The UPA government, headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, appears to suffer withdrawal symptoms if even a month passes without having to deal with a serious political crisis. Consequently, remaining continuously in crisis mode is becoming second nature to the UPA. If you don?t have a serious political problem on hand, then invent one. This month, two such controversies were invented by the UPA. One, of course, was the revelation that a deputy director in the finance ministry had sent a note to the Prime Minister?s Office (PMO) earlier in March suggesting that then-finance minister P Chidambaram in 2007 could have prevented the highly irregular 2G spectrum allocation by then-telecom minister A Raja. The second, and in my view a more politically lasting controversy, was the government affidavit in the Supreme Court suggesting R32 per head per day in urban India was adequate to spend on food and other facilities such as healthcare. In my view, this issue will carry greater resonance until the general elections in 2014. It is interesting to note that both the issues emanated from submissions in the Supreme Court, aptly reflecting the spirit of the times. And, needless to say, both the issues were entirely born out of the UPA?s need to be in crisis mode all the time!

Why would a deputy director write a note on 2G spectrum much after the CAG had exhaustively examined the issue and given its findings incorporating the detailed response of the finance ministry? More pertinently, why would a low-ranking official prepare a note on spectrum allocation after the CBI under the Supreme Court?s close watch had concluded its investigation taking all relevant facts and evidence into account? Remember, the babu had prepared the note in March when the matter was already in the court. The UPA leaders are further tying themselves in knots. The Prime Minister and finance minister had initially stated they wouldn?t want to comment on the issue as it was sub judice. If that is so, you might ask why the deputy director in the finance ministry chose to send a fresh note to the PMO in March when the matter was already sub judice. More pertinently, why did top PMO officials ask for a fresh note on the spectrum controversy when the matter was sub judice? Clearly, this note had very little to do with adding value to an investigation that had already been concluded, more or less.

The UPA will further tie itself in knots as the deputy director?s note, which seeks to put much of the blame on the finance ministry under Chidambaram for not being able to prevent the arbitrary allocation of spectrum by Raja, ends up with the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which now wants to examine in detail the contents of the note.

The PAC, which is already studying the CAG report on spectrum allocation, is bound to find some glaring contradictions between the official response that the finance ministry under Pranab Mukherjee sent to the CAG and the controversial note sent by the North Block babu to the PMO in March. The two are not consistent and the government may be at pains to explain the inconsistencies. The government is already sensing trouble ahead and is, therefore, trying to distance itself from the deputy director?s note, which can, by implication, engulf even the PMO in its fold.

History suggests the opposition campaign will not end with Chidambaram alone being targeted. The campaign has already spilled over to the PMO as questions are again being raised as to why the Prime Minister could not prevent Raja?s arbitrary allocation of spectrum when letters were exchanged between the two just before the allocation of spectrum.

One key question being asked is: How did the department of telecommunications manage to get pricing of spectrum removed from the terms of reference, which had been accepted by the group of ministers (GoM) for spectrum allocation set up by the UPA government? The terms of reference for the GoM headed by Mukherjee had been decided by the Cabinet secretary in consultation with the PMO. The PMO had a decisive say in altering the terms of reference. In fact, Raja is using this argument in the court as his main defence. He has told the trial court that every decision of his was taken after formally informing the PMO, which had every power to retain pricing of spectrum as part of the GoM?s terms of reference. Who removed pricing of spectrum as a key term of reference?

There are questions galore that will have to be answered in the weeks ahead. Meanwhile, the UPA has botched up its main defence that the telecom policy based on the first-come first-served principle had nothing criminal or irregular about it. Only the manner in which Raja implemented it was a subject of criminal investigation. This central argument of the UPA is today lost in a din of accusations and counter-accusations, traded within the government, reflecting an intra-party power struggle. One is not sure whether the opposition within is stronger and more potent than the opposition without!

How else do you explain the handle given to the opposition with that one simple suggestion by the government that R32 per head in urban India and R26 per head in rural India should be adequate spending on food, clothing and healthcare? Political perception is often built on insensitivities that are articulated inadvertently. This one is sure to become the core of many a rhetorical speech in the run-up to the upcoming assembly polls as well as the general elections in 2014. Meanwhile, as journalists, we will happily wait for the next imploding device the UPA might be working on!

mk.venu@expressindia.com