New Delhi: Hours after the Prime Minister said that he has full confidence in P Chidambaram, the BJP wants to know why. In fact, the opposition party argues, Mr Chidambaram should be sacked as minister because of a note that questions his actions when the telecom scam was playing out in 2008. And has asked Prime Minister Manmohan Singh if he is shielding his minister to stop the shadow of the 2G scam from reaching his own office.
The note written by Pranab Mukherjee's Finance Ministry in March this year suggests Mr Chidambaram, who was then Finance Minister, should have done more to ensure that spectrum was not given at throwaway rates to companies that were being favoured by A Raja, who was then Telecom Minister and is now in jail. The note, which was presented in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, has now been sought by the Joint Parliamentary Committee looking into the 2G scam. The JPC has written to the Finance Ministry asking for the note. Sources also say that the JPC has no plans to summon officials from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).
Sources also said the government had written to the JPC to say that there were no minutes of a crucial Chidambaram-Raja meeting on December 4, 2007.
The Public Accounts Committee of the Parliament has also, sources say, decided to write to the Prime Minister's Office asking for the notes sent by Finance Ministry.
Amidst reports that Mr Chidambaram had offered to quit as Home Minister, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who is visiting the US to address the UN general assembly, said last night that, "As far as Mr Chidambaram is concerned, as Finance Minister he continued to enjoy my full confidence, as Home Minister he continues to enjoy my full confidence."
The BJP was quick to pounce. "We would like to ask the Prime Minister, is your confidence more important than a fair, impartial investigation into the scam?" senior leader Ravi Shankar Prasad said today. And then he said, "Why does the government have a compulsion to shield Mr Chidambaram despite the note of dissent by the No 2 in the government? Is the compulsion to shield Chidambaram in spite of the ministry's note to prevent the ambers of the 2G scam from reaching the PMO (Prime Minister's Office)?"
The BJP has questioned every point made by the PM in his brief defence from abroad of his ministers and government. The PM denied reports of infighting, seeking to quell allegations that there was a full-scale war on between two of the government's most senior ministers, Mr Chidambaram and Mr Mukherjee. The BJP was waiting to say, "Skeletons are fighting skeletons and rocking the boat of the UPA...how long will the PM keep quiet?"
Pranab Mukherjee and the PM are both in the US. In a statement issued last night, Mr Chidambaram clarified, "As reported in the media, the Prime Minister called me last night from Frankfurt and spoke to me. The Finance Minister called me from Washington and spoke to me. I have assured the Prime Minister that I shall not make any public statement on the subject until he returns to India."
The BJP's Ravi Shankar Prasad has also asked why the CBI told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the note against Mr Chidambaram should not be considered as a reason to investigate the minister's role in the telecom scam.
The Congress has closed ranks behind Mr Chidambaram. Corporate Affairs Minister Veerappa Moily said there was no need for Mr Chidambaram to resign. Party spokesman Manish Tiwari said the PM had had the last word - "The PM has already shown full support for Chidambaram, party fully backs him, we have nothing to add further." So saying, he resolutely went back to questioning the telecom policy of the BJP-led NDA government of a decade ago instead.
The party has also sought to quell reports of the divide between its two senior party leaders, though sources say that Mr Chidambaram, during his phone call to the PM last night, complained that there was a campaign within the government to malign him.
The Finance Ministry note was accessed by an activist who filed a Right to Information application, and it was presented in court on Wednesday by Subramanian Swamy, who is among the petitioners who've filed a case demanding a complete inquiry into the telecom scam. The BJP objected today to the fact that while the CBI has said it wants to question ministers in the NDA regime who decided telecom policy, it is "stonewalling attempts to investigate Mr Chidambaram."
The UPA government has said that when it came to power in 2004, it followed the telecom policies that were introduced by the BJP-led NDA regime in the years before that. The telecom scam centres around why Mr Raja chose to award mobile network licenses and frequency in 2008 at rates decided in 2001. He has also been questioned about why he did not hold an auction for spectrum instead of bundling it into licenses that were sold for a pittance of about 1600 crores each.
Mr Raja has said that the PM and Mr Chidambaram were aware of his decisions. Mr Mukherjee's note says that the Ministry of Finance under Mr Chidambaram could have "stuck to its stand" and coerced Mr Raja to auction spectrum. The note also suggests that Mr Chidambaram had the option to cancel the licenses allotted by Mr Raja within four months of the deals being signed -a route he did not take.
The note from the Finance Ministry, marked "secret," was accessed by a Right to Information activist, and presented on Wednesday in the Supreme Court, which is monitoring the investigations into the telecom 2G scam. The 14-page document states that it was "seen by" Mr Mukherjee, establishing that the Finance Minister endorsed its findings. They include stressing that Mr Chidambaram could have tried much harder to force Mr Raja to auction valuable spectrum, instead of bundling it with licenses that were under-valued and sold to companies who Mr Raja favoured. While Mr Chidambaram is choosing not to discuss the controversy, it is certainly the talk of the town with both the government and the Opposition delivering detailed analysis. Law Minister Salman Khurshid today dismissed the note from the Finance Ministry as a paper that "comes from a junior official in the (Finance) ministry...it's not a paper that is being sent either by a senior functionary or a minister," he said. "Some inferences that are sought to be drawn in that brief are certainly not acceptable."
