KapitaanAli
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2017
- Messages
- 2,442
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
TOI exclusive: A Raja says Vinod Rai was part of a political conspiracy against UPA 2
Sagarika Ghose | TNN | Updated: Jan 18, 2018, 19:59 IST
TNN
File photograph of former telecom minister A Raja
Former Telecom Minister A Raja speaks exclusively to TOI's Sagarika Ghose on his tell all book -- "2 G Saga Unfolds".
Q: Mr Raja, this is an interesting book, an absorbing book but also a very angry book. You were in jail for 15 months, 7 years under 2G cloud, and you completed the book before the judgement by the CBI judge OP Saini acquitted you. Why did you feel you needed to write this book?
A: The foremost reason is natural justice was not given by any individual and any institutions except the trial court. Unfortunately the trial court took 7 years because of CBI's attitude. I used to go to court daily, I did not ask for any adjournment but my viewpoint was not placed before any forum including Supreme Court. So where can I go? So I decided in the jail my viewpoint has to be displayed to the country. I started my writing in jail, completed it after 2015. I handed the manuscript over about 20-25 days prior to the judgement
Q: But does the 2G verdict vindicate you? Is it the last word because the CBI has indicated that it will appeal against the verdict. You still haven't got a clean chit from the highest court.
A: Provisions are available in Code of Criminal procedure, either party who has been aggrieved according to themselves, can go for appeal. Let them go
Also read: A Raja unplugged on Vinod Rai, Manmohan Singh and 2G auctions
Q: But many legal observers have been critical of the judgement saying that either the judge failed to accept the evidence before him or the prosecution didn't do enough to trace the links between you and the corporates? How would you respond?
A: In open court to his lordship Saini I submitted that the entire trial is a complete waste of judicial time. Because this case has been framed on the basis of the documents. Documents are available with court. Then where is the question of evidence? One thing is clear: a person who initiated file notings saying a or b or c, whether it is Raja or whether it is any star witness in the court, an officer initiated a file noting and it was ultimately approved by me. Suddenly he changed to the CBI, saying no, no this was initiated at behest of minister, I was bull dozed by minister. Is the oral evidence tendered to court or to the CBI valid or whether his actions according to the note are valid, will be seen by the court. So oral evidence went against their own documents. So court did not believe it. Its settled principle of law.
Q: Political observers and the likes of Subramanian Swami whom you have called "vindictive" "frustrated" and "litigious on trivial issues" have alluded to the fact that the 2 G case verdict is a miscarriage of justice because powerful corporates were involved?
A: I do not want give much importance to Subramaniam Swamy. I never believed he is a man of integrity. It is unfortunate in the judicial history of this country that his version was a little bit accepted or believed by the Supreme Court because of former CAG Vinod Rai. Not only Subramanian Swamy, I appeal to Vinod Rai or even the judges those judges who cancelled 122 licenses with due respect to them, Vinod Rai or Justice A. K Ganguly, I say to them: if they are ready to share a debate with me on the same platform. I am ready and open for a debate.
Q:The villain no. 1 in your book is former Comptroller and Auditor General Vinod Rai who came up with the famous figure of loss of 1.76 lakh crore to the national exchequer in the giving of 2G licenses: You say he was driven by malicious vigilantism that made a mockery of his constitutional responsibilities, disgraceful self promotion and wanton sacrifice of national progress and the whole 2G was a strategy to kill UPA2 and Rai's shoulder was where the gun was placed...are you simply taking pot shots or do you have any hard evidence that Mr Rai was linked to any political party ?
A: I don't believe anyone is a villain, I am only putting the facts. If you call him villain, I am not responsible for that. But he is guilty of complete abuse of constitutional power. He must have links with a political party, I was in the jail I did not have the opportunity to investigate. I am very sure that there must be a political conspiracy behind Vinod Rai. Being an IAS officer he cannot have any political ambition , but somebody might have used him.
Q: Who used him?
A: That has to be investigated. Why did he attack with such unilateral decisions? There were correspondence between department of telecom and the audit team. Whatever the queries asked by CAG, were duly replied by officers those who are cited as witnesses in the criminal case. The officers themselves replied to CAG: nothing is wrong, no scam, no policy fraud. Everything is correct. All eligible applicants were given spectrum, licenses. The same officers, those who reacted to the CAG, they were brought as witnesses before the court and they turned down the CBI saying, no no, that's not our view. First, the auditor accepted everything. There was an exit conference between department of telecom and the audit team. They categorically observed, we will rephrase the words ``loss", we will alter the word "fraud policy"—(the word `fraud policy' for first come first served) accepted everything, said Swan is eligible. Then suddenly Vinod Rai came into existence claiming 1.76 lakh crore loss. How Vinod Rai arrived at that figure when the documents did not speak so?
Q: But Rai says its simply an auditor's computation based on what happened in 2008 and auctions of 2010 and if the figure was sensationalised, that was done by media and opposition.
A: The comparison itself is wrong. A constitutional authority cannot assume his own style of functioning . What has been submitted to you by the department line by line: cut off date, first come first served policy, exchequer loss, dual technology and eligibility of applicants: these 5 issues are core issues. The Department of Telecom in very categorical terms explained with file notings that decisions were taken with full conscience there is no exchequer loss. But Rai did not accept the reply given by the DoT. Officers convince you, your own officers admitted by writing that there was no exchequer loss, there was a conference, both departments duly signed, on this document of promise. But the promise was compromised or breached by Vinod Rai. Why was the promise breached by Vinod Rai? What is the reason? Strictly speaking he has to be prosecuted.
Q: He has to be prosecuted? For criminal misconduct under prevention of corruption act?
A: Yes that is a natural thing. Since he is a constitutional authority, since he has a constitutional immunity at least a commission of inquiry against him should be instituted immediately. He may get shelter under constitutional protection. In such a case as per constitutional provisions 148 and 149, the Constitution assumes the King can do no wrong. So when he does do wrong there is no provision in the law. But I say: initiate a commission of inquiry against Vinod Rai, how he arrived at this figure, how he gave the observations he did.
Q: What would you say to Rai if you met him today?
A: I am inviting him for debate. With folded hands I am asking the Fourth Estate, bring Vinod Rai on the same dais, for a debate, let us see who is correct who is wrong. Everybody is sticking to that astronomical figure. Please ignore that figure. It was not accepted by court, it was not accepted in trial. Only thing is: cut off date. Vinod Rai says it was done unilaterally. I proved it by records, in court I proved it that Raja was initially against the cut off date and it was a collective decision. Who put the cut off date? Vinod Rai says it was unilaterally done by Raja to favour some companies. Now document says and I established in book and court that Raja was initially against any cut off date. My officers wanted to have a cut off date, I was convinced by the officers to have a cut of date. Later I believed, okay its reasonable to have a cut off date so I put my signature. So whether 1.76 lakh crore loss, whether cut off date or first come first served or eligibility of applicants, Vinod Rai had his own independent ideas, not the department of CAG.
