associated with it. Firstly, the % of reservations must keep reducing over a period of time. So if we today have 50% reservations for , that number must keep coming down with time. The reduction may well Read more
SHAHRIZAT ME TARZAN, YOU JANE KHAIRY JAMALUDDIN DILUTING CREAMY LAYER LIMIT IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF DIRTY POLITICS…
PKR leaders today demanded the police investigate Datuk Seri Najib Razak and several other Barisan Nasional leaders over alleged abuse of power in the National Feedlot Centre (NFC) scandal.
Wanita PKR chief Zuraida Kamaruddin said the prime minister and his administration must be held accountable for the “gross abuse of public funds” in the NFC saga, and that her party would continue to pressure Putrajaya to do so.
The Ampang MP said that PKR members will lodge police reports on the matter simultaneously in 13 states at 10.30am tomorrow.
“Among the individuals we want to be probed are the PM, (Agriculture) Minister Noh Omar, (Women Minister) Shahrizat (Jalil) as well as NFC chairman (Datuk Seri Mohamad Salleh Ismail).
“This is pressure so that the government understands it cannot simply use up public funds without giving a proper explanation,” Zuraida told a news conference.
Many have been wondering why Umno Youth Chief Khairy Jamaluddin was the only one who tried his best to defend the mess made by the Shahrizat Jalil family over the RM250million Gemas-NFC debacle. His zealous effort was only dampened when the “cows” bought not only one as initially reported but two condos. This was admitted by Salleh Ismail, the NFC boss and Shahrizat's husband himself.
By then it was simply ridiculous for Khairy to open his mouth further, he didn't realize it until he saw the smiles on the faces of his 'friends’. He may have been totally mortified afterwards, but the truth is everyone makes stupid justifications; even the smartest people in the world make dumb decisions. The best part is: the smarter they think they are, the harder they make you laugh.
Ulterior motives
Yet, when Khairy Jamaludin defended it, he was not trying to be smart; he was being selfish in possibly trying to protect himself from the repercussions of a Shahrizat fallout and also being protective of his father-in-law. How come? Because it was during Abdullah Badawi’s term as premier that the whole money-making scheme was hatched and implemented.Khairy was then the head of the fourth-floor goons; where the idea could have been promoted by him after the Ministry of Agriculture then headed by Muhyiddin Yassin envisioned it. Badawi was then trying to diversify the economy by transforming agriculture into real business, thus the slogan “Pertanian itu Perniagaan” or Farming is also Business sprang up on the bill boards all over the country. One could safely assume this was Khairy’s brainchild. No wonder he defended as if it was his pet project!
In fact, Muhyiddin did visit the NFC in Gemas to find out what was going on with the project on 23rd June 2011. At the farm, distinguished visitors are told that "It is a misconception that agriculture is not profitable. We also wanted to show Malaysia is capable of producing high quality beef," Malay Mali had reported NFC chief executive officer Izran Salleh as saying. Izran, along with his brother Izmir and sister Izzana, had set up their cattle farm on a 5,000-acre site in Gemas, Negri Sembilan in 2008.
Unfortunately the debacle is indefensible and what came out from Khairy’s mouth is not just ridiculous but also sounds rather stupid. The defenses from Prime Minister Najib Razak and Agriculture Minister Noh Omar are half-truths, prompting more questions rather than providing answers. Then Badawi himself came into the picture without giving any relevant facts as usual, and in the end, even Muhyiddin gave up trying to explain. He arrogantly told the rakyat (people) to make their own conclusions.
Only one herd of cows?
It seems that nobody in the UMNO-BN wants to take the responsibility and Najib is quite happy not to dig further into the matter since this has already given him some advantage over Muhyiddin. Yes, the DPM is getting the negative effects because he was the Agriculture Minister at that point in time. But Najib - in case he thinks he is not responsible - was also the Deputy Prime Minister. Alas, the beef that Malaysians have with Najib still holds - he is indeed a most irresponsible leader and cares only for personal glamour and pleasure.
