<p>In a separate recommendation on the cross-examination of the publicist, who was the focus of attention as her conversations with politicians / journalists/ bureaucrats on various aspects of the 2G deals and allocation of telecom portfolio to Raja burst open some months ago, the PAC said her cross-examination had a direct bearing on the subject under examination.<br /><br />The committee felt that the disclosures made in the tapes (recordings of Nira’s telephone conversations) “have given a new fillip and stimulus to the crusade against corruption.”<br /><br />The 270-page report disclosed that “Radia, while deposing before the Committee, stated that the publication of her conversations with many people in some magazines was a part of ‘corporate conspiracy against her’ but did not disclose who the conspirators were.” The panel said while responding to various queries, she had given an impression that she was predetermined not to come out with the facts.<br /><br />‘Bad chemistry’<br />The recommendation said a good deal of Radia tapes contained conversations which centred around the anxiety to get the Telecom portfolio allocated for the second time to Raja “as the conversations show that (Tata Group chairman Ratan) Tata has had a bad chemistry with (former telecom minsister) Dayanidhi Maran, as per his own admission.” <br /><br />Tata's personal hand-written letter to (Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK president) M Karunanidhi praising Raja's achievements was irrefutable testimony, the report said. <br /><br />“The Committee is surprised that a person of Tata's stature sent a personal letter to the DMK patriarch when the latter had nothing to do with framing and implementation of policies at the central level. The Committee agrees that a personal hand-written letter should not have been commented upon by them” but it drew comment “since it was made public and shows keen interest and involvement of big corporate houses in the ministerial portfolio allocation, a matter which has a direct bearing on the subject under examination of the Committee.”<br /></p>
<p>In a separate recommendation on the cross-examination of the publicist, who was the focus of attention as her conversations with politicians / journalists/ bureaucrats on various aspects of the 2G deals and allocation of telecom portfolio to Raja burst open some months ago, the PAC said her cross-examination had a direct bearing on the subject under examination.<br /><br />The committee felt that the disclosures made in the tapes (recordings of Nira’s telephone conversations) “have given a new fillip and stimulus to the crusade against corruption.”<br /><br />The 270-page report disclosed that “Radia, while deposing before the Committee, stated that the publication of her conversations with many people in some magazines was a part of ‘corporate conspiracy against her’ but did not disclose who the conspirators were.” The panel said while responding to various queries, she had given an impression that she was predetermined not to come out with the facts.<br /><br />‘Bad chemistry’<br />The recommendation said a good deal of Radia tapes contained conversations which centred around the anxiety to get the Telecom portfolio allocated for the second time to Raja “as the conversations show that (Tata Group chairman Ratan) Tata has had a bad chemistry with (former telecom minsister) Dayanidhi Maran, as per his own admission.” <br /><br />Tata's personal hand-written letter to (Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK president) M Karunanidhi praising Raja's achievements was irrefutable testimony, the report said. <br /><br />“The Committee is surprised that a person of Tata's stature sent a personal letter to the DMK patriarch when the latter had nothing to do with framing and implementation of policies at the central level. The Committee agrees that a personal hand-written letter should not have been commented upon by them” but it drew comment “since it was made public and shows keen interest and involvement of big corporate houses in the ministerial portfolio allocation, a matter which has a direct bearing on the subject under examination of the Committee.”<br /></p>