Q: Let's come to Villain no. 2 in your book which is Sunil Bharti Mittal, Chairman of Bharti enterprises, and owner of telecom company Airtel. You write that as an industry giant and a leading member of COAI or Cellular Operators Association of India he was belligerently intent on keeping his monopoly on spectrum, he was part of a cartel and of vested interests that did not want spectrum to be given to his competitors. You write "I admired his confidence even though it had shades of smug conceit." You say he was in fact controlling or attempting to pressurise some ministers and even officials in the PMO to keep his monopoly on spectrum. That's what you want to say on Sunil Mittal?
A: Exactly. I'm not attributing any ill motives on Sunil Mittal. What I am saying is, big businessman do have easy access with cabinet ministers; any big businessman or corporate big man can go to a minister and influence him at least prima facie, he can put his case. Sunil Mittal is no exception. He has connections with cabinet ministers including Raja and other ministers also. The COAI led by Sunil Mittal wanted to maintain the cartel. They wanted to have the complete exclusive business and they did not want to allow new players. I am not accusing with mere words. They went to Tdsat to start the proceedings, they went to the High Court, they did not get any stay. So I'm not saying only verbally that Sunil Mittal wanted to maintain the cartel. It is established by the proceedings in the Tdsat tribunal and the High Court that Sunil Mittal and the others do not want to have any new competition. It is established on record. They wanted to maintain cartelisation, I wanted to break it. So on one side a person who wants to maintain the cartel, on the other a minister wants to break cartel, automatically clash will come. And am not making just mud slinging allegations.
Q: You say Mittal "boasted" about his connections, said he expected "co-operation" from you, had shades of smugness and conceit?
A: He sent a letter, saying I am the second largest operator in the world. The TRAI is wrong. The Telecom Engineering Centre is wrong. How can you say this about TRAI? It's a statutory body, created by an act of Parliament, having its own experts, they collect a lot of material, they talk to many stakeholders, thereafter they gave their recommendations. The Telecom Engineering Centre is a scientific centre operated through other officers and IIT professors. All these labelled by Mr Mittal as a waste of time and he wanted to say I know everything , beyond DoT, TEC, beyond TRAI.
Q: But what about the accusation that you were batting for Mr Mittal's competitors like Anil Ambani and bringing in players like Swan and Unitech who had no proven track record in telecom?
A: I did not bring in anybody. It is a TRAI recommendation. The recommendation came to me: permit dual technology for Anil Ambani. Specific references were sent to my predecessor Dayanidhi Maran. Application was made by Anil Ambani of Reliance group whether a person who is operating one type of license, that is CDMA, can't be permitted to own other spectrum technology also. Because license is umbrella license, its Unified Access License. See, it's like a driving license. Once you get a driving license you can go for ambassador or Hero Honda or Benz car. License is license. So the argument put forth by Anil Ambani: I am having umbrella license, why I am being prohibited for another technology. I am entitled to another technology, that is called dual technology. The TRAI recommendation came: permit dual technology, I wanted to sail along with TRAI recommendation. That's my statutory duty. When you are travelling along with TRAI recommendations, and the person who is incidentally benefitting is Anil Ambani, then what can I do? Anil Ambani came in the row because of TRAI recommendations. I did not invite Swan, I did not invite Anil Ambani, I did not invite Unitech.
Q: You repeatedly suggest in the book that you were motivated by public welfare, you were trying to break cartelisation that you were trying to bring in new players. But the accusation is that the new players you brought in like Unitech and Swan Telecom got licenses sold them and made windfall gains? So the price they sold was much higher than the price they paid on first come first served?
A: First of all the word `sold` must be removed. The reason is in the corporate style of functioning, in the telecom sector foreign disinvestment is permitted upto 79 per cent. A person who paid entry fee of 1650 crore got the spectrum. Now license is mere paper, spectrum is mere air, how can he run the business? So the word 'sold' is wrong, they were searching for a partner to bring the equity, the money will go to the company to create infrastructure. After all, one telecom tower costs Rs 50 lakhs. They were trying to get FDI, permitted by law, permitted by finance ministry, not permitted by Raja! It was all dealt with in the CCEA. Not at all a sin. It is an infusion of funds by which money will come to company, not go to an individuals' pocket, it is to create infrastructure. It is misunderstood by all that licenses were `sold.' That's wrong.
Q: Then in the entire 2G case why is there so much suspicion of wrong doing, so much arbitrariness, lack of transparency, ad-hocism? Why was the policy execution so clumsy?
A: Everything was transparent. In the book I prove, it was admitted by the trial court after having viewed a large number of witnesses and their depositions; the trial court also came to a conclusion that everything was right. Still some are saying, fraud fraud. What can I do? It's a misconception by people, planted by vested interests through the media. Unfortunately institutions CVC, CBI, JPC even SC completely swallowed the hype. All because of the Vinod Rai report. For Vinod Rai: cut off date, Raja wrong. First come first served—Raja introduced first time. Eligibility of applicants—Raja made it. He did not admit the version taken by the DoT. He convinced himself unilaterally that there was a scam. Question is, at the behest of whom? That has to be investigated. I'm a poor man jailed for 15 months I cannot investigate I have no infrastructure to investigate him. Who is the real conspirator, why was Vinod Rai was used as a tool, as a gun to kill UPA 2? Who is the main accused? That has to be investigated.
Q: But what about other allegations? What about the sum of 200 crore that went from Swan Telecom to Kalaignar TV? Of course Judge Saini has said there was no illegal gratification but then many people still see it as a bribe or a quid pro quo.
A: It's nothing more than a transaction of business. Even CBI admitted before the trial court in the witness box. The Investigating Officer admitted per se entire transaction of Kalaignar TV is not illegal. They had suspicions, they just wanted to draw some investigative inference, that if Raja did something wrong it can be termed as a bribe. It was all just clouds, clouds cannot be a criminal case. Now the clouds are clear. The transaction has nothing to do with Raja, it was completely legal and we cannot connect it with 2G. There was no link between the two. No question were put to me with regard to Kalaignar TV. There were no witnesses. There were only suggestions: oh- you- only- arranged- money. There were no witnesses from the CBI side or corporate side that the 200 crore was linked with Raja, that 200 crore was facilitated by Raja directly or remotely, no suggestion was put to me. Is this a case? What about the veracity and integrity of the CBI, the prime investigative agency of this country? It has lost its integrity.
Q: What about advancing the cut off date . You say in the book that you were never in favour of imposing any cut off date, you said everybody who deposits license fee should get a LoI and they should get spectrum. You say that it was the secretary Telecom who said there should be a cut off date.
A: Documents are available in Prime Minister's office which was submitted in court which say the minister did not want to have a cut off date. Minister wanted to accommodate all 575 applications. Whereas my secretary and other officers wanted to have a cut off date on the basis of how much spectrum is available. I agreed to the cut off date, I believed it is correct. They convinced me, they convinced me we cannot give licenses to all 575. Availability of spectrum is sine qua non for the operation, so let us go until this date.
Q: In hindsight do you feel you did exactly the right thing? If you could turn the clock backwards, would you go back to doing everything exactly the way you did?
A: What I did is exactly right, was correct, everything is pukka. It was observed by the trial court that what was done by DoT is correct. I have no regrets. I want to celebrate what I did is correct for this country. What type of courage I had, do you know? Have you ever heard of an accused in such a sensational case himself prepared to go to the box? Witness box? I went to box, the witness box. I offered myself to CBI for 14 days. 14 days I was cross- examined by CBI! Then you know my courage. Unless and until a man has his own conviction sealed in his mind he cannot go for witness box. What I did is exactly correct, it is not arbitrary. As OP Saini observed, the cut off date is not arbitrary, it was deliberated several times, due diligence was done.
Q: People had suspicions that the manner in which you advanced the cut off date from 1st October 2007 to 25 September 2007 suggested that those who had prior knowledge of the date rushed in and paid the fee and got the license.
A: I can understand having suspicions before the judgement, but after the judgement what suspicions can there be? Why suspicions? Did you see evidence in the court? The file notings? The moment TRAI reccomendations were accepted in the ministry and the cut off date was announced all the people upto cut off date went to DoT met the officers, on a day to day basis (and this evidence came from the mouth of corporate people) they said, yes my application was accepted within cut off date. I went to the officers, I used to sit to see if there were any deficiencies in the application, and official letter was sent to the people, your application is accepted, more clarifications are needed, give more documents. Official correspondence took place between these corporates and officers on record, so they had knowledge. See, this is how it goes: my application is pending, am waiting for the TRAI recommendations, I see the TRAI recommendations on the website, the ministry approves, the telecom commission approves. It's the businessman's duty to go and say I am number I or 2, please check my application. There's no secrecy here! Why do you feel there's any secrecy? Am really not able to understand.
The clouds of suspicions were all because of Vinod Rai. Witnesses were cited by CBI not by Raja , the CBI has chosen people to investigate, got statements on 161 CRPC, none of the corporate people said anything was secret or we did not know anything. Every day I used to sit in office of DoT and officers invited me, clarifications were sought, deficiencies were there, letters were filled. Where was secrecy? Yet the accusation is that Raja was keeping secrecy. But this is contrary to evidence and file notings!
Q: Lets come to the third villain in the book which is former solicitor general GE Vahanvati. He is now dead. His testimony to the CBI led to charges of forgery being slapped on you. You believe Vahanvati gave a false testimony to the CBI because he was under pressure from UPA 2?
A: Vahanvati was completely helpless. There was a meeting in December 2007 on advice of PM Manmohan Singh that Raja you're correct, but I want there to be collective responsibility. There is an empowered group of ministers headed by Pranab Mukherjee which is looking into vacating spectrum from defence. We want to issue more licenses, already there are cases pending in Tdsat and Supreme Court which are being represented by Vahanvati. A meeting was arranged by the Prime Minister and was taken by Pranab Mukherjee where there was A Raja, Vahanvati and Pranab Mukherjee in his chamber. Vahanvati, gave a legal opinion, Pranab Mukherjee independently sent a note. Then CBI says no such meeting took place between Pranab Mukherjee, Vahanvati and A Raja because this gentleman Vahanvati deposed before the police that no such meeting took place. But there were minutes of the meeting! He told an utter lie under 161 CRPC to the police. The police ultimately filed a chargesheet. Was is not the duty of the CBI to then question Pranab Mukherjee? Raja was in jail, Vahanvati said there no such meeting, why didn't CBI ask Pranab Mukherjee sitting in North Block or South Block? Why didn't Pranab Mukherjee speak? They did not and he did not. What is happening in this country?
Q: Speaking of the UPA government, lets come to certain officers in the PMO in UPA2. You seem to suggest Manmohan Singh did not know certain things, was kept in the dark about spectrum. You write in the book that on 2nd November 2007 you wrote a letter to the PM to apprise him of everything you had done on 2G licensing and spectrum. On the same day you got a letter from the PMO whose contents matched the representations that had been made by the COAI or the cartel. Are you saying some officers in or not in the PMO or in the government were deliberately misinforming Manmohan Singh and these officers were hand in glove with the COAI?
A: Naturally. What was plea taken by COAI in the Tdsat? What was their plea with the minister? The Minister turned down their plea of not giving more licenses. Then the cartel went to Tdsat where they were also turned down. Interestingly the same identical plea was placed to the PMO. Having failed in the tribunal and having failed in the telecom commission, how come the text of the annexure of the PM's letter which came to me is exactly the same text as the plea taken by the COAI in the Tdsat and to the ministry? Who gave the paper to the PMO? The covering letter had the signature of Manmohan Singh with a line saying, kindly apprise me. But how come the text of the attached annexure to the Prime Minister's letter was the same text as the COAI plea?
Q: But who were those officers in PMO who were batting for the cartel, for COAI and misleading the PM? Why not name these officers?
A: That you have to draw inference, I was not running PMO. I cannot say anything, you have to infer. Principal Secretary or special secretary or any other officer. Since their signatures are not on the paper I cannot take their names. But I was surprised that day. These things have to be investigated.
Q: You write before you became Telecom minister the PM and parliament did not even know that spectrum was available. So when you told Manmohan Singh spectrum was available he said "Is that so? I have been told that the impediment to the growth of the Telecom sector is the non-availability of spectrum". You write "a stealthy ploy had been stage managed in the Telecom ministry to obfuscate the availability of spectrum and increase the monopoly of the existing service providers..." You write that Manmohan Singh told you, corporations are trying to thrust their views on me and on some senior ministers. So this looks as if the entire government system was working for the benefit of the cartel or the COAI.
A: I assumed charge in May 2007. In 2006 December my predecessor wrote to the Prime Minister saying that spectrum availability is a problem for commercial use of business in the telecom sector. There is no spectrum. The Minister was misguided by his officers to tell the PM that spectrum availability is not there. After Raja assumed charge, spectrum came into existence. The PM was surprised because all along he had been told there was no spectrum! That's why he had in fact constituted the EGom to get back spectrum from defence because he was told there was no spectrum for civil use. How did Airtel get spectrum? Basic spectrum is 4.4. How they got it up to 12 megagertz, without any price. So they were pretending to the world there was no spectrum and in fact giving spectrum to each existing operator of the cartel.
Q: So the then PM was deluded
A: The Prime Minister cannot be expected to know every policy of the government. Then why you are keeping ministers? Manmohan Singh did not know at all.
Q: You write Karthi Chidambaram set up a meeting between you and Sunil Mittal. Are you saying the Chidambaram family had ties with Sunil Mittal?
A: I am not attributing any motive to Karthi Chidambaram. I am simply saying that an unusual late night meeting was facilitated by Karthi between me and Sunil Mittal at 10.30pm. I don't want to say anything on any links they may have had. They may be friends, nothing wrong in that. I also have many friends in industry. What's wrong? Having friendships or exposure to industry is not wrong. But some ministers wanted to sail along with COAI because COAI apprised them that Raja is doing something wrong.
Q: By 2010 there was a trust deficit between you and certain ministers: You write about P. Chidambaram: I was surprised to see him shying away from discussing the 2G situation..he avoided speaking to me when we happened to pass each other in the airport...I heard he thought there may be a big scam and my arrest was temporarily essential to steer the wrath of the supreme court and avoid criticism of the prime minister...I sensed that a decision to put me behind bars had been taken to salvage the government's image..thats when I became vegetarian and started preparing for jail life by exercising twice daily.' So you were let down by the UPA?
A: I am entitled to draw my own inference out of the incidents that took place around me. As a person who resigned from the cabinet, there was a lot of media hype, in such a situation Mr P Chidambaram as a Tamilian, politician from Tamil Nadu, my expectations were that he would really want to know what really happened in Telecom and I wanted to apprise him. But he didn't seem to want to know. That's why I got the impression he's avoiding me, maybe he has his own perceptions. For example, prior to my arrest Kapil Sibal gave me an appointment. What prevented Chidambaram from meeting me and speaking with me? Kapil Sibal met me but he said I am helpless. I am entitled to ask why Chidambaram avoided me in public places when there was a big crisis. I had resigned, he could have asked what went wrong and whether I am correct. In fact I wanted to thank him. When he avoided me I got a clear picture that I was going to be arrested, so I stopped my non-vegetarian and started exercising twice daily because I realised I was now going to go to jail.
Q: So you were the fall guy?
A: I have been convicted by institutional aberrations . TRAI says one thing, CVC says one thing, CBI says one thing, Supreme Court says one thing, ultimately truth was found by the trial court. So between institutional aberrations I was victimised. I write in the book, I brought a revolution in telecom sector and in history those who bring a revolution are often branded as criminals.
Q: On Manmohan Singh: you write with sympathy about him. You say: The way the prime miniater conducted himself in no way constituted any administrative lapse..the PM was disturbed when I explained to him about the exploitation of spectrum by the cartel in the telecom sector, he wanted hidden spectrum to be made available for public use..he was totally correct as per policy and law..his concern for national interest is foremost..his colossal intellectual and moral stature..but the government did not back him up and he could not muster the resolve to stand against the abuse and criticism.' Do you feel a great deal of sympathy for Manmohan Singh?
A: Yes I do always. Why was this great man put in the dock? Why was his reputation tarnished? The Prime Minister should have come forward before the Supreme Court and press to say we did nothing wrong. But he was misguided by cabinet colleagues. When the Cabinet does not support the Prime Minister, what can the PM do?
Q: You wrote to former PM Manmohan Singh after the verdict saying that you know the compulsions that prevented him from supporting you on 2G. What were those compulsions?
A: The Cabinet. The Cabinet and senior ministers did not support him. Specifically those who were a little bit involved in 2G issues.
Q: Let's come to the 2 judges of the Supreme Court AK Ganguly and GS Singhvi. They ordered cancellation of 122 2G licenses. You quote an interview with Justice Ganguly and Karan Thapar where you point out how Ganguly seemed unsure of what he was saying and kept using terms like ""possibly". You say can the word "possibly" be used to punish not only an individual but an entire nation? Do you believe cancelling those licenses punished an entire nation? Dealt a body blow to industry?
A: Industry's out. Foreign investment is not coming to this country, officers are scared because of cancellation of licenses, because of criminal case launched, whereas with due respect to Ganguly he had all documents on his table. He had Vinod Rai's report and Subramanian Swamy's petitions. But on the other side the DoT filed a detailed counter affidavit which was not dealt with by the Supreme Court. The SC endorsed the CAG report and cancelled licenses. Yet the observations made by Singhvi and Ganguly were completely demolised by government witnesses, by documents, still the licenses were cancelled. Am I not entitled to say they only went by the CAG report? Please call Vinod Rai. Let him sit beside me and let him answer; the country should witness an open debate. Country should judge: who is wrong, Raja or Vinod Rai?
Q: What was your aim in telecom?
A: When I assumed charge, rural teledensity was mere 7 per cent, overall not even 22 per cent . I wanted to inject competition. Are we not reaping benefits today? I assured in Parliament to Arun Jaitley that tariff will come down by 20 paise or 30 paise. My dream is a voice free country. There should not be any charge for 2G. Other countries charge only for 3G. I wanted to have a voice free India but my dream has little bit demolished. Somebody in Rajya Sabha said you are Spectrum King and I said yes I am proud to be called Spectrum Raja. I am Spectrum Raja and I am acquitted. I believe in the judicial system of this country.
Q: What is the DMK's future after the 2G verdict: will you stick with the Congress in 2019, or go with the BJP? There is much speculation following a meeting between Prime Minister Modi and Karunanidhi.
A: Political decisions will be taken by higher ups in my party but my reading is we are all secular parties. We uphold constitutional values which say secularism is the prime element in this country. DMK is a secular party.
Q: But DMK has allied with BJP in the past?
A: That time was a different context. Jayalalithaa had pulled the government down and she was our opponent. We put 3 cardinal principles : 1) Don't touch Babri Masjid, 2)don't bring Uniform Civil Code, 3) don't amend Article 370 in Kashmir. These guarantees were given at that time. Alliance will be decided by my leaders but basically we are secular force.
Q: And what's your future now Mr Raja?
A: I am a politician. Am attracted to Dravidian ideology. As long as the Dravidian ideology is there, Raja will be there. If you want to abolish caste, you need Dravidian ideology. If you want secularism, you need the DMK. As long as Dravidian policy is needed for this country to have an egalitarian society, I'll always be there.
