The government's reaction to Vodafone CEO Sunil Sood's comment shows that the National Democratic Alliance is as thin-skinned about criticism from business and industry as past governments. Mr Sood's comments were not particularly incendiary, but they certainly hit a nerve in Sanchar Bhawan, headquarters of the ministry of communications and information technology. Asked about suggestions from the telecom minister and secretary that service providers be fined for call drops, Mr Sood said their views couldn't be considered the views of the entire government. For this, senior government officials have not only taken issue with the company but have also reportedly had "stern words" with the Cellular Operators Association of India. Expectedly, Vodafone accused the media of quoting Mr Sood out of context and then issued a craven statement to an economic daily thanking both minister and secretary for their support "in actualising the PM's dream of Digital India," employing just the kind of key words designed to mollify this regime's sensitivities. It seems that goal has not yet been achieved; it is not yet known if an appointment sought for a meeting between the minister and Vodafone Group CEO Vittorio Colao has come through.
The obvious question that flows from this contretemps is: if the views of the two senior-most representatives of the ministry concerned did not reflect the government's opinions, then whose views do? The over-reaction from Sanchar Bhawan suggests that it has chosen to infer from this statement a well-known secret: that individual ministers don't wield much power in the current dispensation and critical decision-making lies with the incumbent of 7 Race Course Road. The issue of call drops falls squarely in that ambit. It is true that Mr Sood's statement was scarcely diplomatic considering the company is in international arbitration with the government over a long-drawn tax dispute. But it would surely behove a minister of cabinet rank to ignore it.
This incident explains just why the business community chooses to pull its punches when it comes to honest comment on policy. Journalists are privy to the bizarre situation of having business leaders bitterly criticise the government off the record after Budgets are read out, only to gush praises once the cameras and recorders are switched on. It is true that most industry leaders have been behaving in this manner during the previous regimes also. That their behaviour has not changed even under the current regime is a matter of concern.
Of equal concern, it also demonstrates the extent to which the government dominates the economy nearly a quarter century after liberalisation. Telecom is, of course, a licensed industry with the government exercising a vice-like grip on the distribution of key infrastructure, spectrum. But there are scores of industries - from fast moving consumer goods to steel and automobiles - that are now broadly outside the government's purview. Yet no CEO would venture even the mildest criticism of any politician: recall the abject apology to the Gujarat government from an industry lobby when one of its members chose to condemn the 2002 riots in Gujarat. Today, for example, India Inc is deeply unhappy with the lack of progress on economic reform, but few industrialists would be heard saying so openly. The only time some business leaders openly chose to complain of "policy paralysis" was in the dying days of the United Progressive Alliance when it was clear it wasn't coming back to power. Such reticence is understandable but hardly healthy. It keeps business and industry in the perpetual role of mendicant rather than constructive partner in economic growth and precludes the government from understanding the real issues that bother them. Mr Sood's statement, for instance, is a telling remark about the limitations of centralised decision-making. Acknowledging that would be the mark of a mature government. Defensive petulance, on the other hand, scarcely enhances its image.