Shahrizat and her family are really fortunate to have Najib as the Prime Minister. Shahrizat is also aware that the NFC will be defended at all costs because it will be UMNO’s quagmire. Delegates attending the December annual assembly will surely demand to know how did the project end up being given to her family? Why did the other bidder for the project Lamberts Agricultural Trade (M) Sdn Bhd, an Australian based company, withdraw from the scheme? That is another story to be told another day, please be patient.
Who will be richer, who will be poorer
This entire episode has exposed the true colours of UMNO-BN and the Malaysian ministers. Unfortuntely, the UMNO-BN government has no idea on how to salvage the NFC or what to do with it. The easy thing to do which is the norm for the UMNO-BN government is to bail NFC out. Would this mean Shahrizat's family would be RM250 million richer and the rakyat RM250 million poorer?
No one will know until a thorough audit is carried out. So this is why a proper probe needs to be carried out. Alas, after the Teoh Beng Hock RCI, few people have any faith in any of the institutions any more. It sure looks like more of the rakyat’s money will be thrown, not into the drain, but certainly into the cow dung at Gemas.
Dear Mr. Chidambaram,
Your silence is deafening.
As home minister and former finance minister (2006-8), one of India’s leading and arguably most articulate lawyers and politicians, who is now at the centre of a Parliamentary slugfest, your silence is also inexplicable.
You face multiple allegations for your role in the 2G scam with evidence ranging from finance ministry documents, your own letters, minutes of meetings and other related papers, yet, for the first time in your career, you - a man not known for meekness or reticence - have chosen the path of silence. Are you guilty or could you be protecting someone in high office?
On February 16, 2011 at a TV Editors’ Conference, the Prime Minister said he did not insist on 2G spectrum auctions since apart from the TRAI, you and jailed ex-telecom minister A Raja had ‘concurred’ on the issue.
If the PM is correct, why should you be held any less guilty than Raja? And if you didn’t, where is the evidence in your favour? Is the PM misrepresenting facts to save himself from being accused of supporting Raja? Why don’t you lift the veil on a matter of such gravity that implicates you directly?
As India’s finance minister when the 2G scam was played out in full public view, there are some questions for this term that you will eventually need to answer.
2006:
1. February 23, 2006: a GoM on spectrum issues, including spectrum pricing as its Terms of Reference (ToR), was constituted. Dayanidhi Maran, then telecom minister objected and practically directed the PM to rewrite the ToR sans spectrum pricing. On December 7, 2006, spectrum pricing was eventually removed from the ToR by the PM on Maran’s request. But you, as FM, did not protest officially or otherwise during this entire period did you? The PM appears compromised by coalition pressures, while Maran’s motive was to benefit Aircel (14 licenses were awarded to Aircel in December 2006 at 2001 rates), but what is the reason for your inaction?
2007:
1. April 19, 2007: Three months after the PM removed spectrum pricing from the ToR and Aircel was awarded spectrum by Maran, your ministry, on April 19, 2007, wrote to the Cabinet Secretariat, indicating that “Since these issues would have economic and financial ramifications, they need to be discussed in GoM.” So essentially, you suddenly woke up after a long period of silence and after Aircel had been handsomely rewarded. Why did you do that? Can you explain why revenue implications were not a concern in 2006 but suddenly became important in 2007?
2. May 17, 2007: The Cabinet Secretariat directed the finmin and the DoT to discuss the inclusion of spectrum pricing in the ToRs of the GoM and report back. It is well known that the DoT never agreed. But can you explain why the finmin never reverted to the Cabinet Secretariat despite explicit direction to advise them “about the decision taken”? When you found Raja, like Maran before him, blocking spectrum pricing from the ToR of the GoM, why did you once again retreat into passiveness and inaction?
3. June 6, 2007: In less than a month, on June 6, 2007, the finmin sent a letter to the DoT, insisting on the inclusion of spectrum pricing in the ToRs, following advice from the Cabinet Secretariat. The DoT, on June 15, 2007, refused point blank, citing Maran’s agreement with the PM. Maran, however, had already been removed from the post of telecom minister by June 2007. What prevented your office from escalating the matter to the PM, first against Maran and later against Raja (both DMK)? Apart from the fact that this lapse appears inconsistent for a man with your acumen, it also violates basic provisions and powers bestowed to you as a finance minister to protect India’s exchequer revenues.
