Has the Union government finally veered round to the view that it will accept the demand of the Opposition to set up a joint parliamentary committee (JPC) to inquire into the 2G spectrum scam in the interest of ensuring that the forthcoming budget session of Parliament proceeds smoothly? That was the impression some of those present at an all-party meeting convened by finance minister Pranab Mukherjee on February 8 had.

“The government thinks no price is higher than what would ensure smooth running of the House”, the finance minister reportedly said.
If the formation of a JPC is indeed announced after the budget session of Parliament begins on February 21, it would give the government a temporary reprieve — but only just that. For the criticism directed against Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, namely, that he chose to turn a blind eye to the corrupt practices of his erstwhile Cabinet minister Andimuthu Raja, would continue unabated. It’s a “lose-lose” situation for the incumbent regime. If it does not agree to a JPC being set up, it risks the budget session going the way of the winter session of Parliament when no legislative business was conducted. But by accepting the demand for a JPC, the government will inevitably convey the impression that it buckled under pressure from its political opponents.
Why was the Congress, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and Dr Singh in particular opposed to a JPC? As finance minister and Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Dr Singh had personally deposed before two JPCs in the 1992 Harshad Mehta scam and nine years later in the 2001 Ketan Parekh scandal, both involving stock market manipulation. He has apparently argued that if he has to appear before an all-party panel of MPs, the Opposition on both the Right and the Left would try their level best to make a spectacle, a huge tamasha out of the occasion that would not just demean him personally but also the office he holds. Opposition members of the JPC would indeed make the most out of the media attention that is bound to be given to the proceedings of such a committee.
Both the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as well as the Communists have made it clear that the budget session of Parliament may get washed out if the government does not agree to establish a JPC. The choice before the government is that if it does not set up a JPC, Mr Mukherjee will read out his Budget proposals for the coming fiscal year in a House in which the entire Opposition is absent. This would further damage the already-battered image of the government. So the UPA government is faced with a Hobson’s choice: damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Even as Dr Singh steadfastly refused to accede to the formation of a JPC, his colleagues tied themselves up into silly knots which they will now find difficult to disentangle. The ruling party’s strategy appears to be one of obfuscation — announce a new telecommunications policy after trashing the findings of a constitutional authority like the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) by pretending that nothing untoward happened and then blame past governments for their alleged misdemeanours.
The Congress is desperately hoping this strategy will work in short run, at least till the outcome of the Assembly elections in Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala and Assam is known. It also hopes the BJP government in Karnataka will get mired even deeper in corruption scandals. All of which would ensure that there are no mid-term elections even if the UPA-2 government in New Delhi remains in a state of atrophy.
There are many reasons why the government appears helpless. The manner in which the Central Vigilance Commissioner P.J. Thomas was appointed, overruling the objection of the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj, is one. The other important reason is the proactive manner in which the Supreme Court is monitoring the investigations of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
On February 10, a bench of the court asked the government to constitute a special court to exclusively deal with the second-generation spectrum cases. The bench comprising Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly emphasised that the CBI “must have a free hand to question anyone” and wondered if the agency’s “freedom is curtailed” because it was seeking short periods of remand for the accused, including Mr Raja.
The Supreme Court did not stop there but remarked that there were people who considered themselves to be above the law of the land. The judges added that the law should catch with such people and the fact that the names of certain individuals were in the Forbes’ list of millionaires should not dissuade the CBI from questioning them. Was the court, in this instance, merely referring to Shahid Usman Balwa of D.B. Etilisat (formerly Swan Telecom) or were the judges also alluding to prominent corporate captains such as Ratan Tata and Anil Ambani who head companies that have become embroiled in the spectrum scam?
The claim by the new Union communications minister Kapil Sibal that the government did not incur any loss because of the manner in which 2G spectrum was allotted in January 2008 is finding few takers. Why just the CAG, even the latest set of recommendations put out on February 9 by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India indicates that the losses, “presumptive”, “notional” — call them what you like — are stupendous, running into many tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of crores. Mr Sibal’s proposed new telecom policy has raised more questions, the most important of which is a simple one: If public auctions for allocation of spectrum are desirable now, why was it not in 2008?
Mr Sibal has the reputation of being a smart lawyer. But will his new policy result in more litigation? As for whether the Congress-Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam alliance will continue in the run-up to the Assembly elections in Tamil Nadu scheduled for April-May, your guess would be as good as mine.

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta is an educator and commentator