Click to Expand & PlayNew Delhi: Law Minister Salman Khurshid talks to NDTV's Barkha Dutt about the controversial 2G note that questions P Chidambaram's actions as Finance Minister when the telecom scam unfolded. The note, prepared by the Finance Ministry, was noted as "seen by" Pranab Mukherjee.
Here's the full text of his interview.
Barkha Dutt: Mr Khurshid thanks for your time on the programme today. Let me start by asking you, you are among the ministers who have consistently made the argument, that the note sent by Pranab Mukherjee's ministry, which talks about Mr Chidambaram not having done enough to prevent Mr Raja and the telecom scam, is in a sense a media creation. You have been driving home that point, but how do you answer the very serious charges raised by the Parliamentary Panel today, that this was the note that should have been presented before it?
Salman Khurshid: Well I don't know, I am not going to comment on JPC procedures or demands made by members, that would amount to breach of Parliamentary privilege, but what I can understand in a common sense way is that you produce a, whatever is available with you by the way of decision making. This is a summary. There may be many, many summaries of what is happening, to assist people within the government, to take coordinated and consistent positions. So, if somebody says why didn't you make a summary, or why didn't you produce a note etc. I would imagine it is a little bit excessive. But frankly, it's their procedure and decision. It's not for me to comment on it.
Barkha Dutt: You are saying that you won't comment on it, but the fact is that on The Buck Stops Here we had Vivek Garg, the RTI activist, whose application actually brought this note into the public domain. He argued that it was ironically the PMO that actually responded to his application, putting what was called a secret note into the public domain. Now for all of us to debate, now if the PMO can release this information, then why should the Finance Secretary, why should the government not present it before the JPC, before the highest Parliamentary panel looking into this scam?
Salman Khurshid: Well, the Parliamentary Panel does not say will you shift your office here for the next 6 months and let us sift through every piece of paper. The Parliamentary Panel asks for something specific that explains what they are interested in examining. Now RTI may have different parameters. People may respond differently to RTI. It's quite possible that sometimes what is not necessary to be given is also given out, but that is for the person in the hot seat at that moment to take a call on. But I don't think that giving something extra, which may or may not be relevant, can't be treated as a mistake, can't be treated as inconsistent with normal practice, whatever the normal practice is, it will continue. But in some cases, because of oversight or lack of oversight or some other reason, end up giving more than what is required and so be it! I don't think that we should get into this and then try and conjure up and then conjure up all kinds of horrifying scenarios.
Barkha Dutt: Well, the horrifying scenario at the very least, Mr Khurshid, is this, that there seems to be a clear trajectory, a clear narrative that points to the fact that many members of this government, senior ministers, even the Prime Minister, looked the other way while Mr Raja pursued a policy that many people in the government were not in agreement with. And they looked the other way even when Mr Raja subverted this policy. For example NTDV has accessed file notings. These are files that were written on by the Telecom Minister on the 7th of January, 2008, where he actually quotes the Prime Minister's letter of acknowledgment and claims that this is a policy directive. He actually quotes the Prime Minister's letter to pursue the policy he wanted to. So would you at least concede that many members of your government looked the other way, while Mr Raja did exactly what he wanted to?
Salman Khurshid: I think a couple of points here need to be clarified and re-emphasised. One is that in taking a policy decision, you can often disagree. You have seen in recent months that the disagreements in Cabinet, that you have reported voluminously on your channels, there have been disagreements in sports policies, other areas, on manufacturing policy etc. Some of those disagreements are a part of the process of arriving at a consensus and a decision and if you pick up periodically, something that is said in the process of making a decision, then you can get a lot of discordant voices, but frankly this is a part of a discussion. Now a decision was ultimately taken, it is nobody's case, that no decision was taken. Ultimately a decision was taken and there is a lot of material and grounds to support the decisions of TRAI etc. Now I don't want to go into details because courts are looking into this and it will look like I am running a parallel court, trying to outbid the courts, but clearly there was a decision. Now the inputs in that decision and how many people continue to disagree with that decision is a matter that is that is totally different. It could make a good historical reading of administration, but at the end of the day a decision was taken, the implementation of that decision is another area entirely and has to be done by a ministry concerned. But the overall decision is something that the government can take responsibility for, and it is about public policy decision and I don't think that despite what all has happened in the country today they will say that the decision was wrong. There were many good things in that decision. We, today, have the lowest tariff in the world; we have the greatest density as far as mobile telephony is concerned. We wanted penetration, we didn't want revenue. These are the stated positions of that time. We may now, in hindsight, come to a different conclusion, but that is not what mattered, when we were actually looking forward and taking a decision.