4. October 19, 2007: Raja’s press release, the first indication that auctions would be ruled out, compromising revenues on account of AGR and spectrum fees from dual technology operators. Why did you not object to such a public announcement without any prior consultation with the finmin?
5. November 22, 2007: Your finance secretary, Dr Subbarao wrote to the DoT, expressing shock over the decision to issue licenses and linked 2G spectrum at 2001 prices. He even conveyed that “further action to implement the said licenses may be stayed.” Records show that the letter was copied to your private secretary, Rohit Consul. The DoT on November 29, 2007, refused to concede to the finmin’s demand, citing a Cabinet decision of October 2003 and the TRAI’s recommendations of August 28, 2007. Clearly, this letter was placed in front of you. You could have overruled the DoT on any of the grounds listed below:
i) The Cabinet decision of October 2003, which allowed the DoT to decide spectrum pricing, placed a rider in Section 2.1.2(3) that such pricing would have to be decided through an agreement between the MoF and the DoT. Had you flagged this, you could have stopped the scam. What stopped you?
Your silence is deafening.
As home minister and former finance minister (2006-8), one of India’s leading and arguably most articulate lawyers and politicians, who is now at the centre of a Parliamentary slugfest, your silence is also inexplicable.
You face multiple allegations for your role in the 2G scam with evidence ranging from finance ministry documents, your own letters, minutes of meetings and other related papers, yet, for the first time in your career, you - a man not known for meekness or reticence - have chosen the path of silence. Are you guilty or could you be protecting someone in high office?
On February 16, 2011 at a TV Editors’ Conference, the Prime Minister said he did not insist on 2G spectrum auctions since apart from the TRAI, you and jailed ex-telecom minister A Raja had ‘concurred’ on the issue.
If the PM is correct, why should you be held any less guilty than Raja? And if you didn’t, where is the evidence in your favour? Is the PM misrepresenting facts to save himself from being accused of supporting Raja? Why don’t you lift the veil on a matter of such gravity that implicates you directly?
As India’s finance minister when the 2G scam was played out in full public view, there are some questions for this term that you will eventually need to answer.
2006:
1. February 23, 2006: a GoM on spectrum issues, including spectrum pricing as its Terms of Reference (ToR), was constituted. Dayanidhi Maran, then telecom minister objected and practically directed the PM to rewrite the ToR sans spectrum pricing. On December 7, 2006, spectrum pricing was eventually removed from the ToR by the PM on Maran’s request. But you, as FM, did not protest officially or otherwise during this entire period did you? The PM appears compromised by coalition pressures, while Maran’s motive was to benefit Aircel (14 licenses were awarded to Aircel in December 2006 at 2001 rates), but what is the reason for your inaction?
2007:
1. April 19, 2007: Three months after the PM removed spectrum pricing from the ToR and Aircel was awarded spectrum by Maran, your ministry, on April 19, 2007, wrote to the Cabinet Secretariat, indicating that “Since these issues would have economic and financial ramifications, they need to be discussed in GoM.” So essentially, you suddenly woke up after a long period of silence and after Aircel had been handsomely rewarded. Why did you do that? Can you explain why revenue implications were not a concern in 2006 but suddenly became important in 2007?
2. May 17, 2007: The Cabinet Secretariat directed the finmin and the DoT to discuss the inclusion of spectrum pricing in the ToRs of the GoM and report back. It is well known that the DoT never agreed. But can you explain why the finmin never reverted to the Cabinet Secretariat despite explicit direction to advise them “about the decision taken”? When you found Raja, like Maran before him, blocking spectrum pricing from the ToR of the GoM, why did you once again retreat into passiveness and inaction?
3. June 6, 2007: In less than a month, on June 6, 2007, the finmin sent a letter to the DoT, insisting on the inclusion of spectrum pricing in the ToRs, following advice from the Cabinet Secretariat. The DoT, on June 15, 2007, refused point blank, citing Maran’s agreement with the PM. Maran, however, had already been removed from the post of telecom minister by June 2007. What prevented your office from escalating the matter to the PM, first against Maran and later against Raja (both DMK)? Apart from the fact that this lapse appears inconsistent for a man with your acumen, it also violates basic provisions and powers bestowed to you as a finance minister to protect India’s exchequer revenues.
