‘Neither BJP nor Congress wants a discussion (on coal allocation). Because many skeletons from many cupboards are going to tumble out’

The difference is that in the 2G case,it was quite clear that there had been very clear-cut violation of norms whereby the first-cum-first-serve policy was implemented. Changes were made after the announcement of the first-cum-first-serve decision and people were asked to deposit money. Everything was done in a manner that pointed to large-scale sleaze. Secondly,this was confirmed the moment two companies had offloaded their shares or expanded at a very high price after they got the licence. That in itself showed that the market value (of spectrum) was much higher and the private companies who got the licences were making money that should have gone to the government. In the coal scam,a major share of the windfall profits the private companies have made should have gone to the government—that is what CAG says. However,of the allocations made thus far,none of those allottees have actually sold out the allocations and made money out of the allocations.

For more videos on The Idea Exchange event log on to YouTube.

We see the coal block allocation process as being a backdoor privatisation of your nationalised coal reserves. The argument put forth in 1993 when the law (Coal Mines [Nationalisation Act) was amended—which we opposed then—was that iron ore had not been nationalised,that you had private steel factories and private cement factories and private fertilisers factories which required power. They required coal to produce that power and therefore,you gave them captive coal mines. This was the logic at the time. After the law came into existence,the question arose as to who will allocate this coal? The states have their rights over their raw material. The Centre amended the law so that they could allocate these coal blocks. So how does this work between the Centre and the state? States,like our state government in West Bengal,had said that if you must lease out these mines as captive mines,then you don’t do it from the Centre.

There was a question of royalties too. The Centre was paying Rs 16 a tonne as royalty when coal is selling for more than Rs 1,600 a tonne. We have been saying that this royalty should be increased,not in terms of bargaining between the Centre and the state,but like you have for crude oil,you fix it to an international index and say that a certain percentage of it will go to the state. Our government in West Bengal wanted 20 coal blocks for the West Bengal Mineral and Trading Corporation. We were given 6 and 14 were allocated to private companies in West Bengal. The Act was amended in 1993 when Narasimha Rao was Prime Minister and all subsequent governments continued the same practice. Under NDA,large allocations were made as well as under the UPA government. So,the PM is responsible because he headed the portfolio after Shibu Soren’s ouster and when the allocations were made. We are saying the PM must answer how these allocations were made. When the dispute was going on between the Centre and the states on nationalised resources versus private resource,the decision was taken to set up a steering committee under the Ministry of Coal which would be inter-ministerial and would also involve state representatives. This was decided under UPA-I— we had a role to play in that. But to date,the modus operandi of how these allocations are to be made has not been defined.

We wanted an informed discussion in the House for these systemic changes to emerge. But we are fairly certain that neither the BJP nor the Congress wants a discussion. Because if you have this discussion,many skeletons from many cupboards are going to tumble out. So,it is convenient that BJP demands the resignation of the PM and not have a discussion—it suits both of them.

Congress is not taking the initiative to break the logjam in Parliament. On the first day,I had suggested to the PM that he should call the leaders of Opposition of both the Houses and talk over a cup of tea. First,the PM refused,then the BJP refused. Even at this stage,we are saying you can salvage the last week of this parliamentary session. Let the government announce a cancellation of licences and agree to take a fresh look at everything. Order a probe,identify the people or the issues that need to be corrected. Simultaneously,announce an increase in the royalty to the states. If they unilaterally take these measures,BJP will find it very difficult to continue its disruption and boycott.

Amitabh Sinha: What is your assessment of the three recent CAG reports—on coal,airports and Reliance Power? Is CAG’s assertion of itself a positive move?

That such constitutional authorities are expressing themselves is a sign of the maturation of our democracy. The Election Commission has come of age and is much more assertive,which has helped our system. CAG’s role is good for the country because it poses many issues before the legislature for correction. What they are doing is auditing,not just an audit of accounts but also an audit of performance and audit of policy. It is wrong to say CAG doesn’t have the right to pronounce on policy matters. The prerogative to make policy decisions is with the executive. But they (CAG) can opine. That they are opining on these matters and bringing out certain issues of governance,certain lapses in governance is a good thing. Whether they are correct or wrong is for the legislature to decide. Take this issue of the UDF (user development fee) at airports. As Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee that includes civil aviation,we have examined these issues and given our reports. What CAG has said is not very different from what we said. In the three reports,CAG has pointed out certain serious lapses in governance. The PM has hinted that CAG is going beyond its brief. I don’t think so. Even if they do,if it is in the interest of the country,we should take it in that spirit.

Maneesh Chhibber: The Left,TDP and Samajwadi Party have joined hands against the Congress on CAG’s coal report. Can you trust the Samajwadi Party?

As of today,on this issue,they have said that they agree with our demands that the licences should be cancelled,that there should be a probe to break the logjam. We are also talking to the Biju Janata Dal and the AIADMK.

D K Singh: What is your stand on the auction of natural resources?