Barkha Dutt: Sure, but let's separate the two strands of this debate. One is on the merits or non-merits of that particular policy, first come first serve auction. But the other is the subversion of that policy which is what A Raja was guilty of, whether it was advancing dates and favouring certain telecom companies, whether it was postponing a scheduled meeting of the Telecom Commission. All of these are subversions of a policy, so we are not debating only policy, and my question then is that even when Mr Raja was subverting the policy, was being corrupt in its implementation, the entire government, the entire Cabinet looked the other way. So isn't the entire Cabinet morally accountable?
Salman Khurshid: Well, thank you, that's a very good distinction you have made. I will be the happiest person in the country if everybody said that the policy decision cannot be questioned, and certainly can't be questioned in hindsight. But nobody is saying that, and I am not sure that has been said in court either yet. If the policy decision is not questioned and you are only talking about the implementation of the policy, then we are talking about two different things. The implementation of that policy is not done by Cabinet. Implementation is not done by the Finance Ministry, it is only the question of the revenue, the spectrum revenue that could have been decided by the Finance and the Cabinet and the Cabinet, right or wrong, but the Cabinet took a decision. Now the implementation issue, and I am not ready to concede as Law Minister sitting here, that the implementation, per se, is wrongful, illegal and therefore should lead to conviction on corruption. That's for the courts to decide. All I can say is that issues related to implementation are totally different from issues of policy making itself. People have been telescoping both these and that is how attempts have been made to drag Mr Chidambaram's name into it.
Barkha Dutt: Alright, but let's come back to the issue of this note, the note sent by Mr Pranab Mukherjee's ministry. Many bureaucrats, including the former Cabinet Secretary have argued on our Channel, that when the government turns around and says that this is a note written by a junior bureaucrat, that the fact that the Finance Minister has seen the note is not the same as the Finance Minister approving the note, they're obfuscating facts that this, in effect, is the formal opinion of the Finance Ministry. There are now details emerging that the former Cabinet Secretary sat in on the meetings that actually presented this note. And the fact, Mr Khurshid, is that Mr Pranab Mukherjee has not disowned the note. Whose opinion does this note represent according to you?
Salman Khurshid: Mr Pranab Mukherjee has not taken a position as far as media is concerned, has not said to you what his position is on the note. Would it be fair for me to say that his position should be as follows? Not fair. Let Mr Pranab Mukherjee reflect, talk to his officials, his colleagues and then take a position, if at all he wants to take a position. I know as a Minister that there is difference between a letter written by the Minister himself and a letter written, saying that this is issued with the approval of the Minister, a letter written at the level of the Secretary saying has discussed with the Minister and lot of routine documents, summaries etc. that are done at the lower level, where it is taken that these are not going without being a part of the system and that is that it is seen by the Minister. Now whether it is seen vicariously or it is seen directly, these are issues that you can argue about. But today the issue is not whether it was approved, not approved, seen or not seen. The issue is that assuming that all that is in the note is correct the inference that is drawn, is that warranted? Is it an inference that is fatal or in any way a dramatic question mark on the government?
Barkha Dutt: Would you at least concede that when your government at this time seems to be at war with itself, when two of its most senior ministers are fighting, in a way that there is now an impression that the school masters, the Congress President, and Dr Manmohan Singh have to intervene, to almost take apart two wrestling kids in a pit as it were, that this is not good for the image of a government that wants to convey that it has a central authority, and an authority that anybody listens to?
Salman Khurshid: I think that this whole issue of a war and a battle between Ministers is of a make-believe world. Frankly, there is no war, no battle and no major disagreement. There can be minor differences of preferences, priority and perception, but that happens even in your newsroom and you change people around when you think the news is not going in the right direction. Why does the government reshuffle? Because you want to fine tune how you are going to approach problems, how are going you to take some priority and take it forward? One may do it in one way, another Minister in another way, but this is not war. If there is any such impression then it's not fair on us. If we need to give a clear impression, I am giving you a clear impression. I have met all, Chidambaram, Pranab etc. We will call upon the Prime Minister also. We have the best of cordial relations and whenever there is a discordant note we put our heads together and solve it.
Barkha Dutt: Well you spoke about newsrooms. They are certainly argumentative places, Mr Khurshid, we concede that. But when it comes to government, there is a sense, as we have been saying, of serious dissidence. My last question since you insist there isn't any, will we, once the Prime Minister has been through meeting you all, see perhaps a united statement on this issue coming from the government, on behalf of the entire government?
Salman Khurshid: I am sure that if you are willing to listen and accept, you will get that message from us.
Barkha Dutt: Salman Khurshid, thank you for your time. On the programme, Salman Khurshid, continuing to assert that the perception of a war between two of the senior-most ministers is a media narrative and that once the PM has been through a series of meetings there with the top leadership, we will be hearing, on behalf of the government, batting behind Mr Chidambaram, and basically making the point, that not too much should be made of that fact that this particular note by Pranab Mukherjee was not presented before the JPC, as the Parliamentary panel gets ready to summon the Finance Secretary all over again tomorrow, to ask him why the note was not placed before the panel.
