sudhir007
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2009
- Messages
- 4,728
- Reaction score
- 1
'Hang me for so-called omission... but let them go through democratic process' - Indian Express
Days after G Madhavan Nair and three other scientists were barred from occupying government positions for their role in the Antrix-Devas deal, the former ISRO chairman explains why ISRO took up the project and says the government has sent out “a very wrong message” to the scientific community. The session was moderated by Assistant Editor Amitabh Sinha
Amitabh Sinha: What is the Antrix-Devas deal and the alleged scam all about?
In 2000, there was a conscious decision by the government that this resource of satellite-based transponders should be for both government and private use. They entrusted the Department of Space to build more satellite capacity and provide it to private users as well. But a private operator cannot hire a foreign satellite and beam it over India, it is only through DoS that they can do so.
In 2009, we had up to 200 transponders of which 120 were leased out for commercial operations. Since our capacity was not adequate for use by private operators, we hired 80 transponders on foreign satellites. DTH followed in 2004-5—Doordarshan and Tata Sky began to provide DTH services, partly through our satellites and partly through hired satellites from Europe. Once that stabilised, we went into providing communication services. We thought of bringing in hand-held communications. When Dr Kasturirangan was ISRO chairman, he had interacted with Forge Advisors in USA and they said they had critical patents and they were willing to form a joint venture with Antrix to award this technology and deploy it here. A committee was formed with K N Shankara as chairman to look at the technical, commercial and financial aspects of the project. At the end of the study, we came out with a joint venture. ISRO was to provide only the transponder. We told them that if they have to work with Antrix, they have to form an Indian company as we do not have the mandate to work with foreign companies. So they registered an Indian company by the name of Devas Multimedia and they took the responsibility of providing the ground segment and the receiver technology, with the clear understanding that ISRO’s responsibility was only to provide the transponder capacity.
Devas had to get all the clearances needed for operating the system on the ground from the authorities concerned. The satellite was almost ready for launch when the entire thing took a negative turn and the process to annul the agreement began. That culminated in 2011. We thought everything was settled. Then the findings of one committee (B K Chaturvedi) and one panel (Pratyush Sinha) looking into the deal got somehow linked and it is suddenly being said that there were procedural lapses in the deal. Now the reports have come out. The Chaturvedi Committee met all the people concerned. They have gone into the details of delegated powers of the Space Commission and Antrix, the leasing arrangement of transponders, etc. But the second panel has exaggerated statements and named a few people for acts of omission and commission which, according to me, is unfair. The Chaturvedi committee has said there is no financial loss to the government and there is no spectrum sale involved. There are some minor procedural lapses.
Why did ISRO take up this project? Simply because a country needs a mobile communication system. Today, at least 30,000-40,000 villages don’t have any connectivity. If you have a hand-held device, one can provide multimedia services even to remote parts of the country. So, new technology coming to the country was the primary driver. For ISRO, a high power satellite with deployable antenna, providing multimedia services from space would have been unique and we would have been the third country in the world to have that technology.
Dilip Bobb: What are the commissions and omissions that you are being charged with in the deal?
The Chaturvedi committee was very fair. They stated that I did not keep the government informed of the Devas deal. But in the same time frame, Tata Sky was negotiating with us. We leased them 12 transponders. We did not inform the government about that. Antrix Corporation is a commercial wing of the Department of Space that is a registered government company. It has got its own bylaws. The buck stops with the board of directors. They are authorised to lease out transponders for commercial purposes, Department of Space is not authorised. When we build a satellite and go to the government for approval, it takes two to three years to go into orbit. At the time of the proposal, I may have one person or two persons interested. As and when the satellite becomes operational, the agreement is firmed up. The Cabinet note says the majority of the capacity, 80 to 90 per cent, will be leased out to private operators. We did not name the operators because it was never the practice. Suppose Devas backed out from the technology part of the agreement, we would have to find someone else and go for government approval again. I did not want that. It is a decision of the Antrix Board and there was no mal-intention in the reporting. It has been the standard practice from 2000 onwards.
