UPA war: Sonia steps in,talks with Pranab,Chidambaram

Chidambaram drove past waiting reporters after meeting Gandhi at her 10,Janpath residence on Monday evening.

This was Chidambaram’s first meeting with Gandhi,who is also UPA Chairperson,after controversy broke last week over the note to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) on the stand taken by him when he was Finance Minister.

Details of what transpired at this meeting were not immediately known. Gandhi met Mukherjee soon after her discussions with Chidambaram.

Mukherjee said on arrival that he would speak on the controversial 2G spectrum note only after discussions with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and other colleagues.

He told reporters at the airport that a full-fledged press conference would be held after the Prime Minister returned from his New York visit tomorrow.

He later told reporters at his North Block office,“If it is needed I will say whatever (I have) to say after Prime Minister comes back and after we have discussions among ourselves”.

Back from the US,Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee today said he would speak on the controversial 2G spectrum note only after discussions with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and senior colleagues.

In damage control mode,Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee also met Congress President Sonia Gandhi in the evening today to discuss the controversy over a recent note by his ministry that blames Home Minister P Chidambaram for not doing enough to stop former Telecom Minister A Raja in the 2G scam.

Mukherjee returned home from New York after a five-day visit to the US amid a controversy over the March 25 note of the Finance Ministry to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) which said 2G spectrum could have been auctioned if the then Finance Minister P Chidambaram had insisted on this route.

He further said: “I have spoken to the media. I have nothing to add in respect of the Finance Ministry note.”

Mukherjee met Singh in New York yesterday for an hour after which he said he would have to seek “expert opinion” on the note.

He had described Chidambaram as “our valued colleague” but made it clear that he would comment on the issue only after he talks to the Home Minister,Law Minister Salman Khurshid and other party leaders.

The Finance Minister was in Washington to attend the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

Union Home Minister P Chidambaram came under fire after a 14-page note,prepared by a senior bureaucrat in the Finance Ministry and seen by Pranab Mukherjee,suggested that Chidambaram could have acted more stridently in 2008 on the spectrum pricing issue,when he was the country’s Finance Minister.

The note,which relied heavily on technicalities,says Chidambaram could have “stuck to the stand” of an auction of the highly valuable spectrum.

The note added: “It may be mentioned that while the UAS licenses were signed between February 27 and March 7,2008,spectrum allocations were done starting only in April,2008,almost four months after the LoIs were issued. However,these were not charged (beyond the normal spectrum usage charges) since there was consensus,at the levels of the Ministers concerned,that spectrum beyond the “start up” levels only should be charged.”

The note came into the public domain under the Right to Information (RTI) Act petition filed by Vivek Garg,a prominent activist.

The telecom scam,one of India’s biggest graft cases ever,may have cost 39.57 billion dollars in revenue to the public exchequer as per the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).

Khurshid downplays 2G row involving Pranab and Chidambaram

Union Law Minister Salman Khurshid today downplayed the row over the Finance ministry note on Home Minister P Chidambaram’s stand on 2G spectrum issue,

saying there is no scope for any worry in the document and that inferences drawn out of it were “not correct”.

Khurshid also said the note was not worth keeping the media “preoccupied” for a long time.

“I have seen the note. I don’t think the note has anything on which we should express worry,” Khurshid said,amid a controversy over the stand taken by Chidambaram when he was the Finance Minister.

“Even if all parts of the note are believed to be correct,I will say that the inferences drawn are not correct,” Khurshid told reporters

Khurshid,who made it clear that he was giving opinion in his personal capacity and in the capacity of lawyer,claimed that the matter was “not so big” as has been projected by the media.

He said the media was giving unnecessary attention to the note which,according to him,had “no meaning”.

“I dont think the note should keep you (media) preoccupied for such a long time,” the Law Minister said.

To a question as to why Government was moving in “circles” with Finance ministry blaming the Prime Ministers Office for giving out the note under RTI,Khurshid replied,“if we are moving in circles,then you (media) are running on a treadmill”.

Khurshid said the note was actually a “summary” prepared by a official at the lower level.

“People give their opinion over and above the summary. The importance of the opinion will be seen when the issue is discussed,” he said.

At the AICC briefing,party spokesperson Rashid Alvi did an apparent balancing act saying neither Chidambaram nor Mukherjee had done anything wrong.

Alvi said the party supported the statement of Khurshid that even if all parts of the note are believed to be correct,“the inferences drawn are not correct”.

Khurshid had also insisted that the note was actually a “summary” and the official concerned had given his opinion over and above the summary in the note.

Alvi hit out at the BJP for alleging the embers of the 2G issue will reach the doors of the Prime Minisiter’s Office.

“ Such type of remarks of BJP are condemnable as the Prime Minister’s image is clean and he is a very competent man. I reject all the charges,” he said.

Asked whether the Congress was ‘exonerating and absolving’ the Home Minister in the issue,Alvi said: “I don’t think the Home Minister has done anything wrong. The matter is pending before court.”

“ We should wait for the decision. The matter is sub-judice. It is too early to say anything,” was his response to a volley of questions.