Andimuthu Raja, the former telecom minister who was recently acquitted in the 2G scam trial, has alleged in his new book that the entire episode was an attempt by the opposition to bring down the UPA II, in which former CAG Vinod Rai was complicit.
ThePrint asks: Is Vinod Rai a ‘malicious vigilante’ as A. Raja says, or is he the ‘nation’s conscience keeper’?
Raja’s book will read like salacious gossip, and has no credibility
Lawyer and activist
To say that Vinod Rai, the then Comptroller and Auditor General, was a vigilante or to abuse him, to my mind is malicious and absurd in itself. The CAG took the correct view and submitted a comprehensive report on the 2G spectrum as well as coal allocation cases.
Much has been said about the estimate of loss being wrong, but the estimate was based on the basis of prices at which the 2G spectrum had been auctioned. That was a legitimate basis for calculating the losses. All the things that the CAG has written in his report have been endorsed by the Supreme Court.
The order of the special judge is totally wrong. I believe that will soon be addressed.
Raja will necessarily claim that the report belongs in the dustbin since he has been indicted in that report about the manner in which he conducted the spectrum allocations. Firstly, he sold it at 2001 prices, that too seven years later, when the demand and prices had gone up exponentially, at least six times the 2001 price.
Secondly, Raja gave it on first-come-first serve basis. Then he went on to tamper with the allocations. He didn’t comply with the terms of allocation. Moreover, he allowed benaami firms to get a second license.
Raja was clearly guilty, and his acquittal is totally wrong.
This book will not impact the credibility of the office of the CAG. The general belief about Raja’s guilt will prevail. Nothing he says in the book will carry any credibility. The book will be read like salacious gossip is read. It will not get any serious traction among serious people. I certainly do not intend to read it.
The BJP hasn’t shown any partisanship towards Rai. His reports are correct, and he is good at his job. Of course, the BJP has used his reports politically, but then again, any other political party would have done the same.
The only beneficiaries of this manufactured set of lies were Narendra Modi, Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley
Member of Indian National Congress party
The entire 2G scam was based on malicious slander and manufactured lies. It raises serious questions about the role played by the then Comptroller and Auditor General Vinod Rai, the efficacy of his report and its intent.
The presumptive loss theory was neither used before, nor thereafter, as a benchmark for calculations made by the Comptroller’s office. The report was considered so unreliable that the CBI never consulted it while prosecuting in the case.
The entire conspiracy of falsehood is evident because of three things.
One, Rai said there was presumtive loss of Rs 1.76 lakh crore. Later, his deputy, R.P. Singh claimed that the loss was Rs 2,645 crore only, and that he was forced to inflate figures. The CBI said the loss was ₹ 30,984 crore. Then, the SC-monitored CBI came to the conclusion that there was no scam or loss. This itself tells the story of a sinister conspiracy.
Two, using this presumptive loss theory of the CAG, Parliament was held to ransom by the BJP. The only beneficiaries of this manufactured set of lies was Narendra Modi, and the two leaders of the opposition at that point, Arun Jaitley and Sushma Swaraj. This clearly indicates who benefited politically from this conspiracy to tarnish images, soil reputations, and bring disrepute to the entire country.
Thirdly, the present government rewarded Rai by appointing him the Chairman of the Bank Bureau. Conclusions now need to be drawn by every sane person to realise who the kingpin of this entire conspiracy was. It is left to the wisdom of the people to draw appropriate conclusions in view of the court verdict.
Vinod Rai is neither a vigilante nor a messiah
Former finance secretary
Now that the court’s decision is here, there is nothing more to be said about the 2G scam. The court’s order is clear and detailed.
When the scam happened, I was the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, looking after telecommunication. The Ministry of Finance recommended that it would be better to auction the entire spectrum. As the Finance Ministry, we had a bias towards revenue maximisation.
However, the Telecommunications Ministry believed that it would be better to continue with the first-come-first-serve basis, which had been the practice since the allocation of the first spectrum in 2001 in larger public interest.
This was a policy choice made by the government. The guiding principle was that the greatest number of people should benefit from it. In the late 1990s, incoming phone calls would cost Rs 19/minute. Hardly anyone had a cell phone. After the Vajpayee government introduced it, revenue sharing telecommunication services spread rapidly among all classes. That was policy choice then. In fact, the first-come-first-serve principle was introduced during that period.
We must understand this clearly, that in the end, the auction money that was recovered from the operators by the government was obviously to be recovered by from the consumer.
While making policy choices the government can either maximise revenue or maximise the benefit to people. It was considered to be in the interest of the people that the first-come-first-serve policy was implemented.
Auditors do not have the authority to challenge policy decisions made by the government. They can comment on whether it is fully followed or not, but cannot tell the government how to make policy. The CAG office—I will not name particular people—overreached in the 2G case.
This adversely affected the economy. The government went into litigation with several foreign companies. The banking sector is still reeling under the impact of the 2G scam. Most of all, the reputation of the country was in shambles. To foreign investors, it seemed like India was a banana republic, where decisions made by the government can be challenged by anybody. The credibility of the country was being questioned.
Vinod Rai is neither a vigilante, nor a messiah. These are two very extreme positions. The CAG, in my opinion, should not have stepped into the realm of the executive. Whenever any institution, the CAG, or the judiciary, steps into the realm of the executive, a messy situation arises. That’s what the 2G case became, a very messy situation.
Compiled by Deeksha Bhardwaj