What is the idea behind an auction? The idea of using national resources for national development and for meeting people’s needs. Why did you nationalise coal? You nationalised it because you are committed to giving power to your people. In 1993,after the amended Act came into effect,we said that all the allocations should be made through public sector undertakings of the state government. We said that if you want auction to be the method,then the public sector organisations will lose out. They have been vested with the responsibility of providing power to the people. We said,set aside the amount of coal they need to discharge their responsibilities of providing power. The rest,you auction. We have said clearly that there is no dispute that auction through a transparent manner is the best way to allocate resources. But keep your national priorities in mind.

Coal is a national asset. You have given the licence to mine it to certain individuals. They don’t own the coal. But these people are taking the licence as the ownership of the value of coal that they hold. With that in hand,they go to public sector banks and say,‘this is my ownership,this is my asset and give me loans on the basis of this asset’. They have already raked in the profits. Why can’t the government,by law,say that this cannot go into the consideration of asset value of a company?

Ranjita Ojha (student,EXIMS): Chidambaram had said,‘If the coal remains buried in ‘Mother Earth’,where is the loss?’

You say this mine is under Mother Earth,the resource is there in Mother Earth,it has not been mined. But you have given the right to mine it to somebody. It is like transferring money into my account: I may have not withdrawn it but the money is mine,not yours. That is what has happened. We are saying,let it (coal) remain under the sacred Mother Earth and let us have control over it.

Dilip Bobb: If you cancel all the licences and have a probe by a Supreme Court judge or the equivalent,isn’t that going to create another crisis of shortage of coal?

We have to go through a process if you really want to help the system. Look at the larger picture. What you are building is crony capitalism. The 2G spectrum scam,the CWG contracts,the mining licences—these are sweetheart deals. Where is proper economic growth happening even through principles of capitalism? Where are your proper guidelines? Your regulation mechanism?

Y P Rajesh: Do you accept this concept of windfall gain and presumed loss?

Windfall gain,I do accept. That can happen for a variety of reasons. You have a lot of speculation in the commodity market and you will have a sudden rise in the price of oil. So,oil importers will lose out but because of fluctuations internationally,there could be windfall profits. But presumptive losses are losses that you presume could be prevented and there there is a certain subjective element in this.

Abantika Ghosh: Has Team Anna’s move from being a political movement to a political party compromised their credibility?

Everyone is eventually political and I’m glad they recognised that. They were playing a very political role and now they are openly coming into politics,which,in a democracy,is a very good thing.

Samarth Chawla (student,Birla Vidya Niketan School,New Delhi): What is your view on Internet censorship? Is it an encroachment of our right to freedom of speech or is it a necessary exercise to control a powerful medium?

The right to expression,the right to communication,the right to disseminate ideas should not be curtailed at all. But the abuse of that right—to defame,to create problems for somebody else—these are issues that need to be checked. It is extremely difficult to draw that line but it has to be drawn. The parliamentary committee on information technology is discussing the matter but we need a balance between not curtailing the right to freedom of expression while not allowing the abuse of this right.

Vandita Mishra: Who should draw the line? The social media,the government or an industry body?

Ideally,it should be self-regulation but self-regulation never works,whether it is the financial markets or the media. I honestly don’t have a definite opinion on who should be drawing the line but it has to be done.

D K Singh: Do you see elections in 2013?

No,I don’t see elections in 2013. Whether there will be mid-term elections or not depends on the M3: Mulayam,Mayawati and Mamata. Neither the BJP nor the Left is relevant to this calculation. Those three are supporting this coalition so it continues. When will they stop supporting it,we don’t know.

Shekhar Gupta: Do you think Mamata Banerjee is now on the rise,decline or plateauing?

Plateauing right now. In urban areas,there is a very sharp decline (in her popularity),but in rural areas,it will take a lot more time for things to change.

Shekhar Gupta: Is V S Achuthanandan like English cricketer Kevin Pietersen? He will win you a match but he will divide your team?

As long as he is winning us the match! At the moment,we do not have the kind of problems we used to have in Kerala. Between Achuthanandan and the other sections,there is no factionalism—they are now working together. The differences seem to have been resolved.

Vandita Mishra: UPA-II did not have a coordination mechanism till very recently. In 2004,you were on the outside but still there was a plethora of coordination committees. How difficult was it to get the Congress to commit to a regular institutionalised mechanism?

In UPA-I,it wasn’t very difficult. Such mechanism will be easier when you have a structure. UPA had a structure called the common minimum programme. The moment you have that structure,then coordination,discussions around that particular agenda become easier to execute. UPA-II does not have that structure. There is no common minimum programme or no programme at all for this government to follow.

Deepak (student,Exims): As the 2014 elections approach,according to you,which party has the best chance of winning?

None of them. What the people want and what the country needs is an alternative policy trajectory. Many parties are thinking about it. Which combination of parties will be able to provide it,that has not been worked out yet. The tradition is that once in every 10 years,you have a Third Front government.

Transcribed by Jayant Sriram and Aditi Vatsa