4. October 19, 2007: Raja’s press release, the first indication that auctions would be ruled out, compromising revenues on account of AGR and spectrum fees from dual technology operators. Why did you not object to such a public announcement without any prior consultation with the finmin?
5. November 22, 2007: Your finance secretary, Dr Subbarao wrote to the DoT, expressing shock over the decision to issue licenses and linked 2G spectrum at 2001 prices. He even conveyed that “further action to implement the said licenses may be stayed.” Records show that the letter was copied to your private secretary, Rohit Consul. The DoT on November 29, 2007, refused to concede to the finmin’s demand, citing a Cabinet decision of October 2003 and the TRAI’s recommendations of August 28, 2007. Clearly, this letter was placed in front of you. You could have overruled the DoT on any of the grounds listed below:
i) The Cabinet decision of October 2003, which allowed the DoT to decide spectrum pricing, placed a rider in Section 2.1.2(3) that such pricing would have to be decided through an agreement between the MoF and the DoT. Had you flagged this, you could have stopped the scam. What stopped you?
ii) The TRAI recommendations of August 28, 2007 required the approval of the Telecom Commission. The Telecom Commission comprises of two senior secretary-level officers from the finance ministry. It is well known that the Telecom Commission never once met between August 2007 and January 10, 2008 (the day that 122 letters of intent towards 2G licences were awarded and the scam successfully implemented). You failed to point out that the TRAI recommendations could not be accepted or implemented in the absence of the Telecom Commission’s approval, even though you knew that this meeting had not occurred, nor was there an approval?iii) The March 25, 2011 note to the PMO, along with the DoT’s affidavits in the Supreme Court dated November 11, 2010 tells us that your ministry never responded to this blatantly dishonest letter from the DoT. Why this compromise?
2008:
1. 2006 to January 9, 2008: Why is it that you never wrote a single letter to either Maran or Raja in this period on the issue of spectrum pricing or auctions or revenue or any of the issues that could have easily prevented the 2G scam?
2. January 9, 2008: A comprehensive file was placed for your consideration, with a concept paper including all correspondence between the DoT and the finmin. The MoF note prepared by your officers specifically recommended market-based price determination of start-up spectrum even in absence of auctions. The CBI has used the same methodology in its April 2, 2011 chargesheet. This was a day before the 2G scam. Why did you not enforce the advice of your ministry? What prevented you from logging in your dissent to Raja, especially since you knew that the Telecom Commission meeting scheduled to be held on this day was mysteriously postponed at the last minute?
3. January 15, 2008: Five days after the 2G scam, based on the finmin note (which you never supported in writing), you despatched a secret note to the PM without a single word on auctions or start-up 2G spectrum. In fact, you said, “The past may be treated as a closed chapter.” It is frankly inexplicable why you actually went out of your way to reverse your own ministry’s stance seeking a revision of entry fee either through auction or indexation in this note. You knew that only LoI’s had been given and the scam could still be stopped. Yet you did not insist that the decision be reversed, even though the full Telecom Commission had not approved the TRAI’s recommendation. Why? You did not officially complain about Raja’s action. You went a step further to state that spectrum till 6.2 MHz does not need to be subjected to market price, but beyond 6.2 MHz does? Can you justify all this?
4. Why was your first letter on the 2G scam written only after the scam had been perpetrated on January 10, 2008 despite the fact that the media was exposing every twist and turn of the intended plan from as early as 2007?
5. January 30, 2008: In your meeting with Raja you both agreed that there was every possibility of companies had made speculative bids for spectrum and could make windfall gains through M&A transactions purely based on spectrum value. So you knew that such windfall gains were possible, and you still allowed Raja to run amok?
6. You further agreed with Raja that there was a need to put a mechanism in place to protect government revenue in case of such windfall gains. Yet you did not institute any such mechanism despite the fact that you continued to be the finance minister for almost another year after this meeting. What possibly could have prevented you from implementing this easy task?