Coomi Kapoor: Do you think that matter was blown out of proportion due to rivalry within the department?
I would not say that. I am puzzled by the developments. First there was the B N Suresh committee appointed by the Space Department. In May 2011, the committee’s report detailed the merits and the demerits of the project and said it has to be pursued. They did not say there were any procedural lapses. What they said is that keeping in mind the current utilisation of S-band, we have to look at what changes have to be made for the future. They said a formal MoU has to be signed between Antrix and Devas—these are procedural steps.
Coomi Kapoor: Why then have two committees looked into the deal?
This is puzzling. I am not privy to any of these documents. I know there was a Space Commission meeting in 2010. Based on certain data presented at the meeting, they said the deal should be terminated. Then, the Department of Space went to the Cabinet Committee on Security to terminate the deal. That process remained hidden from us. The Pratyush Sinha committee says that in 2010, Devas sold shares to some foreign companies. Secondly, CAG brought out a report saying that the spectrum evaluated comes to Rs 2.75 lakh crore. These two factors put together led to a panic reaction. The Chaturvedi committee has given the answer (to why terrestrial and space spectrum are not the same): one mobile tower covers 10-15 km and serves 10,000 to 20,000 customers; a satellite covers an area of 500 km—we have five beams and we serve 50,000 customers. Therefore, the earning opportunity on the ground is much more. Therefore, the Chaturvedi committee said there is no anomaly (in pricing of spectrum). They also said that there is no procedural lapse in not informing the government. Now, people are trying to justify their panicky reactions.
Sunil Jain: If you look at the 2G scam, A Raja was entitled to give his point of view whereas here you were not given that chance.
The Chaturvedi committee has two members—Prof Roddam Narasimha and B K Chaturvedi. They gave us the opportunity to present our viewpoints and those were fully reflected in the final report. The Sinha panel sent us a questionnaire comprising 20-30 questions, asking about issues related to the spectrum aspect. We asked to be called. They did not call us. I thought I should meet Pratyush Sinha personally. I finally gatecrashed a meeting to meet him. Half the time was spent in exchange of pleasantries. I was asked to give clarifications on a few points, which I sent within the next 24 hours. The committee recommended that action be taken as per the Pension Rules or any other rules. While taking action, a memo or a chargesheet has to be issued to individuals and after that a hearing is held. That process did not take place. We learned of the punishment meted to us through the media. Even today, we have not been given the orders. Why was it kept a secret from us?
Sunil Jain: You make a distinction between ‘satellite’ spectrum and telecom spectrum—that ‘satellite’ spectrum cannot be priced at the same rate as telecom spectrum. Yet, the 2010 auctions of Broadband Wireless Access spectrum was in the 2.3 GHz band while your ‘satellite’ spectrum is in the 2.5 GHz band and that can also be used for telecom. So why should they be priced so differently?
Theoretically, even telecom companies can use 2.5 GHz band. But the policy reserves the S-band for space communication, and this is coordinated with the ITU. Even if we desire to use it for ground application, ITU will deny it.
Sunil Jain: Wasn’t Antrix-Devas entering into deals to sell the spectrum to various telcos at a premium? The Pratyush Sinha report talks of this.
That is why I said they (Devas) will have a tough time. In today’s time, Devas programme would have been a commercial flop—if you pay too much to service providers, it cannot take off. If something is not allowed under the policy or is unfair, I would have pulled the plug. Anyone wanting to use it for telecom would have to go to DoT and get its permission. There are a number of provisions in the agreement which gives us power to cancel it at any time. In transponder leasing, we put tight clauses—the transponder has to be used for the intended purpose. If it is used for other purposes, we will switch off the transponder.
Maneesh Chhibber: You have blamed the current ISRO chief K Radhakrishnan for the mess.
No, it is not about an individual. For the six years that I was in charge, as head of the department, I am to be held responsible for every launch failure and success. Similarly, for what happened between 2009 until 2010, (Radhakrishnan) should take the responsibility. There is nothing personal about it. The first day, I became wild and made some remarks but I will not do that now.
