Member of Parliament, industrialist and a former telecom entrepreneur, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, has accused Ratan Tata of speaking inconsistently and in two voices over three critical issues - out-of-turn allocation of spectrum; hoarding of spectrum by incumbent operators; and flip-flop of policy of the telecom ministry.
Said the former entrepreneur who headed the BPL group's telecom wing: "I sympathize with your concern about public-policy making in our country sometimes resembling that of a Banana Republic. But the forces behind this are helped considerably by the fact that people with power and influence remain silent and passive spectators to this. So many including I would have welcomed your intervention much earlier, as in the case of the alleged bribing offer 15 years ago, of Rs 15 crore that you referred to only recently. You will agree that speaking out against corruption is most effective when it is happening and not decades or years later. Because then it becomes an intellectual post mortem, and not active resistance".
While applauding the role played by Ratan Tata and the Tata Group in upholding values, Chandrasekhar has also not minced words when it came to double-speak on the three issues pointed out earlier.
According to the CAG Report, the potential loss to the Exchequer on account of dual technology licenses at 3G rates is Rs. 37,154 crore. By virtue of dual technology - according to the CAG - Chandrasekhar says the Tata Group has caused a loss to the Exchequer to the tune of approx Rs. 19074.8 crore.
"But it is not just this. It is a fact that the Tata Group is a beneficiary of out-of-turn spectrum. In fact, one of the biggest of them all. It is a fact admitted by the Government on affidavit that 575 applications were received for 2G spectrum by 01 October, 2007. Using an illegal and arbitrary cutoff date, Mr. Raja processed only 122 applications received till 25 September, 2007. 110 were rejected and 343 applications were put in abeyance. Given the fact that there is no 2G spectrum available, these applications received till 01 October, 2007 (within the date represented by the Government) have now been put in the dustbin. In fact, the TRAI had already recommended on 11 May 2010 that no more UASL license with bundled spectrum can be given. This means that these 343 applications will never be processed and will never see spectrum."
"Today, Tatas already have GSM spectrum allocated and GSM service launched in most of the circles - But the 343 applications submitted three weeks before the Tata Group have neither been processed nor have any chance of ever being processed - so much for First Come, First Serve (policy). "
"You will accept that this seems to be a case of arriving late, forming a new queue, jumping the priority and accusing others of getting priority on spectrum allocation and meets your point of out-of-turn allocation of spectrum. I am sure the 373 applicants who were rejected for no fault of theirs, will agree - while the Tata Group has sold its equity for billions of dollars to NTT Docomo based on its out-of-turn GSM allocation on dual technology policy".
Chandrasekhar says that evidence suggests that the Tatas have benefited from out-of-turn spectrum allocation. The dispute between Tatas and Reliance Comm on the allocation sequence cannot dilute the primary fact of bypassing other early applicants to this spectrum, he adds.
On hoarding of spectrum, the MP has pointed out that Tata holds spectrum both for GSM and CDMA. Tata has received CDMA and GSM spectrum at 2001 rates. So even if the hoarding charge was to apply, it would also apply to the Tatas for having maximum cumulative efficiency (CDMA and GSM) to serve the least number of subscribers amongst the incumbents.
"The charge of hoarding that you make applies equally to Tata Tele - whether it is total spectrum held, or subscribers served based on that spectrum, or price paid to acquire such spectrum, vis-à-vis the cumulative efficiency of CDMA and GSM," says the letter.
On the flip-flop policy, Chandrasekhar has jogged the memory of Tata by pointing out to the "one of the most horrific distortions of Policy" - the infamous WLL scam in 2001 - where Telecom companies with Fixed service licenses managed to muscle their way into cellular with active support of Policy makers of that time. In 2003, a convenient set of recommendations by the TRAI and Government allowed this illegality to be regularized through the UASL (Unified Access Service Licensing) policy, opening the gates to unprecedented and unique (and unheard of) First Come, First Served form of licensing - bypassing tenders that were the norm for obtaining cellular licenses till then.
Said Chandrasekhar in his letter: "Your company was the beneficiary of this 'policy flip-flop' and you chose to accept the benefits of this flip-flop at that time - despite this blatant violation and distortion. I am personally aware because I led the fight against it and remember being immensely disappointed at the Tata Group's remarkably self-serving position. Further, in one of the most mysterious and indefensible acts, Tata Group took on board as a consultant, the very individual, who as the Chairman of TRAI was the architect of this UASL and other shames".
The letter ends saying Tata's positions in the recent interviews seem to be in stark contrast with the actual conduct, performance and position of Tatas' Telecom companies in each of the three points raised.
And as a punchline, the letter wonders why "a group like Tata with its sterling character and reputation requires outside lobbyists to lobby on their behalf! That, in itself, is enough to shatter one's confidence."