7. February 8, 2008: The DoT secretary’s note to the Department of Economic Affairs recorded the finance secretary’s position that auction was legally feasible even for start-up spectrum given by Raja. If this was your secretary’s position, why did you not seek a legal opinion apart from the fact that you could have enforced the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules? A simple legal opinion could have completely blocked Raja's shenanigans. Why was there such wide divergence between you and your finance secretary? Subbarao was shouting from the rooftops, while you refused to state a word on paper until after the scam had been perpetrated.
8. April 22, 2008: Raja announced new M&A norms in violation of the TRAI Act and designed for private gain, but you turned a blind eye despite the fact that Raja and you had just recently agreed that protecting revenue was the right thing to do?
9. July 4, 2008: Your meeting with the PM and Raja. The minutes record your agreement that it was legally and administratively possible to charge entry fee and revenue share, but you then went on to discuss spectrum charge beyond start-up spectrum rather than entry fee or auctions. Why is it that you never discussed spectrum allocation by Raja in this meeting? If it is the Congress’ position that expensive spectrum raises tariffs why do you believe that it is okay to revise spectrum charges beyond 6.2 MHz but not for spectrum till 6.2 MHz that Raja allocated? Why, as the FM, do you think higher revenue from spectrum other than Raja’s is critical to the exchequer and needs further revision?
I have no doubt that you probably have adequate responses to each of these questions. All it takes is one press conference to clear your name and demolish the Opposition’s strategy to boycott you and embarrass the Congress in Parliament. If not for the Opposition or the Congress, you owe the people who put you in this office an explanation.
As you well know, the cruellest lies are often told in silence. I hope you will break yours.
Respectfully,
2008:
1. 2006 to January 9, 2008: Why is it that you never wrote a single letter to either Maran or Raja in this period on the issue of spectrum pricing or auctions or revenue or any of the issues that could have easily prevented the 2G scam?
2. January 9, 2008: A comprehensive file was placed for your consideration, with a concept paper including all correspondence between the DoT and the finmin. The MoF note prepared by your officers specifically recommended market-based price determination of start-up spectrum even in absence of auctions. The CBI has used the same methodology in its April 2, 2011 chargesheet. This was a day before the 2G scam. Why did you not enforce the advice of your ministry? What prevented you from logging in your dissent to Raja, especially since you knew that the Telecom Commission meeting scheduled to be held on this day was mysteriously postponed at the last minute?
3. January 15, 2008: Five days after the 2G scam, based on the finmin note (which you never supported in writing), you despatched a secret note to the PM without a single word on auctions or start-up 2G spectrum. In fact, you said, “The past may be treated as a closed chapter.” It is frankly inexplicable why you actually went out of your way to reverse your own ministry’s stance seeking a revision of entry fee either through auction or indexation in this note. You knew that only LoI’s had been given and the scam could still be stopped. Yet you did not insist that the decision be reversed, even though the full Telecom Commission had not approved the TRAI’s recommendation. Why? You did not officially complain about Raja’s action. You went a step further to state that spectrum till 6.2 MHz does not need to be subjected to market price, but beyond 6.2 MHz does? Can you justify all this?
4. Why was your first letter on the 2G scam written only after the scam had been perpetrated on January 10, 2008 despite the fact that the media was exposing every twist and turn of the intended plan from as early as 2007?
5. January 30, 2008: In your meeting with Raja you both agreed that there was every possibility of companies had made speculative bids for spectrum and could make windfall gains through M&A transactions purely based on spectrum value. So you knew that such windfall gains were possible, and you still allowed Raja to run amok?
6. You further agreed with Raja that there was a need to put a mechanism in place to protect government revenue in case of such windfall gains. Yet you did not institute any such mechanism despite the fact that you continued to be the finance minister for almost another year after this meeting. What possibly could have prevented you from implementing this easy task?
7. February 8, 2008: The DoT secretary’s note to the Department of Economic Affairs recorded the finance secretary’s position that auction was legally feasible even for start-up spectrum given by Raja. If this was your secretary’s position, why did you not seek a legal opinion apart from the fact that you could have enforced the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules? A simple legal opinion could have completely blocked Raja's shenanigans. Why was there such wide divergence between you and your finance secretary? Subbarao was shouting from the rooftops, while you refused to state a word on paper until after the scam had been perpetrated.