Swaraj Thapa: The Chaturvedi report said there was no full disclosure to the appropriate authorities on the Devas deal. You say there was no requirement. But was the issue discussed in meetings at lower and internal levels? For instance, the report mentions that the Insat Coordination Committee (ICC), which should have also discussed the issue, had met 78 times before 2004 but did not meet even once between 2004 and 2009.
The ICC’s mandate is to coordinate inter-departmental activities and to service the government’s requirements for satellite-based operations. In 2000, when the satellite policy was announced, the Department of Space was given the full authority to take decisions on transponders, creation of capacity as well as leasing of capacity. We had the Technical Advisory Group that met six times during this period and in two meetings, there were full-fledged discussions on the Devas agreement and whosoever needed to be informed, was informed. I have not hidden any information from those who should have known it.
Dilip Bobb: Would it now be possible for ISRO to enter into agreements with private parties?
We have taken away the faith of private players and foreign companies after we cancelled the Antrix-Devas deal. With the cancellation, these people will think twice.
Anubhuti Vishnoi: How disappointed are you with the government’s decision? What do you think are the larger implications of this decision on the scientific community in India?
The government has sent out a very wrong message to the scientific community. I am prepared to bear full responsibility for the so-called omission of not informing the government explicitly about the Devas deal. They can hang me for it. But let it go through the democratic process, let them send me a memo saying on such counts you are chargesheeted and let me send my explanation. Let them take action as per the rules. I learned from my gurus, Dr Vikram Sarabhai and Dr APJ Kalam, that you will not be blamed for doing your job. For the first time, I have learned the opposite.
Prachi*: If the ban on you is revoked, would you take up a government job?
What for? If the government wants, let them come to me. I cannot take blind decisions especially after being slapped.
Sharda Srivastava (Doon Public School, Paschim Vihar): How do you feel when fingers are pointed at you regarding the Devas deal? Do you feel betrayed?
There is no point to that kind of emotion—it will serve nothing. What matters is that we bring out the truth.
Swaraj Thapa: In hindsight, do you think the Cabinet note should have specified very clearly who and for what purpose the transponders were being leased?
I did not want to tie my hands by saying Devas was the only player. If somebody else comes in, I should have the flexibility to give it to them. That is why we said ‘a few private parties’. If you have a licence fee to pay for your house and vehicle, it goes to the municipal authorities. It does not go to the state chief minister. The matter stops with the body that is responsible for it. Here the matter stopped with Antrix.
Ravish Tiwari: It is unfair to compare 2G spectrum with this, but there the private players knew the value of the spectrum being sold. Here too, Forge knew it?
That is where the difference lies. Forge came for hand-held communication devices for satellite. At that time there was no suggestion of ground application. This is hindsight. They realised that a hand-held device on the highway and in rural villages is perfect but for cities with high-rise buildings, it does not work unless there is a repeater on the ground. This was a late awakening. If they had started negotiating with DoT (for a terrestrial licence), it would have been goodbye to the contract.
Karan (Doon Public School, Paschim Vihar): Why was the government not informed about the loss regarding the deal?
There was a committee set up for it. They went through all computations, and they said there was no loss.
Raj Kamal Jha: How did you choose Forge?
They were in touch with us since 2003. When Dr Kasturirangan was chairman, they made a presentation to him when he was in Washington. Then they sent us the proposal that was submitted to the Shankara committee This wasn’t through a tendering process. Our policy was first-cum-first basis.
Rakesh Sinha: What is the gap between the Chinese and Indian space programmes?
In most of the areas we are better off, like launch reliability, satellite technology. Unfortunately, on manned missions we are lagging behind terribly.
Coomi Kapoor: Is the manned mission an extravagance we can’t afford?
Not at all. When you send two people into orbit, it means that we are setting up facilities where we can understand the human physiology in a better way. The spin-off in the medical field is tremendous. After USA and Russia, we would have been the third country to launch the man mission if we had taken up the programme in 2010.