Sagarika Ghose | TNN | Updated: Jan 18, 2018, 19:59 IST
File photograph of former telecom minister A Raja
Former Telecom Minister A Raja speaks exclusively to TOI's Sagarika Ghose on his tell all book -- "2 G Saga Unfolds".
Q: Mr Raja, this is an interesting book, an absorbing book but also a very angry book. You were in jail for 15 months, 7 years under 2G cloud, and you completed the book before the judgement by the CBI judge OP Saini acquitted you. Why did you feel you needed to write this book?
A: The foremost reason is natural justice was not given by any individual and any institutions except the trial court. Unfortunately the trial court took 7 years because of CBI's attitude. I used to go to court daily, I did not ask for any adjournment but my viewpoint was not placed before any forum including Supreme Court. So where can I go? So I decided in the jail my viewpoint has to be displayed to the country. I started my writing in jail, completed it after 2015. I handed the manuscript over about 20-25 days prior to the judgement
Q: But does the 2G verdict vindicate you? Is it the last word because the CBI has indicated that it will appeal against the verdict. You still haven't got a clean chit from the highest court.
A: Provisions are available in Code of Criminal procedure, either party who has been aggrieved according to themselves, can go for appeal. Let them go
Also read: A Raja unplugged on Vinod Rai, Manmohan Singh and 2G auctions
Q: But many legal observers have been critical of the judgement saying that either the judge failed to accept the evidence before him or the prosecution didn't do enough to trace the links between you and the corporates? How would you respond?
A: In open court to his lordship Saini I submitted that the entire trial is a complete waste of judicial time. Because this case has been framed on the basis of the documents. Documents are available with court. Then where is the question of evidence? One thing is clear: a person who initiated file notings saying a or b or c, whether it is Raja or whether it is any star witness in the court, an officer initiated a file noting and it was ultimately approved by me. Suddenly he changed to the CBI, saying no, no this was initiated at behest of minister, I was bull dozed by minister. Is the oral evidence tendered to court or to the CBI valid or whether his actions according to the note are valid, will be seen by the court. So oral evidence went against their own documents. So court did not believe it. Its settled principle of law.
Q: Political observers and the likes of Subramanian Swami whom you have called "vindictive" "frustrated" and "litigious on trivial issues" have alluded to the fact that the 2 G case verdict is a miscarriage of justice because powerful corporates were involved?
A: I do not want give much importance to Subramaniam Swamy. I never believed he is a man of integrity. It is unfortunate in the judicial history of this country that his version was a little bit accepted or believed by the Supreme Court because of former CAG Vinod Rai. Not only Subramanian Swamy, I appeal to Vinod Rai or even the judges those judges who cancelled 122 licenses with due respect to them, Vinod Rai or Justice A. K Ganguly, I say to them: if they are ready to share a debate with me on the same platform. I am ready and open for a debate.
Q:The villain no. 1 in your book is former Comptroller and Auditor General Vinod Rai who came up with the famous figure of loss of 1.76 lakh crore to the national exchequer in the giving of 2G licenses: You say he was driven by malicious vigilantism that made a mockery of his constitutional responsibilities, disgraceful self promotion and wanton sacrifice of national progress and the whole 2G was a strategy to kill UPA2 and Rai's shoulder was where the gun was placed...are you simply taking pot shots or do you have any hard evidence that Mr Rai was linked to any political party ?
A: I don't believe anyone is a villain, I am only putting the facts. If you call him villain, I am not responsible for that. But he is guilty of complete abuse of constitutional power. He must have links with a political party, I was in the jail I did not have the opportunity to investigate. I am very sure that there must be a political conspiracy behind Vinod Rai. Being an IAS officer he cannot have any political ambition , but somebody might have used him.
Q: Who used him?
A: That has to be investigated. Why did he attack with such unilateral decisions? There were correspondence between department of telecom and the audit team. Whatever the queries asked by CAG, were duly replied by officers those who are cited as witnesses in the criminal case. The officers themselves replied to CAG: nothing is wrong, no scam, no policy fraud. Everything is correct. All eligible applicants were given spectrum, licenses. The same officers, those who reacted to the CAG, they were brought as witnesses before the court and they turned down the CBI saying, no no, that's not our view. First, the auditor accepted everything. There was an exit conference between department of telecom and the audit team. They categorically observed, we will rephrase the words ``loss", we will alter the word "fraud policy"—(the word `fraud policy' for first come first served) accepted everything, said Swan is eligible. Then suddenly Vinod Rai came into existence claiming 1.76 lakh crore loss. How Vinod Rai arrived at that figure when the documents did not speak so?
Q: But Rai says its simply an auditor's computation based on what happened in 2008 and auctions of 2010 and if the figure was sensationalised, that was done by media and opposition.
A: The comparison itself is wrong. A constitutional authority cannot assume his own style of functioning . What has been submitted to you by the department line by line: cut off date, first come first served policy, exchequer loss, dual technology and eligibility of applicants: these 5 issues are core issues. The Department of Telecom in very categorical terms explained with file notings that decisions were taken with full conscience there is no exchequer loss. But Rai did not accept the reply given by the DoT. Officers convince you, your own officers admitted by writing that there was no exchequer loss, there was a conference, both departments duly signed, on this document of promise. But the promise was compromised or breached by Vinod Rai. Why was the promise breached by Vinod Rai? What is the reason? Strictly speaking he has to be prosecuted.
Q: He has to be prosecuted? For criminal misconduct under prevention of corruption act?
A: Yes that is a natural thing. Since he is a constitutional authority, since he has a constitutional immunity at least a commission of inquiry against him should be instituted immediately. He may get shelter under constitutional protection. In such a case as per constitutional provisions 148 and 149, the Constitution assumes the King can do no wrong. So when he does do wrong there is no provision in the law. But I say: initiate a commission of inquiry against Vinod Rai, how he arrived at this figure, how he gave the observations he did.
Q: What would you say to Rai if you met him today?
A: I am inviting him for debate. With folded hands I am asking the Fourth Estate, bring Vinod Rai on the same dais, for a debate, let us see who is correct who is wrong. Everybody is sticking to that astronomical figure. Please ignore that figure. It was not accepted by court, it was not accepted in trial. Only thing is: cut off date. Vinod Rai says it was done unilaterally. I proved it by records, in court I proved it that Raja was initially against the cut off date and it was a collective decision. Who put the cut off date? Vinod Rai says it was unilaterally done by Raja to favour some companies. Now document says and I established in book and court that Raja was initially against any cut off date. My officers wanted to have a cut off date, I was convinced by the officers to have a cut of date. Later I believed, okay its reasonable to have a cut off date so I put my signature. So whether 1.76 lakh crore loss, whether cut off date or first come first served or eligibility of applicants, Vinod Rai had his own independent ideas, not the department of CAG.