8. April 22, 2008: Raja announced new M&A norms in violation of the TRAI Act and designed for private gain, but you turned a blind eye despite the fact that Raja and you had just recently agreed that protecting revenue was the right thing to do?
9. July 4, 2008: Your meeting with the PM and Raja. The minutes record your agreement that it was legally and administratively possible to charge entry fee and revenue share, but you then went on to discuss spectrum charge beyond start-up spectrum rather than entry fee or auctions. Why is it that you never discussed spectrum allocation by Raja in this meeting? If it is the Congress’ position that expensive spectrum raises tariffs why do you believe that it is okay to revise spectrum charges beyond 6.2 MHz but not for spectrum till 6.2 MHz that Raja allocated? Why, as the FM, do you think higher revenue from spectrum other than Raja’s is critical to the exchequer and needs further revision?
I have no doubt that you probably have adequate responses to each of these questions. All it takes is one press conference to clear your name and demolish the Opposition’s strategy to boycott you and embarrass the Congress in Parliament. If not for the Opposition or the Congress, you owe the people who put you in this office an explanation.
As you well know, the cruellest lies are often told in silence. I hope you will break yours.
Respectfully,
Shalini Singh
The government will need to gather itself together to prepare a fresh and hopefully smarter set of excuses to defend itself in the 2G spectrum case after its three top lies were successfully squashed by special CBI Judge O P Saini in his 38-page order.
The Order has dealt a fatal body blow considering that the charges have been framed after hearing the lawyers of all the 17 accused for over four months in daily hearings held in the Special Court appointed by the Supreme Court on the 2G spectrum scam matter. To protect their clients, these lawyers had made a desperate attempt to capitalise on the government's line of defence, which has proved unsuccessful.
The UPA's top lie was that the TRAI did not recommend auctions for 2G spectrum and that the government not only followed the TRAI, but was duty-bound to do so.
The verdict is the opposite. The charges state that jailed ex-telecom minister A Raja “deliberately and dishonestly did not consider auctions or revision of entry fee, and gave away licenses/spectrum at the same fee which were discovered in 2001, in a criminal conspiracy…”
Raja has been found guilty of criminal conspiracy alongwith senior officials of the DoT to commit criminal breach of trust, forgery, cheating, use of forged documents, payment/receipt of illegal gratification or valuable thing for a consideration known to be inadequate and criminal misconduct in the issuance of LoIs, UAS licenses, and spectrum.
This effectively destroys the government's lie that it was somehow bound by the TRAI's recommendations. The TRAI Act ensures that its recommendations are not binding on the government. The charges document how, rather than following the TRAI, Raja actually violated the TRAI Act under Section 11, including “TRAI's repeated recommendations about giving new licenses subject to availability of spectrum”. It further concludes that “A. Raja, in pursuance to the said conspiracy, brushed aside the legal provision and mandate of the TRAI on need and timing for introduction of new service providers; and instead arbitrarily decided on 2.11.07 the cut-off date to be 25.9.07…” So in effect, the excuse that auctions could not be adopted because the TRAI had said so stands rejected outright.
UPA lie 2 was that Raja followed the First-Come-First-Served (FCFS) policy of 2003 announced by the NDA government. The charges conclude that far from following the 2003 FCFS policy, Raja, in conspiracy with government officials and private companies “shuffled the priority from the date of application to the time of compliance of LoIs.” Highlighting the contrasts between 2003 and 2008, the Order emphasizes that till Raja took over, “applications used to be processed in the order in which they were received”. Further, that Raja entered into a criminal conspiracy which lasted till August-September 2009 “by manipulating the priority list on basis of LoI compliances instead of the existing guidelines/practices of deciding applications on the basis of date of application subject to the availability of spectrum.”
Justice Saini notes that beneficiary firms combined this advantage with “prior knowledge of such ill-conceived design of FCFS process and had been keeping the demand drafts ready since early November, 07 and October, 07 itself.”
Raja, instead of following the 2003 policy, deliberately deviated from it, though it had been followed by the UPA till December 2006 which was the end of D Maran's tenure as telecom minister. The Order could not have been clearer about the sharp contrast between the policy of 2003 and the illegal actions of Raja and his co-conspirators in 2008.