Days after G Madhavan Nair and three other scientists were barred from occupying government positions for their role in the Antrix-Devas deal, the former ISRO chairman explains why ISRO took up the project and says the government has sent out “a very wrong message” to the scientific community. The session was moderated by Assistant Editor Amitabh Sinha
Amitabh Sinha: What is the Antrix-Devas deal and the alleged scam all about?
In 2000, there was a conscious decision by the government that this resource of satellite-based transponders should be for both government and private use. They entrusted the Department of Space to build more satellite capacity and provide it to private users as well. But a private operator cannot hire a foreign satellite and beam it over India, it is only through DoS that they can do so.
In 2009, we had up to 200 transponders of which 120 were leased out for commercial operations. Since our capacity was not adequate for use by private operators, we hired 80 transponders on foreign satellites. DTH followed in 2004-5—Doordarshan and Tata Sky began to provide DTH services, partly through our satellites and partly through hired satellites from Europe. Once that stabilised, we went into providing communication services. We thought of bringing in hand-held communications. When Dr Kasturirangan was ISRO chairman, he had interacted with Forge Advisors in USA and they said they had critical patents and they were willing to form a joint venture with Antrix to award this technology and deploy it here. A committee was formed with K N Shankara as chairman to look at the technical, commercial and financial aspects of the project. At the end of the study, we came out with a joint venture. ISRO was to provide only the transponder. We told them that if they have to work with Antrix, they have to form an Indian company as we do not have the mandate to work with foreign companies. So they registered an Indian company by the name of Devas Multimedia and they took the responsibility of providing the ground segment and the receiver technology, with the clear understanding that ISRO’s responsibility was only to provide the transponder capacity.
Devas had to get all the clearances needed for operating the system on the ground from the authorities concerned. The satellite was almost ready for launch when the entire thing took a negative turn and the process to annul the agreement began. That culminated in 2011. We thought everything was settled. Then the findings of one committee (B K Chaturvedi) and one panel (Pratyush Sinha) looking into the deal got somehow linked and it is suddenly being said that there were procedural lapses in the deal. Now the reports have come out. The Chaturvedi Committee met all the people concerned. They have gone into the details of delegated powers of the Space Commission and Antrix, the leasing arrangement of transponders, etc. But the second panel has exaggerated statements and named a few people for acts of omission and commission which, according to me, is unfair. The Chaturvedi committee has said there is no financial loss to the government and there is no spectrum sale involved. There are some minor procedural lapses.
Why did ISRO take up this project? Simply because a country needs a mobile communication system. Today, at least 30,000-40,000 villages don’t have any connectivity. If you have a hand-held device, one can provide multimedia services even to remote parts of the country. So, new technology coming to the country was the primary driver. For ISRO, a high power satellite with deployable antenna, providing multimedia services from space would have been unique and we would have been the third country in the world to have that technology.
Dilip Bobb: What are the commissions and omissions that you are being charged with in the deal?
The Chaturvedi committee was very fair. They stated that I did not keep the government informed of the Devas deal. But in the same time frame, Tata Sky was negotiating with us. We leased them 12 transponders. We did not inform the government about that. Antrix Corporation is a commercial wing of the Department of Space that is a registered government company. It has got its own bylaws. The buck stops with the board of directors. They are authorised to lease out transponders for commercial purposes, Department of Space is not authorised. When we build a satellite and go to the government for approval, it takes two to three years to go into orbit. At the time of the proposal, I may have one person or two persons interested. As and when the satellite becomes operational, the agreement is firmed up. The Cabinet note says the majority of the capacity, 80 to 90 per cent, will be leased out to private operators. We did not name the operators because it was never the practice. Suppose Devas backed out from the technology part of the agreement, we would have to find someone else and go for government approval again. I did not want that. It is a decision of the Antrix Board and there was no mal-intention in the reporting. It has been the standard practice from 2000 onwards.