Here's the full text of his interview.
Barkha Dutt: Mr Khurshid thanks for your time on the programme today. Let me start by asking you, you are among the ministers who have consistently made the argument, that the note sent by Pranab Mukherjee's ministry, which talks about Mr Chidambaram not having done enough to prevent Mr Raja and the telecom scam, is in a sense a media creation. You have been driving home that point, but how do you answer the very serious charges raised by the Parliamentary Panel today, that this was the note that should have been presented before it?
Salman Khurshid: Well I don't know, I am not going to comment on JPC procedures or demands made by members, that would amount to breach of Parliamentary privilege, but what I can understand in a common sense way is that you produce a, whatever is available with you by the way of decision making. This is a summary. There may be many, many summaries of what is happening, to assist people within the government, to take coordinated and consistent positions. So, if somebody says why didn't you make a summary, or why didn't you produce a note etc. I would imagine it is a little bit excessive. But frankly, it's their procedure and decision. It's not for me to comment on it.
Barkha Dutt: You are saying that you won't comment on it, but the fact is that on The Buck Stops Here we had Vivek Garg, the RTI activist, whose application actually brought this note into the public domain. He argued that it was ironically the PMO that actually responded to his application, putting what was called a secret note into the public domain. Now for all of us to debate, now if the PMO can release this information, then why should the Finance Secretary, why should the government not present it before the JPC, before the highest Parliamentary panel looking into this scam?
Salman Khurshid: Well, the Parliamentary Panel does not say will you shift your office here for the next 6 months and let us sift through every piece of paper. The Parliamentary Panel asks for something specific that explains what they are interested in examining. Now RTI may have different parameters. People may respond differently to RTI. It's quite possible that sometimes what is not necessary to be given is also given out, but that is for the person in the hot seat at that moment to take a call on. But I don't think that giving something extra, which may or may not be relevant, can't be treated as a mistake, can't be treated as inconsistent with normal practice, whatever the normal practice is, it will continue. But in some cases, because of oversight or lack of oversight or some other reason, end up giving more than what is required and so be it! I don't think that we should get into this and then try and conjure up and then conjure up all kinds of horrifying scenarios.
Barkha Dutt: Well, the horrifying scenario at the very least, Mr Khurshid, is this, that there seems to be a clear trajectory, a clear narrative that points to the fact that many members of this government, senior ministers, even the Prime Minister, looked the other way while Mr Raja pursued a policy that many people in the government were not in agreement with. And they looked the other way even when Mr Raja subverted this policy. For example NTDV has accessed file notings. These are files that were written on by the Telecom Minister on the 7th of January, 2008, where he actually quotes the Prime Minister's letter of acknowledgment and claims that this is a policy directive. He actually quotes the Prime Minister's letter to pursue the policy he wanted to. So would you at least concede that many members of your government looked the other way, while Mr Raja did exactly what he wanted to?
Salman Khurshid: I think a couple of points here need to be clarified and re-emphasised. One is that in taking a policy decision, you can often disagree. You have seen in recent months that the disagreements in Cabinet, that you have reported voluminously on your channels, there have been disagreements in sports policies, other areas, on manufacturing policy etc. Some of those disagreements are a part of the process of arriving at a consensus and a decision and if you pick up periodically, something that is said in the process of making a decision, then you can get a lot of discordant voices, but frankly this is a part of a discussion. Now a decision was ultimately taken, it is nobody's case, that no decision was taken. Ultimately a decision was taken and there is a lot of material and grounds to support the decisions of TRAI etc. Now I don't want to go into details because courts are looking into this and it will look like I am running a parallel court, trying to outbid the courts, but clearly there was a decision. Now the inputs in that decision and how many people continue to disagree with that decision is a matter that is that is totally different. It could make a good historical reading of administration, but at the end of the day a decision was taken, the implementation of that decision is another area entirely and has to be done by a ministry concerned. But the overall decision is something that the government can take responsibility for, and it is about public policy decision and I don't think that despite what all has happened in the country today they will say that the decision was wrong. There were many good things in that decision. We, today, have the lowest tariff in the world; we have the greatest density as far as mobile telephony is concerned. We wanted penetration, we didn't want revenue. These are the stated positions of that time. We may now, in hindsight, come to a different conclusion, but that is not what mattered, when we were actually looking forward and taking a decision.
Barkha Dutt: Sure, but let's separate the two strands of this debate. One is on the merits or non-merits of that particular policy, first come first serve auction. But the other is the subversion of that policy which is what A Raja was guilty of, whether it was advancing dates and favouring certain telecom companies, whether it was postponing a scheduled meeting of the Telecom Commission. All of these are subversions of a policy, so we are not debating only policy, and my question then is that even when Mr Raja was subverting the policy, was being corrupt in its implementation, the entire government, the entire Cabinet looked the other way. So isn't the entire Cabinet morally accountable?