UPA lie 3 is that there were no windfall gains for Swan and Unitech, that the transactions only represented equity infusion into the companies for infrastructure rollout and did not result in any benefit to these companies or their promoters. Trashing this argument, Justice Saini concludes that the criminal conspiracy led to a total pecuniary (financial) benefit of Rs 7,105 crore to Swan and Unitech. He specifically quotes that this was a consequence of “Swan and Unitech offloading their shares to the extent of 45% and 60% respectively for Rs 4,200 crore and Rs 6,100 crore to Etisalat Limited of UAE and Telenor of Norway respectively.”
While some may challenge the quantum of windfall gains and illegal gratification calculated by Justice Saini based on the CBI's representation, this effectively puts to rest forever the argument that the Swan and Unitech transactions were merely equity infusions rather than windfall gains for the promoters. This was money that belonged to the nation and its citizens and according to the judgment, went into the pockets of conspiring individuals with the assistance of a carefully constructed conspiracy involving a series of illegal acts.
Other charges show up additional falsehoods and weaknesses in the government's support of Raja – independent India's most tainted minister.
The illegal advancement of the cut-off date has been identified as a violation of the National Telecom Policy 1999 (Section 3.1.3) and the TRAI Act (Section 11), while manipulating the FCFS by setting up four counters to shuffle priorities and other transgressions have been established to be a part of a criminal conspiracy enacted to enable gains to private parties in exchange for gratification by depriving the nation of legitimate revenue.
Every single charge that led to the conspiracy, except perhaps for the bribe and money trail, has been in the public eye through the media since September 2007 – three months before the 2G scam was successfully enacted on January 10, 2008. Yet, audaciously, the government turned a blind eye then, and later when the Swan and Unitech equity deals occurred, it put out press releases defending the transactions. Subsequently it even went a step further to reappoint Raja as telecom minister in UPA II in May 2009, demonstrating its indulgence towards corruption in general and Raja in particular.
This indulgence persisted despite the CBI FIR of October 2009, the Supreme Court's adverse order against the illegal cut-off date in March 2010, the Supreme Court's admitting of the PIL in the 2G scam in August 2010, and even the CAG's deeply incriminating 2G scam report of November 2010.
The government continued to defend Raja all the way until and even after his arrest in February 2011, using a motley line-up of pliant spokespersons for its public advocacy campaign, ranging from Manish Tiwari, Jayanthi Natarajan, Kapil Sibal, P Chidambaram, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Salman Khurshid and even the Prime Minister himself. Its intention to whitewash the scam and make it go away as if it never happened never once faltered.
One can only hope that this new Order, which firmly demolishes the lies that the government has repeatedly told the media, courts and the nation over the last four years will force the government to give up what is fast appearing to be a losing exercise.
The Order has dealt a fatal body blow considering that the charges have been framed after hearing the lawyers of all the 17 accused for over four months in daily hearings held in the Special Court appointed by the Supreme Court on the 2G spectrum scam matter. To protect their clients, these lawyers had made a desperate attempt to capitalise on the government's line of defence, which has proved unsuccessful.
The UPA's top lie was that the TRAI did not recommend auctions for 2G spectrum and that the government not only followed the TRAI, but was duty-bound to do so.
The verdict is the opposite. The charges state that jailed ex-telecom minister A Raja “deliberately and dishonestly did not consider auctions or revision of entry fee, and gave away licenses/spectrum at the same fee which were discovered in 2001, in a criminal conspiracy…”
Raja has been found guilty of criminal conspiracy alongwith senior officials of the DoT to commit criminal breach of trust, forgery, cheating, use of forged documents, payment/receipt of illegal gratification or valuable thing for a consideration known to be inadequate and criminal misconduct in the issuance of LoIs, UAS licenses, and spectrum.
This effectively destroys the government's lie that it was somehow bound by the TRAI's recommendations. The TRAI Act ensures that its recommendations are not binding on the government. The charges document how, rather than following the TRAI, Raja actually violated the TRAI Act under Section 11, including “TRAI's repeated recommendations about giving new licenses subject to availability of spectrum”. It further concludes that “A. Raja, in pursuance to the said conspiracy, brushed aside the legal provision and mandate of the TRAI on need and timing for introduction of new service providers; and instead arbitrarily decided on 2.11.07 the cut-off date to be 25.9.07…” So in effect, the excuse that auctions could not be adopted because the TRAI had said so stands rejected outright.