Coomi Kapoor: Do you think that matter was blown out of proportion due to rivalry within the department?
I would not say that. I am puzzled by the developments. First there was the B N Suresh committee appointed by the Space Department. In May 2011, the committee’s report detailed the merits and the demerits of the project and said it has to be pursued. They did not say there were any procedural lapses. What they said is that keeping in mind the current utilisation of S-band, we have to look at what changes have to be made for the future. They said a formal MoU has to be signed between Antrix and Devas—these are procedural steps.
Coomi Kapoor: Why then have two committees looked into the deal?
This is puzzling. I am not privy to any of these documents. I know there was a Space Commission meeting in 2010. Based on certain data presented at the meeting, they said the deal should be terminated. Then, the Department of Space went to the Cabinet Committee on Security to terminate the deal. That process remained hidden from us. The Pratyush Sinha committee says that in 2010, Devas sold shares to some foreign companies. Secondly, CAG brought out a report saying that the spectrum evaluated comes to Rs 2.75 lakh crore. These two factors put together led to a panic reaction. The Chaturvedi committee has given the answer (to why terrestrial and space spectrum are not the same): one mobile tower covers 10-15 km and serves 10,000 to 20,000 customers; a satellite covers an area of 500 km—we have five beams and we serve 50,000 customers. Therefore, the earning opportunity on the ground is much more. Therefore, the Chaturvedi committee said there is no anomaly (in pricing of spectrum). They also said that there is no procedural lapse in not informing the government. Now, people are trying to justify their panicky reactions.
Sunil Jain: If you look at the 2G scam, A Raja was entitled to give his point of view whereas here you were not given that chance.
The Chaturvedi committee has two members—Prof Roddam Narasimha and B K Chaturvedi. They gave us the opportunity to present our viewpoints and those were fully reflected in the final report. The Sinha panel sent us a questionnaire comprising 20-30 questions, asking about issues related to the spectrum aspect. We asked to be called. They did not call us. I thought I should meet Pratyush Sinha personally. I finally gatecrashed a meeting to meet him. Half the time was spent in exchange of pleasantries. I was asked to give clarifications on a few points, which I sent within the next 24 hours. The committee recommended that action be taken as per the Pension Rules or any other rules. While taking action, a memo or a chargesheet has to be issued to individuals and after that a hearing is held. That process did not take place. We learned of the punishment meted to us through the media. Even today, we have not been given the orders. Why was it kept a secret from us?
Sunil Jain: You make a distinction between ‘satellite’ spectrum and telecom spectrum—that ‘satellite’ spectrum cannot be priced at the same rate as telecom spectrum. Yet, the 2010 auctions of Broadband Wireless Access spectrum was in the 2.3 GHz band while your ‘satellite’ spectrum is in the 2.5 GHz band and that can also be used for telecom. So why should they be priced so differently?
Theoretically, even telecom companies can use 2.5 GHz band. But the policy reserves the S-band for space communication, and this is coordinated with the ITU. Even if we desire to use it for ground application, ITU will deny it.
Sunil Jain: Wasn’t Antrix-Devas entering into deals to sell the spectrum to various telcos at a premium? The Pratyush Sinha report talks of this.
That is why I said they (Devas) will have a tough time. In today’s time, Devas programme would have been a commercial flop—if you pay too much to service providers, it cannot take off. If something is not allowed under the policy or is unfair, I would have pulled the plug. Anyone wanting to use it for telecom would have to go to DoT and get its permission. There are a number of provisions in the agreement which gives us power to cancel it at any time. In transponder leasing, we put tight clauses—the transponder has to be used for the intended purpose. If it is used for other purposes, we will switch off the transponder.
Maneesh Chhibber: You have blamed the current ISRO chief K Radhakrishnan for the mess.
No, it is not about an individual. For the six years that I was in charge, as head of the department, I am to be held responsible for every launch failure and success. Similarly, for what happened between 2009 until 2010, (Radhakrishnan) should take the responsibility. There is nothing personal about it. The first day, I became wild and made some remarks but I will not do that now.