Q: Let's come to Villain no. 2 in your book which is Sunil Bharti Mittal, Chairman of Bharti enterprises, and owner of telecom company Airtel. You write that as an industry giant and a leading member of COAI or Cellular Operators Association of India he was belligerently intent on keeping his monopoly on spectrum, he was part of a cartel and of vested interests that did not want spectrum to be given to his competitors. You write "I admired his confidence even though it had shades of smug conceit." You say he was in fact controlling or attempting to pressurise some ministers and even officials in the PMO to keep his monopoly on spectrum. That's what you want to say on Sunil Mittal?
A: Exactly. I'm not attributing any ill motives on Sunil Mittal. What I am saying is, big businessman do have easy access with cabinet ministers; any big businessman or corporate big man can go to a minister and influence him at least prima facie, he can put his case. Sunil Mittal is no exception. He has connections with cabinet ministers including Raja and other ministers also. The COAI led by Sunil Mittal wanted to maintain the cartel. They wanted to have the complete exclusive business and they did not want to allow new players. I am not accusing with mere words. They went to Tdsat to start the proceedings, they went to the High Court, they did not get any stay. So I'm not saying only verbally that Sunil Mittal wanted to maintain the cartel. It is established by the proceedings in the Tdsat tribunal and the High Court that Sunil Mittal and the others do not want to have any new competition. It is established on record. They wanted to maintain cartelisation, I wanted to break it. So on one side a person who wants to maintain the cartel, on the other a minister wants to break cartel, automatically clash will come. And am not making just mud slinging allegations.
Q: You say Mittal "boasted" about his connections, said he expected "co-operation" from you, had shades of smugness and conceit?
A: He sent a letter, saying I am the second largest operator in the world. The TRAI is wrong. The Telecom Engineering Centre is wrong. How can you say this about TRAI? It's a statutory body, created by an act of Parliament, having its own experts, they collect a lot of material, they talk to many stakeholders, thereafter they gave their recommendations. The Telecom Engineering Centre is a scientific centre operated through other officers and IIT professors. All these labelled by Mr Mittal as a waste of time and he wanted to say I know everything , beyond DoT, TEC, beyond TRAI.
Q: But what about the accusation that you were batting for Mr Mittal's competitors like Anil Ambani and bringing in players like Swan and Unitech who had no proven track record in telecom?
A: I did not bring in anybody. It is a TRAI recommendation. The recommendation came to me: permit dual technology for Anil Ambani. Specific references were sent to my predecessor Dayanidhi Maran. Application was made by Anil Ambani of Reliance group whether a person who is operating one type of license, that is CDMA, can't be permitted to own other spectrum technology also. Because license is umbrella license, its Unified Access License. See, it's like a driving license. Once you get a driving license you can go for ambassador or Hero Honda or Benz car. License is license. So the argument put forth by Anil Ambani: I am having umbrella license, why I am being prohibited for another technology. I am entitled to another technology, that is called dual technology. The TRAI recommendation came: permit dual technology, I wanted to sail along with TRAI recommendation. That's my statutory duty. When you are travelling along with TRAI recommendations, and the person who is incidentally benefitting is Anil Ambani, then what can I do? Anil Ambani came in the row because of TRAI recommendations. I did not invite Swan, I did not invite Anil Ambani, I did not invite Unitech.
Q: You repeatedly suggest in the book that you were motivated by public welfare, you were trying to break cartelisation that you were trying to bring in new players. But the accusation is that the new players you brought in like Unitech and Swan Telecom got licenses sold them and made windfall gains? So the price they sold was much higher than the price they paid on first come first served?
A: First of all the word `sold` must be removed. The reason is in the corporate style of functioning, in the telecom sector foreign disinvestment is permitted upto 79 per cent. A person who paid entry fee of 1650 crore got the spectrum. Now license is mere paper, spectrum is mere air, how can he run the business? So the word 'sold' is wrong, they were searching for a partner to bring the equity, the money will go to the company to create infrastructure. After all, one telecom tower costs Rs 50 lakhs. They were trying to get FDI, permitted by law, permitted by finance ministry, not permitted by Raja! It was all dealt with in the CCEA. Not at all a sin. It is an infusion of funds by which money will come to company, not go to an individuals' pocket, it is to create infrastructure. It is misunderstood by all that licenses were `sold.' That's wrong.
Q: Then in the entire 2G case why is there so much suspicion of wrong doing, so much arbitrariness, lack of transparency, ad-hocism? Why was the policy execution so clumsy?
A: Everything was transparent. In the book I prove, it was admitted by the trial court after having viewed a large number of witnesses and their depositions; the trial court also came to a conclusion that everything was right. Still some are saying, fraud fraud. What can I do? It's a misconception by people, planted by vested interests through the media. Unfortunately institutions CVC, CBI, JPC even SC completely swallowed the hype. All because of the Vinod Rai report. For Vinod Rai: cut off date, Raja wrong. First come first served—Raja introduced first time. Eligibility of applicants—Raja made it. He did not admit the version taken by the DoT. He convinced himself unilaterally that there was a scam. Question is, at the behest of whom? That has to be investigated. I'm a poor man jailed for 15 months I cannot investigate I have no infrastructure to investigate him. Who is the real conspirator, why was Vinod Rai was used as a tool, as a gun to kill UPA 2? Who is the main accused? That has to be investigated.
Q: But what about other allegations? What about the sum of 200 crore that went from Swan Telecom to Kalaignar TV? Of course Judge Saini has said there was no illegal gratification but then many people still see it as a bribe or a quid pro quo.
A: It's nothing more than a transaction of business. Even CBI admitted before the trial court in the witness box. The Investigating Officer admitted per se entire transaction of Kalaignar TV is not illegal. They had suspicions, they just wanted to draw some investigative inference, that if Raja did something wrong it can be termed as a bribe. It was all just clouds, clouds cannot be a criminal case. Now the clouds are clear. The transaction has nothing to do with Raja, it was completely legal and we cannot connect it with 2G. There was no link between the two. No question were put to me with regard to Kalaignar TV. There were no witnesses. There were only suggestions: oh- you- only- arranged- money. There were no witnesses from the CBI side or corporate side that the 200 crore was linked with Raja, that 200 crore was facilitated by Raja directly or remotely, no suggestion was put to me. Is this a case? What about the veracity and integrity of the CBI, the prime investigative agency of this country? It has lost its integrity.
