Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tehelka
Tehelka
Tehelka
Go
Astro’s 20 percent investment in Sun TV at a cost of Rs 315.71 crore – a process begun in February/March 2007 --
was completed in December 2007. It then continued to invest further in Sun TV over January 2008 – December
2009. For Mr Maran to argue that he was no longer telecom minister is just sophistry.
His assertion that he does not possess any shares in Sun TV is also sophistry as there is a clear conflict of interest
when a businessman who had benefitted from him invests close to 700 crore in his brother’s company. (Former
telecom minister A Raja was sent to jail for much less as Kaliagnar TV belonged to the DMK supremo’s family and
Raja was not even directly related to any of its owners.)
As for Maran’s argument that he was not partial to a particular company, Tehelka’s story has established in great
factual detail how Aircel’s value rose exponentially after Ananda Krishnan bought it from its previous owner
Sivasankaran, and was awarded 14 licences in cash-rich circles by Maran. Sivasankaran had sold Aircel at $800
million. Within two years, it was worth $7.5--8 billion. The licences awarded by Maran played a huge role in this
meteoric rise.
In his legal notice to Tehelka, Mr Maran makes a different argument altogether. He has sued Tehelka for alleging
that he withheld or deliberately delayed granting the licences to Aircel while it was owned by Sivasankaran and that
this may have been a pressure tactic to make Sivasankaran sell Aircel to Ananda Krishnan, whom he favoured.
Unfortunately, Mr Maran’s arguments here too are dismally weak. Tehelka has at no point made a conclusive
statement that he forced Sivasankaran to sell Aircel to Ananda Krishnan. The story merely posed this as a question
arising out of circumstantial evidence.
The story documents in great detail – with letters and official communiqués -- how repeated requests for licences
during Sivasankaran’s tenure as owner of Aircel was stonewalled or fell on deaf-years for two years. In fact, retired
Justice Shivraj Patil – tasked to go examine the appropriateness of procedures followed in granting telecom
licences – has used very strong words in his report regarding this. He called the causes of delay “irrelevant”,
“vague” and “unwarranted”. Tehelka has merely detailed this out. Would Mr Maran like to sue Justice Patil as well?
On almost every term of reference of his enquiry, Justice Patil has found Maran's actions and policies as telecom
minister in gross violation of established ministry procedures and Government of India rules. Why has Maran till
date not come clean on these serious issues raised by Justice Patil?
The fact that Aircel was granted 14 licences within six months of Ananda Krishnan’s Maxis buying Aircel makes all
this doubly suspicious. Aircel paid Rs 1,399.47 crore for these licences. Going by the benchmark in the CAG report
used in the A Raja case, these licences would have been worth Rs 22,000 crore.
tehelka.com/story_main49.asp?filena… 1/2
6/3/2011 Tehelka - India's Independent Weekly…
used in the A Raja case, these licences would have been worth Rs 22,000 crore.
Mr Maran’s legal notice is an unfortunate intimidatory tactic. Both the notice and press statement have addressed
none of the core issues arising out of the Tehelka story -- Maran's arbitrary and ad-hoc policies as telecom
minister, his dubious ways of handling Aircel applications, his insistence on keeping spectrum pricing out of GoM
and FM's purview and the massive and seemingly over-valued investments by Maxis in Sun Group.
Shoma Chaudhury
Managing Editor
Tehelka
A bou t Us | A dv er t ise W it h Us | Pr in t Su bscr ipt ion s | Sy n dica t ion | T er m s of Ser v ice | Pr iv a cy Policy | Feedba ck | Con t a ct Us | Bou qu ets & Br ickba t s
T eh elka .com is a pa r t of A n a n t Media Pv t . Lt d. © 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 1 1 A ll r ig h ts r eser v ed
tehelka.com/story_main49.asp?filena… 2/2