Letters: Why 2G doesn't add up

There are many worrying and incomprehensible points in the editorial “Mr Sibal’s arithmetic” (January 10). The analogy of toll roads is entirely misplaced because you are confusing toll road consumers “who pay for it and make use of it” with operators of the mobile telephony business who acquired spectrum through a first come, first served process, rather than open and transparent auctions. The operator (telecom) versus consumer (roads) example is an apples and oranges comparison.

It is also worrying that you believe with up to seven operators in every circle before the 2G scam began, and 14 today, the incumbents enjoy “oligopolistic privileges”. Even by global standards (in which India is usually weak), the telecom sector represents the most fiercely competitive arena representing near-perfect competition, which is the farthest economic concept from your conclusion of oligopolistic privileges.

Your point about the issue being related to flawed spectrum allocation, and not a loss to the exchequer, is also misplaced. These two are completely linked, since the exchequer’s loss is the result of an illegal and arbitrary process of allocating a scarce national resource of tremendous value (as demonstrated by the 3G auction), by manipulating rules and cherry-picking the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India recommendations. The loss is a consequence of the illegal allocation of spectrum and profiteering by private companies, and not an occurrence by itself.

Finally, if you believe that Mr Raja did something wrong, but it did not result in a loss (since Sibal is correct), then what wrong did he do? At best, he indulged in an academic exercise with imperfect results with no question of criminal conspiracy or procedural impropriety. The conclusion of no loss would immediately mean quashing the Central Bureau of Investigation’s FIR and cancelling the Supreme Court-monitored investigation since, according to your edit and Mr Sibal, the exchequer didn’t lose and, consequently, private companies didn’t gain, so the consumer benefited and, therefore, there is no victim. What is the need for an investigation — that too monitored by the Supreme Court? There’s no crime, so no criminals. Then why any investigation?

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, 
Member of Parliament, on email