Q: What about advancing the cut off date . You say in the book that you were never in favour of imposing any cut off date, you said everybody who deposits license fee should get a LoI and they should get spectrum. You say that it was the secretary Telecom who said there should be a cut off date.
A: Documents are available in Prime Minister's office which was submitted in court which say the minister did not want to have a cut off date. Minister wanted to accommodate all 575 applications. Whereas my secretary and other officers wanted to have a cut off date on the basis of how much spectrum is available. I agreed to the cut off date, I believed it is correct. They convinced me, they convinced me we cannot give licenses to all 575. Availability of spectrum is sine qua non for the operation, so let us go until this date.
Q: In hindsight do you feel you did exactly the right thing? If you could turn the clock backwards, would you go back to doing everything exactly the way you did?
A: What I did is exactly right, was correct, everything is pukka. It was observed by the trial court that what was done by DoT is correct. I have no regrets. I want to celebrate what I did is correct for this country. What type of courage I had, do you know? Have you ever heard of an accused in such a sensational case himself prepared to go to the box? Witness box? I went to box, the witness box. I offered myself to CBI for 14 days. 14 days I was cross- examined by CBI! Then you know my courage. Unless and until a man has his own conviction sealed in his mind he cannot go for witness box. What I did is exactly correct, it is not arbitrary. As OP Saini observed, the cut off date is not arbitrary, it was deliberated several times, due diligence was done.
Q: People had suspicions that the manner in which you advanced the cut off date from 1st October 2007 to 25 September 2007 suggested that those who had prior knowledge of the date rushed in and paid the fee and got the license.
A: I can understand having suspicions before the judgement, but after the judgement what suspicions can there be? Why suspicions? Did you see evidence in the court? The file notings? The moment TRAI reccomendations were accepted in the ministry and the cut off date was announced all the people upto cut off date went to DoT met the officers, on a day to day basis (and this evidence came from the mouth of corporate people) they said, yes my application was accepted within cut off date. I went to the officers, I used to sit to see if there were any deficiencies in the application, and official letter was sent to the people, your application is accepted, more clarifications are needed, give more documents. Official correspondence took place between these corporates and officers on record, so they had knowledge. See, this is how it goes: my application is pending, am waiting for the TRAI recommendations, I see the TRAI recommendations on the website, the ministry approves, the telecom commission approves. It's the businessman's duty to go and say I am number I or 2, please check my application. There's no secrecy here! Why do you feel there's any secrecy? Am really not able to understand.
The clouds of suspicions were all because of Vinod Rai. Witnesses were cited by CBI not by Raja , the CBI has chosen people to investigate, got statements on 161 CRPC, none of the corporate people said anything was secret or we did not know anything. Every day I used to sit in office of DoT and officers invited me, clarifications were sought, deficiencies were there, letters were filled. Where was secrecy? Yet the accusation is that Raja was keeping secrecy. But this is contrary to evidence and file notings!
Q: Lets come to the third villain in the book which is former solicitor general GE Vahanvati. He is now dead. His testimony to the CBI led to charges of forgery being slapped on you. You believe Vahanvati gave a false testimony to the CBI because he was under pressure from UPA 2?
A: Vahanvati was completely helpless. There was a meeting in December 2007 on advice of PM Manmohan Singh that Raja you're correct, but I want there to be collective responsibility. There is an empowered group of ministers headed by Pranab Mukherjee which is looking into vacating spectrum from defence. We want to issue more licenses, already there are cases pending in Tdsat and Supreme Court which are being represented by Vahanvati. A meeting was arranged by the Prime Minister and was taken by Pranab Mukherjee where there was A Raja, Vahanvati and Pranab Mukherjee in his chamber. Vahanvati, gave a legal opinion, Pranab Mukherjee independently sent a note. Then CBI says no such meeting took place between Pranab Mukherjee, Vahanvati and A Raja because this gentleman Vahanvati deposed before the police that no such meeting took place. But there were minutes of the meeting! He told an utter lie under 161 CRPC to the police. The police ultimately filed a chargesheet. Was is not the duty of the CBI to then question Pranab Mukherjee? Raja was in jail, Vahanvati said there no such meeting, why didn't CBI ask Pranab Mukherjee sitting in North Block or South Block? Why didn't Pranab Mukherjee speak? They did not and he did not. What is happening in this country?
Q: Speaking of the UPA government, lets come to certain officers in the PMO in UPA2. You seem to suggest Manmohan Singh did not know certain things, was kept in the dark about spectrum. You write in the book that on 2nd November 2007 you wrote a letter to the PM to apprise him of everything you had done on 2G licensing and spectrum. On the same day you got a letter from the PMO whose contents matched the representations that had been made by the COAI or the cartel. Are you saying some officers in or not in the PMO or in the government were deliberately misinforming Manmohan Singh and these officers were hand in glove with the COAI?
A: Naturally. What was plea taken by COAI in the Tdsat? What was their plea with the minister? The Minister turned down their plea of not giving more licenses. Then the cartel went to Tdsat where they were also turned down. Interestingly the same identical plea was placed to the PMO. Having failed in the tribunal and having failed in the telecom commission, how come the text of the annexure of the PM's letter which came to me is exactly the same text as the plea taken by the COAI in the Tdsat and to the ministry? Who gave the paper to the PMO? The covering letter had the signature of Manmohan Singh with a line saying, kindly apprise me. But how come the text of the attached annexure to the Prime Minister's letter was the same text as the COAI plea?
Q: But who were those officers in PMO who were batting for the cartel, for COAI and misleading the PM? Why not name these officers?
A: That you have to draw inference, I was not running PMO. I cannot say anything, you have to infer. Principal Secretary or special secretary or any other officer. Since their signatures are not on the paper I cannot take their names. But I was surprised that day. These things have to be investigated.
Q: You write before you became Telecom minister the PM and parliament did not even know that spectrum was available. So when you told Manmohan Singh spectrum was available he said "Is that so? I have been told that the impediment to the growth of the Telecom sector is the non-availability of spectrum". You write "a stealthy ploy had been stage managed in the Telecom ministry to obfuscate the availability of spectrum and increase the monopoly of the existing service providers..." You write that Manmohan Singh told you, corporations are trying to thrust their views on me and on some senior ministers. So this looks as if the entire government system was working for the benefit of the cartel or the COAI.
