Newsmaker: Sam Pitroda

Change agent

The high-profile outsider is known for his iconoclastic approach to India’s problems. But many question his effectiveness

Quick, fast, rapid... all these are words that come to mind when you think of Satyanarayan Gangaram (“Sam”) Pitroda. Everything he touches seems to attract attention, to be sure. But does it work?

As his current status suggests Pitroda’s position carries considerable power; it’s the responsibility that’s in question. He’s been celebrated as India’s telecom czar, the man who spearheaded the communication technology revolution and went on to suggest the overhauling of the education system. The Centre for Development of Telematics (C-Dot) headed by Pitroda made some important policy interventions during the Rajiv Gandhi era. This threw the telephony ball in the air and quick to grasp its potential was Sukh Ram, who as telecom minister linked up a lot of rural India and invited the private sector to join the government in developing the rural telecom sector.

But what did C-Dot really do? G B Meemamsi and Pitroda were appointed executive director and principal adviser respectively of C-Dot, created by direct orders from the Prime Minister’s Office in 1984. “C-DoT was given ‘Rupees 360 Million and 36 months’ to ‘modernise’ the national telephone system,” Meemamsi would write in his book in 1993.

The organisation of C-DoT also reflected a new emphasis on the guiding principles of the market and an “egalitarian” work culture. Pitroda got the trade unions to commit themselves to roll out wide and better telephony. He also renounced his US passport and re-embraced Indian citizenship.

But corruption charges followed. Although Pitroda was cleared of all charges, his critics said his plans for small switching exchanges in rural areas worked, but when it came to larger exchanges, he effectively acted as a supporter of western firms selling one kind of technology.

A western scholar, Paula Chakravartty of the University of Massachusetts, quoted an unnamed telecom bureaucrat in 1997: “I would hold him (Pitroda) responsible for the failure of telecom development... He’s a salesman. He had a good vision of manufacturing, but he had nil knowledge about the Indian situation.”

After Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated, Pitroda left India for the US and little was heard of him here until the United Progressive Alliance government came to power. He was appointed member of the National Knowledge Commission. He agreed with two dissenting members — Andre Beteille and Pratap Bhanu Mehta — that reservations in higher education were not warranted, but did not resign like they did.

Now he’s tangling with the telecom bureaucracy again. A committee headed by Pitroda has suggested sweeping changes in state-owned Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL). The recommendations include divestment of 30 per cent government equity in BSNL, reducing the company’s workforce by a third and cancelling the telecom equipment order for 93 million lines for GSM mobile services, replacing it with network outsourcing deals.

The question bureaucrats are asking themselves again is: what has inspired Pitroda to suggest this?

The bureaucracy has two questions: why does Pitroda always make policy interventions when a Congress-led government is in power; and why is he so aggressive only in the telecom sector?

At 65-plus, Pitroda does not appear to be in the mood to retire and, as a holder of nearly 100 patents, is keen to see the roll-out of technology that can use the mobile phone as a payment and purchase gateway — something one of his companies, C Sam, introduced in Japan and Scandinavian companies.

Pitroda’s argument is that the bureaucracy is inherently change-resistant and cannot be the harbinger of a revolution.

The bureaucracy asks, as it is taught to: what’s in it for you?

The way the BSNL story plays out might answer this question.