It may be recalled that in 2018, Andimuthu Raja, former telecom minister who was acquitted in the 2G scam trial, alleged in his book ‘2G Saga Unfolds’ that the entire episode was an attempt by the opposition to bring down the UPA II, in which former CAG Vinod Rai was complicit.Reacting to the same, chief Congress spokesperson Randeep Surjewala had told The Print:The entire 2G scam was based on malicious slander and manufactured lies. It raises serious questions about the role played by the then Comptroller and Auditor General Vinod Rai, the efficacy of his report and its intent.The presumptive loss theory was neither used before, nor thereafter, as a benchmark for calculations made by the Comptroller’s office. The report was considered so unreliable that the CBI never consulted it while prosecuting in the case.The entire conspiracy of falsehood is evident because of three things.One, Rai said there was presumtive loss of Rs 1.76 lakh crore. Later, his deputy, R.P. Singh claimed that the loss was Rs 2,645 crore only, and that he was forced to inflate figures. The CBI said the loss was Rs 30,984 crore. Then, the SC-monitored CBI came to the conclusion that there was no scam or loss. This itself tells the story of a sinister conspiracy.Two, using this presumptive loss theory of the CAG, Parliament was held to ransom by the BJP. The only beneficiaries of this manufactured set of lies was Narendra Modi, and the two leaders of the opposition at that point, Arun Jaitley and Sushma Swaraj. This clearly indicates who benefited politically from this conspiracy to tarnish images, soil reputations, and bring disrepute to the entire country.Thirdly, the present government rewarded Rai by appointing him the Chairman of the Bank Bureau. Conclusions now need to be drawn by every sane person to realise who the kingpin of this entire conspiracy was. It is left to the wisdom of the people to draw appropriate conclusions in view of the court verdict.Arvind Mayaram, former finance secretary, had said:Now that the court’s decision is here, there is nothing more to be said about the 2G scam. The court’s order is clear and detailed.When the scam happened, I was the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, looking after telecommunication. The Ministry of Finance recommended that it would be better to auction the entire spectrum. As the Finance Ministry, we had a bias towards revenue maximisation.However, the Telecommunications Ministry believed that it would be better to continue with the first-come-first-serve basis, which had been the practice since the allocation of the first spectrum in 2001 in larger public interest.This was a policy choice made by the government. The guiding principle was that the greatest number of people should benefit from it. In the late 1990s, incoming phone calls would cost Rs 19/minute. Hardly anyone had a cell phone. After the Vajpayee government introduced it, revenue sharing telecommunication services spread rapidly among all classes. That was policy choice then. In fact, the first-come-first-serve principle was introduced during that period.We must understand this clearly, that in the end, the auction money that was recovered from the operators by the government was obviously to be recovered by from the consumer.While making policy choices the government can either maximise revenue or maximise the benefit to people. It was considered to be in the interest of the people that the first-come-first-serve policy was implemented.Auditors do not have the authority to challenge policy decisions made by the government. They can comment on whether it is fully followed or not, but cannot tell the government how to make policy. The CAG office—I will not name particular people—overreached in the 2G case.This adversely affected the economy. The government went into litigation with several foreign companies. The banking sector is still reeling under the impact of the 2G scam. Most of all, the reputation of the country was in shambles. To foreign investors, it seemed like India was a banana republic, where decisions made by the government can be challenged by anybody. The credibility of the country was being questioned.The CAG, in my opinion, should not have stepped into the realm of the executive. Whenever any institution, the CAG, or the judiciary, steps into the realm of the executive, a messy situation arises. That’s what the 2G case became, a very messy situation.
Source link