A: I assumed charge in May 2007. In 2006 December my predecessor wrote to the Prime Minister saying that spectrum availability is a problem for commercial use of business in the telecom sector. There is no spectrum. The Minister was misguided by his officers to tell the PM that spectrum availability is not there. After Raja assumed charge, spectrum came into existence. The PM was surprised because all along he had been told there was no spectrum! That's why he had in fact constituted the EGom to get back spectrum from defence because he was told there was no spectrum for civil use. How did Airtel get spectrum? Basic spectrum is 4.4. How they got it up to 12 megagertz, without any price. So they were pretending to the world there was no spectrum and in fact giving spectrum to each existing operator of the cartel.
Q: So the then PM was deluded
A: The Prime Minister cannot be expected to know every policy of the government. Then why you are keeping ministers? Manmohan Singh did not know at all.
Q: You write Karthi Chidambaram set up a meeting between you and Sunil Mittal. Are you saying the Chidambaram family had ties with Sunil Mittal?
A: I am not attributing any motive to Karthi Chidambaram. I am simply saying that an unusual late night meeting was facilitated by Karthi between me and Sunil Mittal at 10.30pm. I don't want to say anything on any links they may have had. They may be friends, nothing wrong in that. I also have many friends in industry. What's wrong? Having friendships or exposure to industry is not wrong. But some ministers wanted to sail along with COAI because COAI apprised them that Raja is doing something wrong.
Q: By 2010 there was a trust deficit between you and certain ministers: You write about P. Chidambaram: I was surprised to see him shying away from discussing the 2G situation..he avoided speaking to me when we happened to pass each other in the airport...I heard he thought there may be a big scam and my arrest was temporarily essential to steer the wrath of the supreme court and avoid criticism of the prime minister...I sensed that a decision to put me behind bars had been taken to salvage the government's image..thats when I became vegetarian and started preparing for jail life by exercising twice daily.' So you were let down by the UPA?
A: I am entitled to draw my own inference out of the incidents that took place around me. As a person who resigned from the cabinet, there was a lot of media hype, in such a situation Mr P Chidambaram as a Tamilian, politician from Tamil Nadu, my expectations were that he would really want to know what really happened in Telecom and I wanted to apprise him. But he didn't seem to want to know. That's why I got the impression he's avoiding me, maybe he has his own perceptions. For example, prior to my arrest Kapil Sibal gave me an appointment. What prevented Chidambaram from meeting me and speaking with me? Kapil Sibal met me but he said I am helpless. I am entitled to ask why Chidambaram avoided me in public places when there was a big crisis. I had resigned, he could have asked what went wrong and whether I am correct. In fact I wanted to thank him. When he avoided me I got a clear picture that I was going to be arrested, so I stopped my non-vegetarian and started exercising twice daily because I realised I was now going to go to jail.
Q: So you were the fall guy?
A: I have been convicted by institutional aberrations . TRAI says one thing, CVC says one thing, CBI says one thing, Supreme Court says one thing, ultimately truth was found by the trial court. So between institutional aberrations I was victimised. I write in the book, I brought a revolution in telecom sector and in history those who bring a revolution are often branded as criminals.
Q: On Manmohan Singh: you write with sympathy about him. You say: The way the prime miniater conducted himself in no way constituted any administrative lapse..the PM was disturbed when I explained to him about the exploitation of spectrum by the cartel in the telecom sector, he wanted hidden spectrum to be made available for public use..he was totally correct as per policy and law..his concern for national interest is foremost..his colossal intellectual and moral stature..but the government did not back him up and he could not muster the resolve to stand against the abuse and criticism.' Do you feel a great deal of sympathy for Manmohan Singh?
A: Yes I do always. Why was this great man put in the dock? Why was his reputation tarnished? The Prime Minister should have come forward before the Supreme Court and press to say we did nothing wrong. But he was misguided by cabinet colleagues. When the Cabinet does not support the Prime Minister, what can the PM do?
Q: You wrote to former PM Manmohan Singh after the verdict saying that you know the compulsions that prevented him from supporting you on 2G. What were those compulsions?
A: The Cabinet. The Cabinet and senior ministers did not support him. Specifically those who were a little bit involved in 2G issues.
Q: Let's come to the 2 judges of the Supreme Court AK Ganguly and GS Singhvi. They ordered cancellation of 122 2G licenses. You quote an interview with Justice Ganguly and Karan Thapar where you point out how Ganguly seemed unsure of what he was saying and kept using terms like ""possibly". You say can the word "possibly" be used to punish not only an individual but an entire nation? Do you believe cancelling those licenses punished an entire nation? Dealt a body blow to industry?
A: Industry's out. Foreign investment is not coming to this country, officers are scared because of cancellation of licenses, because of criminal case launched, whereas with due respect to Ganguly he had all documents on his table. He had Vinod Rai's report and Subramanian Swamy's petitions. But on the other side the DoT filed a detailed counter affidavit which was not dealt with by the Supreme Court. The SC endorsed the CAG report and cancelled licenses. Yet the observations made by Singhvi and Ganguly were completely demolised by government witnesses, by documents, still the licenses were cancelled. Am I not entitled to say they only went by the CAG report? Please call Vinod Rai. Let him sit beside me and let him answer; the country should witness an open debate. Country should judge: who is wrong, Raja or Vinod Rai?
Q: What was your aim in telecom?
A: When I assumed charge, rural teledensity was mere 7 per cent, overall not even 22 per cent . I wanted to inject competition. Are we not reaping benefits today? I assured in Parliament to Arun Jaitley that tariff will come down by 20 paise or 30 paise. My dream is a voice free country. There should not be any charge for 2G. Other countries charge only for 3G. I wanted to have a voice free India but my dream has little bit demolished. Somebody in Rajya Sabha said you are Spectrum King and I said yes I am proud to be called Spectrum Raja. I am Spectrum Raja and I am acquitted. I believe in the judicial system of this country.
Q: What is the DMK's future after the 2G verdict: will you stick with the Congress in 2019, or go with the BJP? There is much speculation following a meeting between Prime Minister Modi and Karunanidhi.
A: Political decisions will be taken by higher ups in my party but my reading is we are all secular parties. We uphold constitutional values which say secularism is the prime element in this country. DMK is a secular party.
Q: But DMK has allied with BJP in the past?
A: That time was a different context. Jayalalithaa had pulled the government down and she was our opponent. We put 3 cardinal principles : 1) Don't touch Babri Masjid, 2)don't bring Uniform Civil Code, 3) don't amend Article 370 in Kashmir. These guarantees were given at that time. Alliance will be decided by my leaders but basically we are secular force.
Q: And what's your future now Mr Raja?
A: I am a politician. Am attracted to Dravidian ideology. As long as the Dravidian ideology is there, Raja will be there. If you want to abolish caste, you need Dravidian ideology. If you want secularism, you need the DMK. As long as Dravidian policy is needed for this country to have an egalitarian society, I'll always be there.