The note written by Pranab Mukherjee's Finance Ministry in March this year suggests Mr Chidambaram, who was then Finance Minister, should have done more to ensure that spectrum was not given at throwaway rates to companies that were being favoured by A Raja, who was then Telecom Minister and is now in jail. The note, which was presented in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, has now been sought by the Joint Parliamentary Committee looking into the 2G scam. The JPC has written to the Finance Ministry asking for the note. Sources also say that the JPC has no plans to summon officials from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).
Sources also said the government had written to the JPC to say that there were no minutes of a crucial Chidambaram-Raja meeting on December 4, 2007.
The Public Accounts Committee of the Parliament has also, sources say, decided to write to the Prime Minister's Office asking for the notes sent by Finance Ministry.
Amidst reports that Mr Chidambaram had offered to quit as Home Minister, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who is visiting the US to address the UN general assembly, said last night that, "As far as Mr Chidambaram is concerned, as Finance Minister he continued to enjoy my full confidence, as Home Minister he continues to enjoy my full confidence."
The BJP was quick to pounce. "We would like to ask the Prime Minister, is your confidence more important than a fair, impartial investigation into the scam?" senior leader Ravi Shankar Prasad said today. And then he said, "Why does the government have a compulsion to shield Mr Chidambaram despite the note of dissent by the No 2 in the government? Is the compulsion to shield Chidambaram in spite of the ministry's note to prevent the ambers of the 2G scam from reaching the PMO (Prime Minister's Office)?"
The BJP has questioned every point made by the PM in his brief defence from abroad of his ministers and government. The PM denied reports of infighting, seeking to quell allegations that there was a full-scale war on between two of the government's most senior ministers, Mr Chidambaram and Mr Mukherjee. The BJP was waiting to say, "Skeletons are fighting skeletons and rocking the boat of the UPA...how long will the PM keep quiet?"
Pranab Mukherjee and the PM are both in the US. In a statement issued last night, Mr Chidambaram clarified, "As reported in the media, the Prime Minister called me last night from Frankfurt and spoke to me. The Finance Minister called me from Washington and spoke to me. I have assured the Prime Minister that I shall not make any public statement on the subject until he returns to India."
The BJP's Ravi Shankar Prasad has also asked why the CBI told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the note against Mr Chidambaram should not be considered as a reason to investigate the minister's role in the telecom scam.
The Congress has closed ranks behind Mr Chidambaram. Corporate Affairs Minister Veerappa Moily said there was no need for Mr Chidambaram to resign. Party spokesman Manish Tiwari said the PM had had the last word - "The PM has already shown full support for Chidambaram, party fully backs him, we have nothing to add further." So saying, he resolutely went back to questioning the telecom policy of the BJP-led NDA government of a decade ago instead.
The party has also sought to quell reports of the divide between its two senior party leaders, though sources say that Mr Chidambaram, during his phone call to the PM last night, complained that there was a campaign within the government to malign him.
The Finance Ministry note was accessed by an activist who filed a Right to Information application, and it was presented in court on Wednesday by Subramanian Swamy, who is among the petitioners who've filed a case demanding a complete inquiry into the telecom scam. The BJP objected today to the fact that while the CBI has said it wants to question ministers in the NDA regime who decided telecom policy, it is "stonewalling attempts to investigate Mr Chidambaram."
The UPA government has said that when it came to power in 2004, it followed the telecom policies that were introduced by the BJP-led NDA regime in the years before that. The telecom scam centres around why Mr Raja chose to award mobile network licenses and frequency in 2008 at rates decided in 2001. He has also been questioned about why he did not hold an auction for spectrum instead of bundling it into licenses that were sold for a pittance of about 1600 crores each.
Mr Raja has said that the PM and Mr Chidambaram were aware of his decisions. Mr Mukherjee's note says that the Ministry of Finance under Mr Chidambaram could have "stuck to its stand" and coerced Mr Raja to auction spectrum. The note also suggests that Mr Chidambaram had the option to cancel the licenses allotted by Mr Raja within four months of the deals being signed -a route he did not take.
The note from the Finance Ministry, marked "secret," was accessed by a Right to Information activist, and presented on Wednesday in the Supreme Court, which is monitoring the investigations into the telecom 2G scam. The 14-page document states that it was "seen by" Mr Mukherjee, establishing that the Finance Minister endorsed its findings. They include stressing that Mr Chidambaram could have tried much harder to force Mr Raja to auction valuable spectrum, instead of bundling it with licenses that were under-valued and sold to companies who Mr Raja favoured. While Mr Chidambaram is choosing not to discuss the controversy, it is certainly the talk of the town with both the government and the Opposition delivering detailed analysis. Law Minister Salman Khurshid today dismissed the note from the Finance Ministry as a paper that "comes from a junior official in the (Finance) ministry...it's not a paper that is being sent either by a senior functionary or a minister," he said. "Some inferences that are sought to be drawn in that brief are certainly not acceptable."
No comments:
Post a Comment