UPA lie 2 was that Raja followed the First-Come-First-Served (FCFS) policy of 2003 announced by the NDA government. The charges conclude that far from following the 2003 FCFS policy, Raja, in conspiracy with government officials and private companies “shuffled the priority from the date of application to the time of compliance of LoIs.” Highlighting the contrasts between 2003 and 2008, the Order emphasizes that till Raja took over, “applications used to be processed in the order in which they were received”. Further, that Raja entered into a criminal conspiracy which lasted till August-September 2009 “by manipulating the priority list on basis of LoI compliances instead of the existing guidelines/practices of deciding applications on the basis of date of application subject to the availability of spectrum.”
Justice Saini notes that beneficiary firms combined this advantage with “prior knowledge of such ill-conceived design of FCFS process and had been keeping the demand drafts ready since early November, 07 and October, 07 itself.”
Raja, instead of following the 2003 policy, deliberately deviated from it, though it had been followed by the UPA till December 2006 which was the end of D Maran's tenure as telecom minister. The Order could not have been clearer about the sharp contrast between the policy of 2003 and the illegal actions of Raja and his co-conspirators in 2008.
UPA lie 3 is that there were no windfall gains for Swan and Unitech, that the transactions only represented equity infusion into the companies for infrastructure rollout and did not result in any benefit to these companies or their promoters. Trashing this argument, Justice Saini concludes that the criminal conspiracy led to a total pecuniary (financial) benefit of Rs 7,105 crore to Swan and Unitech. He specifically quotes that this was a consequence of “Swan and Unitech offloading their shares to the extent of 45% and 60% respectively for Rs 4,200 crore and Rs 6,100 crore to Etisalat Limited of UAE and Telenor of Norway respectively.”
While some may challenge the quantum of windfall gains and illegal gratification calculated by Justice Saini based on the CBI's representation, this effectively puts to rest forever the argument that the Swan and Unitech transactions were merely equity infusions rather than windfall gains for the promoters. This was money that belonged to the nation and its citizens and according to the judgment, went into the pockets of conspiring individuals with the assistance of a carefully constructed conspiracy involving a series of illegal acts.
Other charges show up additional falsehoods and weaknesses in the government's support of Raja – independent India's most tainted minister.
The illegal advancement of the cut-off date has been identified as a violation of the National Telecom Policy 1999 (Section 3.1.3) and the TRAI Act (Section 11), while manipulating the FCFS by setting up four counters to shuffle priorities and other transgressions have been established to be a part of a criminal conspiracy enacted to enable gains to private parties in exchange for gratification by depriving the nation of legitimate revenue.
Every single charge that led to the conspiracy, except perhaps for the bribe and money trail, has been in the public eye through the media since September 2007 – three months before the 2G scam was successfully enacted on January 10, 2008. Yet, audaciously, the government turned a blind eye then, and later when the Swan and Unitech equity deals occurred, it put out press releases defending the transactions. Subsequently it even went a step further to reappoint Raja as telecom minister in UPA II in May 2009, demonstrating its indulgence towards corruption in general and Raja in particular.
This indulgence persisted despite the CBI FIR of October 2009, the Supreme Court's adverse order against the illegal cut-off date in March 2010, the Supreme Court's admitting of the PIL in the 2G scam in August 2010, and even the CAG's deeply incriminating 2G scam report of November 2010.
The government continued to defend Raja all the way until and even after his arrest in February 2011, using a motley line-up of pliant spokespersons for its public advocacy campaign, ranging from Manish Tiwari, Jayanthi Natarajan, Kapil Sibal, P Chidambaram, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Salman Khurshid and even the Prime Minister himself. Its intention to whitewash the scam and make it go away as if it never happened never once faltered.
One can only hope that this new Order, which firmly demolishes the lies that the government has repeatedly told the media, courts and the nation over the last four years will force the government to give up what is fast appearing to be a losing exercise.
No comments:
Post a Comment