Salman Khurshid: Well, thank you, that's a very good distinction you have made. I will be the happiest person in the country if everybody said that the policy decision cannot be questioned, and certainly can't be questioned in hindsight. But nobody is saying that, and I am not sure that has been said in court either yet. If the policy decision is not questioned and you are only talking about the implementation of the policy, then we are talking about two different things. The implementation of that policy is not done by Cabinet. Implementation is not done by the Finance Ministry, it is only the question of the revenue, the spectrum revenue that could have been decided by the Finance and the Cabinet and the Cabinet, right or wrong, but the Cabinet took a decision. Now the implementation issue, and I am not ready to concede as Law Minister sitting here, that the implementation, per se, is wrongful, illegal and therefore should lead to conviction on corruption. That's for the courts to decide. All I can say is that issues related to implementation are totally different from issues of policy making itself. People have been telescoping both these and that is how attempts have been made to drag Mr Chidambaram's name into it.
Barkha Dutt: Alright, but let's come back to the issue of this note, the note sent by Mr Pranab Mukherjee's ministry. Many bureaucrats, including the former Cabinet Secretary have argued on our Channel, that when the government turns around and says that this is a note written by a junior bureaucrat, that the fact that the Finance Minister has seen the note is not the same as the Finance Minister approving the note, they're obfuscating facts that this, in effect, is the formal opinion of the Finance Ministry. There are now details emerging that the former Cabinet Secretary sat in on the meetings that actually presented this note. And the fact, Mr Khurshid, is that Mr Pranab Mukherjee has not disowned the note. Whose opinion does this note represent according to you?
Salman Khurshid: Mr Pranab Mukherjee has not taken a position as far as media is concerned, has not said to you what his position is on the note. Would it be fair for me to say that his position should be as follows? Not fair. Let Mr Pranab Mukherjee reflect, talk to his officials, his colleagues and then take a position, if at all he wants to take a position. I know as a Minister that there is difference between a letter written by the Minister himself and a letter written, saying that this is issued with the approval of the Minister, a letter written at the level of the Secretary saying has discussed with the Minister and lot of routine documents, summaries etc. that are done at the lower level, where it is taken that these are not going without being a part of the system and that is that it is seen by the Minister. Now whether it is seen vicariously or it is seen directly, these are issues that you can argue about. But today the issue is not whether it was approved, not approved, seen or not seen. The issue is that assuming that all that is in the note is correct the inference that is drawn, is that warranted? Is it an inference that is fatal or in any way a dramatic question mark on the government?
Barkha Dutt: Would you at least concede that when your government at this time seems to be at war with itself, when two of its most senior ministers are fighting, in a way that there is now an impression that the school masters, the Congress President, and Dr Manmohan Singh have to intervene, to almost take apart two wrestling kids in a pit as it were, that this is not good for the image of a government that wants to convey that it has a central authority, and an authority that anybody listens to?
Salman Khurshid: I think that this whole issue of a war and a battle between Ministers is of a make-believe world. Frankly, there is no war, no battle and no major disagreement. There can be minor differences of preferences, priority and perception, but that happens even in your newsroom and you change people around when you think the news is not going in the right direction. Why does the government reshuffle? Because you want to fine tune how you are going to approach problems, how are going you to take some priority and take it forward? One may do it in one way, another Minister in another way, but this is not war. If there is any such impression then it's not fair on us. If we need to give a clear impression, I am giving you a clear impression. I have met all, Chidambaram, Pranab etc. We will call upon the Prime Minister also. We have the best of cordial relations and whenever there is a discordant note we put our heads together and solve it.
Barkha Dutt: Well you spoke about newsrooms. They are certainly argumentative places, Mr Khurshid, we concede that. But when it comes to government, there is a sense, as we have been saying, of serious dissidence. My last question since you insist there isn't any, will we, once the Prime Minister has been through meeting you all, see perhaps a united statement on this issue coming from the government, on behalf of the entire government?
Salman Khurshid: I am sure that if you are willing to listen and accept, you will get that message from us.
Barkha Dutt: Salman Khurshid, thank you for your time. On the programme, Salman Khurshid, continuing to assert that the perception of a war between two of the senior-most ministers is a media narrative and that once the PM has been through a series of meetings there with the top leadership, we will be hearing, on behalf of the government, batting behind Mr Chidambaram, and basically making the point, that not too much should be made of that fact that this particular note by Pranab Mukherjee was not presented before the JPC, as the Parliamentary panel gets ready to summon the Finance Secretary all over again tomorrow, to ask him why the note was not placed before the panel.
No comments:
Post a Comment