Swaraj Thapa: The Chaturvedi report said there was no full disclosure to the appropriate authorities on the Devas deal. You say there was no requirement. But was the issue discussed in meetings at lower and internal levels? For instance, the report mentions that the Insat Coordination Committee (ICC), which should have also discussed the issue, had met 78 times before 2004 but did not meet even once between 2004 and 2009.
The ICC’s mandate is to coordinate inter-departmental activities and to service the government’s requirements for satellite-based operations. In 2000, when the satellite policy was announced, the Department of Space was given the full authority to take decisions on transponders, creation of capacity as well as leasing of capacity. We had the Technical Advisory Group that met six times during this period and in two meetings, there were full-fledged discussions on the Devas agreement and whosoever needed to be informed, was informed. I have not hidden any information from those who should have known it.
Dilip Bobb: Would it now be possible for ISRO to enter into agreements with private parties?
We have taken away the faith of private players and foreign companies after we cancelled the Antrix-Devas deal. With the cancellation, these people will think twice.
Anubhuti Vishnoi: How disappointed are you with the government’s decision? What do you think are the larger implications of this decision on the scientific community in India?
The government has sent out a very wrong message to the scientific community. I am prepared to bear full responsibility for the so-called omission of not informing the government explicitly about the Devas deal. They can hang me for it. But let it go through the democratic process, let them send me a memo saying on such counts you are chargesheeted and let me send my explanation. Let them take action as per the rules. I learned from my gurus, Dr Vikram Sarabhai and Dr APJ Kalam, that you will not be blamed for doing your job. For the first time, I have learned the opposite.
Prachi*: If the ban on you is revoked, would you take up a government job?
What for? If the government wants, let them come to me. I cannot take blind decisions especially after being slapped.
Sharda Srivastava (Doon Public School, Paschim Vihar): How do you feel when fingers are pointed at you regarding the Devas deal? Do you feel betrayed?
There is no point to that kind of emotion—it will serve nothing. What matters is that we bring out the truth.
Swaraj Thapa: In hindsight, do you think the Cabinet note should have specified very clearly who and for what purpose the transponders were being leased?
I did not want to tie my hands by saying Devas was the only player. If somebody else comes in, I should have the flexibility to give it to them. That is why we said ‘a few private parties’. If you have a licence fee to pay for your house and vehicle, it goes to the municipal authorities. It does not go to the state chief minister. The matter stops with the body that is responsible for it. Here the matter stopped with Antrix.
Ravish Tiwari: It is unfair to compare 2G spectrum with this, but there the private players knew the value of the spectrum being sold. Here too, Forge knew it?
That is where the difference lies. Forge came for hand-held communication devices for satellite. At that time there was no suggestion of ground application. This is hindsight. They realised that a hand-held device on the highway and in rural villages is perfect but for cities with high-rise buildings, it does not work unless there is a repeater on the ground. This was a late awakening. If they had started negotiating with DoT (for a terrestrial licence), it would have been goodbye to the contract.
Karan (Doon Public School, Paschim Vihar): Why was the government not informed about the loss regarding the deal?
There was a committee set up for it. They went through all computations, and they said there was no loss.
Raj Kamal Jha: How did you choose Forge?
They were in touch with us since 2003. When Dr Kasturirangan was chairman, they made a presentation to him when he was in Washington. Then they sent us the proposal that was submitted to the Shankara committee This wasn’t through a tendering process. Our policy was first-cum-first basis.
Rakesh Sinha: What is the gap between the Chinese and Indian space programmes?
In most of the areas we are better off, like launch reliability, satellite technology. Unfortunately, on manned missions we are lagging behind terribly.
Coomi Kapoor: Is the manned mission an extravagance we can’t afford?
Not at all. When you send two people into orbit, it means that we are setting up facilities where we can understand the human physiology in a better way. The spin-off in the medical field is tremendous. After USA and Russia, we would have been the third country to launch the man mission if we had taken up the programme in 2010.
