)
Former telecom minister Kapil Sibal tells Aditi Phadnis the UPA government made mistakes but never undermined institutions.
There are a multitude of problems in the telecom sector. As the former telecom minister, how do you think the government is handling the sector?
This is such an important sector. All this while there has been no Trai (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) chairman. But that's par for the course: Look at CSIR (Council of Scientific & Industrial Research) - no secretaries, no heads. You can't run governments without the highest authority being in place.
The telecom sector is going through the most difficult time. Take, for example, the problems between BSNL (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited) and MTNL (Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited). There was a time when their merger could have taken place and the company survived. But today, given the financial situation, that is not possible. So what have they been doing for the last one year? MTNL is running at such a huge loss that ultimately the government will say, "All right, let's palm it off to the private sector."
There's no policy on the sharing of spectrum. We had a vision for 2020 and we had some policy prescriptions. What do they have?
Look at the call drops that are taking place. The government patted itself on the back saying, "We have earned so much revenue". But what's come out of it ? After all, the telecom sector is not for the government to earn revenue; it is for the consumer to get efficient service at a reasonable price. The service is extremely inefficient. The government keeps on talking about why the calls are dropping. They know why the calls are dropping.
Why are the calls dropping?
For the simple reason that there's not enough spectrum. When there is too much density and not enough broadband capacity, the system will be inefficient. And then, for environmental reasons, you don't want towers…
Isn't that the problem? That there aren't enough towers and telecom companies don't want to invest in alternatives?
No, that's not the real problem. The real problem is that there's not enough spectrum. Because if there was enough spectrum, you wouldn't need so many towers.
Despite the shortage of spectrum, there are so many companies that are going to roll out 4G. Does that mean 3G will become less efficient?
No, the question we have to ask is how many people would be able to afford 4G. And today what we're seeing in the telecom sector is that data has taken centre stage. The more the consumer uses data, the more difficult it is for companies to deal with it because of lack of capacity. So either there has to be another policy prescription - for example pooling of spectrum - or something by which anybody can use spectrum at any given point in time.
The point is what are the thoughts of the government. You can't just keep sending notices to private companies asking why their calls are dropping.
But you have to concede that towers are a problem…
Towers are a problem because there isn't enough spectrum. Add to that is this auctioning business. Take China. The entry level in China is much lower. If you start auctioning everything and people have to compete with each other to buy spectrum at prices they cannot afford, ultimately what will happen? No investment will go into that sector…
So you are not in favour of auctions…
I'm not saying I'm not in favour of auction. I'm merely saying that you need to think about these issues. You can't follow the herd mentality and say, "Okay once the auctions are done, my life is made." The government gets a lot of money. I can pat myself on the back and say, "All the problems of the telecom sector are over." This is no way for governments to run. You must catch the bull by the horns, assess the issues, see what you need to do… and, if you've auctioned it, fine. But make sure the industry invests.
The latest controversy is this business of shutting websites down. You faced a somewhat similar situation in 2011.
I never shut down any website.
Well, it was 2011, and a hate speech was made in Jammu and Kashmir and you said…
One second. I never shut down any website. Ever. You can check your records for that. No 2, I only said the service providers and network providers must be concerned about certain things that are on the web, which might cause problems with respect to communities. And I requested the networks to address that issue.
So what should the government do about child pornography?
This is a global issue. And globally everybody has accepted the view that child pornography must be blocked.
But those who run these services say that then all pornography must be banned…
Why? In other countries that's not the case. If service providers can't find a solution then solutions have to be found. In this day and age when governments say there is no right to privacy, I think we have a problem on our hands.
Which brings us to the right to privacy issue and Aadhaar that the Supreme Court is currently hearing…
Not just Aadhaar, also blocking of websites. After all, if I watch something in the privacy of my house, why should they block it? This is actually directly related to the right to privacy.
But pornography exploits and demeans women…
No, we are not on the morality of it. The State cannot become the moral arbiter for citizens of this country. Morality of individuals cannot be circumscribed by the state. I cannot be monitored by the State; I should not be monitored by the State.
But the State pretty much monitors everything else, so how can you allow monitoring in some areas and then say it should not monitor others, especially when the question involved is a woman's right to dignity?
It should not. Why should the State monitor ? The State should get out of our system - leave us alone.
I didn't see the Congress doing too much to curtail the interference of the State…
We never interfered in who should be the FTII (Film and Television Institute of India) chairman. We never interfered in who should be appointed vice-chancellors. We never used to interfere in art exhibitions. We never used to talk about Ghar Wapsi. Or Love Jihad. These are concepts that have mushroomed now big time.
There are other issues relating to the law and the State, including appointment of judges. Your government had suggested the National Judicial Appointments Commission…
We had, yes, because we believed that the present collegium system was not the best way to appoint judges. But we never gave any veto power to the government. If you really look at this government and the manner in which it is intruding into every institution and manning them with people of a certain ideology…
But Mr Sibal, you set up totally illegally, a parallel system called the National Advisory Council, which was actually funded by the State. Why should I be made to pay for something…
That is a separate issue altogether. I'm talking about another issue. What I'm saying is this is a government that intrudes into every institution and mans it with people of a certain mindset. That never happened during the time of the Congress.
Oh please…
No, it's true. When I appointed vice-chancellors of universities or directors of IITs (Indian Institute of Technology) did I appoint people with a particular mindset? When I filled up positions in the human resource development ministry did I fill them up with people of a particular mindset?
The entire controversy over the undermining of the autonomy of the IIMs blew up during the UPA regime - the appointment of director of IIM, who should appoint him, who should sack him…
You are completely wrong. Please ask the IIM professors and directors if I ever interfered in the appointment process. Ask any member of the IIT council if I ever interfered. My government never directed me to appoint anybody. I can say that with honesty and confidence. Nobody ever asked me. We would have a search committee of eminent people, they would give recommendations: if these were in order of priority we would accept them; if not, we would pick one of them. But we never went outside the system. We didn't pick anybody from outside. And we never instructed anyone - that you must send these names. You can say that a person appointed by us was not the best person. I concede that. But you cannot say that we had an agenda in appointing people.
In hindsight, do you concede that the UPA government made mistakes? On telecom; on issues of taxation…
Of course, of course! Governments do make mistakes and the UPA was not an exception. But we did not manipulate people. We were not authoritarian in our outlook.
But you were inaccessible. The Prime Minister addressed all of two press conferences in 10 years and the Congress President never gave an interview.
Don't talk about one or two people; talk about the government as a whole. Anybody could walk into our offices. We would answer questions as candidly and openly as possible without questioning the antecedents of the reporter. Here no information gets out. And posts such as the information commissioners are not even appointed. The result is RTI applications are piled up, information is not coming out and people are asking questions but getting no answers.
On tax policies, the mistakes were begun by your government and seem to be continued by this government…
The fact is, yes, we did make mistakes. There's no doubt about that. And we paid for it! But their mistakes are far more.
