The UPA government’s ambitious target of earning Rs 40,000 crore through the auction of 2G
spectrum to telecom operators has been a dismal flop. There are many reasons as to why telecom operators stuck to this well-orchestrated plan to junk the auction (see box). The concern now is how the industry scepticism will be used in the debate raging within government about the efficacy of auctions. It doesn’t help matters that the same government is facing charges of promoting crony capitalism in the allocation of natural resources. But that’s precisely why auctions should (and do) matter. Because in their absence, discretionary powers to allocate natural resources lie vested in the hands of the state—and that, most will agree, is not an ideal situation.
Earlier this year, the government had argued in the Supreme Court that auctions cannot be the sole mode in the case of natural resources. It was presenting its case with reference to the 2G spectrum allocation. Throughout the case, the government defended its act of not opting for the auction route, including in the allocation of coal blocks for power generation and other industrial use.
An SC observation in September, seemingly in adherence with the government stand, has been taken by the political leadership as an endorsement that it has the right to decide policy, and that “revenue maximisation cannot be the only way to serve the common good”. This is when the government has been facing flak for Coalgate—its non-transparent allocation of coal and other mineral blocks for captive use.
At the same time, the government cannot overlook a more recent SC stricture reprimanding the Orissa government for “blindly” favouring South Korean steelmaker Posco in the grant of a captive iron ore mine in the state. Orissa is not alone in this practice. It’s widely prevalent across the country, often leading to crony capitalism and corruption.
“The government argued contrary to its own laws, rules and policies and put up selective material before the court, leading to this kind of opinion,” says lawyer Sudiep Shrivastava, who has been closely following the debate on auctions. Shrivastava points out that contrary to the government defence, the nomenclatures ‘tender’, ‘auction’ and ‘competitive bidding’ are routinely used to signify the same action. A closer look reveals that an auction is not merely a revenue maximising tool. On the contrary, a well-designed auction process can be a tool to achieve the objective of ‘common good’.
Consider, for instance, a new amendment made in the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation (MMDR) Act for auction of coal and lignite blocks. It has adopted the mode of tariff bidding for the auction of coal blocks to producers at ultra mega power projects (UMPP) in Sasan, MP, and Tillayaa, Jharkhand. These UMPPs were awarded to bidders on the basis of the lowest electricity price they would charge state utilities.
In short, when the government is the procurer it goes for the lowest price, but when it is the seller then it goes for the highest price. “It is lazy thinking to say that auctions will increase the price because UMPP has shown that auction can minimise price but maximise public good,” says Shailesh Pathak, president of Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. “Even otherwise, the government should look more at public good rather than revenue maximisation,” he adds.
Here, the revenue stream can be direct or indirect, through services or better facilities to people. For instance, hydel power project sites are often auctioned by Chhattisgarh after ensuring that it gets a minimum of 12 per cent of power produced free of cost and part of the remainder at the lowest possible tariff for its development plans.
The problem comes when the government pursues half-baked policies or tweaks them to suit private sector demands. Thus you have cases where the government starts off by inviting a tender for best price discovery—be it for leasing out land for infrastructure projects or if it opts for indirect returns like cheaper power or accessible and affordable health services—but ends up arbitrarily awarding the contract to a company of its choice. This is often accomplished by setting conditions that qualify one particular entity.
“There are very many modes of competitive bidding. Auction is one of them, as is tendering,” says Abhijit Bhaumik, director at Opus Advisory Finance. He says the government plea that auctions can only be used for revenue maximisation is flawed just as “MoU cannot be the mechanism of giving out natural resources particularly in cases where it is not controlling the price of the end use of the product from natural resources”.
Experts cite the case of coal blocks allocated for captive use of steel and cement industries without the government having any say in the price of the final product, including in its own projects. While the central government has been shying away from adopting the auction route for allocating natural resources, several states like Madhya Pradesh have gone beyond coal to auction off even solar power sites.
“Clearly, auction has to be the preferred route unless special circumstances necessitate departure from the routine. But you have to spell out the circumstances for the exception; ensure that the beneficiary uses the resources well; and create a mechanism to ensure that benefits reach the preferred targets,” says former cabinet secretary T.S.R. Subramanian. The argument that auctions are an expensive process is complete hogwash, adds Subramanian.
Pradeep S. Mehta, secretary general of CUTS International, argues that while auctions may not always be necessary, they are “certainly a good option”. The question then remains: why is the government clouding over the issue, forgetting public good when allocating natural resources? Why can’t India have a policy similar to NELP for all extractive industries (of course with greater accountability)? The poor showing in the 2G auction only increases the need to find some answers.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
The tepid response has everything to do with the stretched balance sheets of the telecom companies and slender profits. It is no indictment of the auction principle.
Auctions are bad for corrupt monopolies - govt. and private.
The easiest way to hoodwink the public is to stop auctions fully, even though corruption can still thrive in semi-auctions - as Kanimozhi proved.
It looks as if the government didn't want the 2G auction to succeed and fetch the targeted revenue. And hence the related decisions were finalised by them accordingly. Moreover, post-auction, few senior central ministers were reportedly seen in a celebration mode instead of analaying the causes of auction's failure. It appeared as if they have achieved the target of questioning the CAG's wisdom who had advised earlier a far higher anticipated value of the 2G spectrum. Further, the possibility of a carterlisation among the bidders cannot be ruled out.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT