Talk:Pradip Baijal

Facts are being twisted

The fact is that Mr Pradip Baijal was Chairman TRAI in 2003-2005, while all the 2G spectrum given out by Raja happened in 2008. He had nothing to do with the 2008 awards, and it is just wrong to link him with the 2008 and 2009 awards, and Raja's actions.

Mr. Baijal turned things around for Telecom by his recommendations - but at the end of the day, worked in a recommendatory body which is not allowed to take any decisions. The Government of India and the Telecom department makes the decisions, so it is unfair to pin down a multi-party recommendatory body for any advice given.

As a fellow officer, most of the IAS community knows Mr. Baijal is one of the best officers of his time, with impeccable integrity and vision. He might be investigated given that he worked for an affiliate company of Niira Radia; but association alone does not make him part of the 2008/2009 2G scam.

Arjunagra (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The references to Mr.Baijal are backed up with references to links in the media. Mr.Baijal had nothing to do with the 2G allocations handled by Mr.A Raja. However, there was an initial round of spectrum allocations where Mr.Baijal was certainly involved. The allegations against Mr.Baijal have been very clearly documented in the article: 1. Making recomendations regarding spectrum license fees (in 2003) which directly benefitted certain corporates.Baijal recommended a charge of a measly Rs.1658 crores as license fee without adjustments for inflation or market growth since 2001: a policy that again benefited the same set of companies. 2. He was the TRAI secretary when the controversial Unified Access License was implemented, a policy flip-flop which allowed fixed line operators who had paid much lower license fees to offer mobile phone services, at first in the limited WLL mode (Wireless in Local Loop) and later, following an out of court settlement between mobile operators and the BJP govt, full mobility.

It is a fact that mr,Baijal was raided by the CBI as well as called in for questioning. It also remains a fact, that Mr.Baijal took up a post-retirement consultancy with Ms.Niira Radia: the prime accused in the 2G spectrum allocation scam of 2008. All these are not speculation but facts backed up by necessary links to media articles. These may or may not have nothing to do with the 2G spectrum scam connected with A Raja. But this article is not about the spectrum scam but about Mr.Baijal and it is important to cover all aspects of his career, including the controversies.

Repeated attempts to remove these references will be considered as vandalism.

--Ashlonerider (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC) There have been a dozen attempts so far today to edit and re-edit this article in what seems to be a clear case of POV pushing.

It seems like there is a concerted attempt today to put across a certain POV showing the individual in a favorable light. This goes against the grain of neutrality of POV.

The latest attempt is by user Amit Chandra, who attempted to justify the controversies listed under the controveries section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 10:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The original line read: His tenure as TRAI chairman coincided with multiple policy changes that are alleged to have directly benefited telecom companies like Reliance Telecom and Tata Teleservices.

it was changed to: His tenure as TRAI chairman coincided with multiple policy changes (people call them flip-flops, but were normal and expected for any emerging sector) that are alleged to have directly benefited telecom companies like Reliance Telecom and Tata Teleservices.

This is one example of the kind of POV pushing that has come to our notice today. As pointed out before, there seems to be a sustained effort today to image polishing by removing negative references.

This is clearly vandalism: earlier by ArjunNagra and now by user User:AmitChandra123. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 10:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet another attempt by user Amit Chandra at POV pushing:

the line: "sold to Tata Teleservices" was changed to "sold by a transparent auction process to Tata Teleservices". Transparent according to whom?

The controversies section is supposed to highlight the controversies surrounding the individual without trying to apportion credit or excuses for them.

I think User:Amitchandra123 has to be served a warning for REPEATEDLY vandalising this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 10:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The ENTIRE introduction has been rewritten by User:Amitchandra123 which now provides a justification for EVERY allegation made against Pradip Baijal. I personally hold no brief for either party (as Amit Chandra has alleged on his talk page). However repeatedly going in and editing the article by removing the negative references (including links to media articles) and replacing them with flowery phrases justifying the controversy is clear POV pushing and vandalism.

One of the lines used was "Guess many of the controversies listed below are part of the stick which is seen in other geographies as well. " - I really dont know what to say after that! it is clear that the user(s) in question have some kind of agenda with the individual Pradip Baijal and interested in keeping the news of controversies out of wiki records.

Recommend immediate blocking of his account to put an end to this nonsense.

What is surprising is that at first the user called ArjunNagra was making repeated edits on a similar line to this article. And now it is Amitchandra. Are they the same individual? --Ashlonerider (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by certain users

As has been pointed out repeatedly, this article has been the target of repeated vandalism by 2 specific users User:Arjunagra and User:Amitchandra123 who seem to have now been joined in their effort by one COOLRAMESH. The attempt is the same as before: to remove negative references to the individual Pradip Baijal, refusing to answer queries on the talk page as they are supposed to, and instead indulging in edit wars.

The page was locked on my request once before but the vandalism returned with vengeance once the lock was removed. I plan to restore the original article in full shortly after which I would be putting in a request for lock since it is clear that some people are intent on POV pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 14:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing in introduction

There is clear POV pushing in the introduction of this article ("During his tenure, TRAI articulated and adopted pro-development and consumer-friendly regulatory practices and made important recommendations on the growth of telecom services in rural India to the Government of India. TRAI has also urged the industry to think of next generation telecom networks.". Another line reads "Another step of far-reaching implications was Baijal's continued thrust on unified licensing, under which an operator can offer telecom and broadcasting services on a single licence and next generation networks for Indian telecom sector that would bring down the network costs significantly."

What makes this untenable, is that Pradip Baijal is currently under investigation for having caused loss of thousands of crores (64000 crores in the first round and approx 36000 crores in the second round around 2003). He later joined the lobbying firm run by Niira Radia who is said to be the kingpin of the 2G scam of 2009. Radia's lobbying firm has as its clients Tata Teleservices and Reliance INfocomm, who are perhaps not incidentally, the biggest beneficiaries of the policy flip flops taken during Pradip Baijal's tenure.

The ABC of the 2G Scam, http://www.tehelka.com/story_main48.asp?filename=Ne010111THEABCOF.asp

Did Pradip Baijal make a mistake in joining Niira Radia's firm? http://m.economictimes.com/PDAET/articleshow/7108777.cms

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/CBI-conducts-raids-swoops-on-DMK-associates-Niira-Radia--Pradip-Baijal/articleshow/7108883.cms

the Introduction needs a serious rewrite.

--Ashlonerider (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Arjunagra is repeatedly making edits removing negative but valid references being made to Pradip Baijals links to Niira Radia and he is pointedly refusing to answer questions posed on his talk page or here and is instead indulging in a edit war.

I think User:Arjunagra and User:Amitchandra123 hold some kind of brief for Pradip Baijal or perhaps are the same individual.

Recommend locking of article till resolution of dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 12:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Requests for Page Protection is the correct venue if you want a page protected. Could all editors please make yourselves familiar with Wikipedia policy, particularly wp:3RR, as some editors appear to have madue up to 8 reverts in a few hours! Also please see No Personal Attacks 220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection

I've fully protected the article as the dispute picked up right where it was before the last protection was put in place. Please discuss content issues on the talk page or with other editors instead of edit warring on the article. AlexiusHoratius 15:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolving the dispute over content

Starting this section in an attempt to find common ground over the content. Please post your queries/doubts here over the content and avoid getting into edit-wars.

This article is meant to be a neutral biography and not a fanpage nor a critique. Neutrality of POV is vital. The individual in question has indeed been raided by the Investigative agencies having been in the cross-hairs for a long time. Mentioning this point does not amount to a critique but is merely a statement of fact backed up by relevant links to media articles and other sources. (see ref list)

I have restored the article to what it was before it was vandalised. I have segregated what was formerly an omnibus paragraph on "Career", into 3 separate and detailed sections:

1. Education where his educational qualifications are listed. 2. Accomplishments: where the positive aspects of his career including the controversial period between 1999 and 2004 are listed. 3. Controversies: where the controversies surrounding the individual are detailed.

I hope this will allow for a more neutral POV.

Previously attempts were also made to edit the controversy section by adding justifications for the each controversy mentioned! This is obviously not the scope of the article and violates the NPOV. Each section should list the qualifications, accomplishments and controversies respectively without going into justifications for the alleged corruption.

Removing negative references made to individuals, when these are fully backed up by appropriate links will be considered as vandalism. Ashlonerider (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(sigh) Well, I had cut this article down to a neutral, mostly-sourced one. I reverted User:Jsameer2010's attempts to insert glowing praise, and now Ashlonerider has gone and reinserted weasel-worded, unsourced statements (ie. "rose to prominence," "controversial corporate lobbyist," etc.). I submit that this was the last neutrally worded version. Still needs better sourcing, but at least it's neutral with regards to the subject. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Mr. Baijal has had a distinguished career for over 40 years in the government. As a member of the IAS, I perhaps have the most direct insight into his work. While the recent Radia controversy has been unfortunate; all connections which allude to him helping certain corporates are speculation at best. Ashlonerider is making personal judgements by calling him "controversial". Why not call him "intelligent", which he is - or "distinguished", which he is. Mr. Baijal has been one of the most successful officers of his tenure - and has been the driving force behind a lot of growth across several sectors. While the CBI has raided him house - they have done so across all officers in the telecom ministries - Mr Behuria / Mr Vinod Vaish / other junior officers in the telecom ministry when Raja was Minister. It is an investigation, and hence has been all-encompassing. Lets give process its due, and not harm a person's reputation prior to anything formally being charged.

Ashlonerider has a personal vendetta against Mr. Baijal. He has been making changes on lots of political pages (Rahul Gandhi, NArendra Modi, etc] so is clearly pushing a politically motivated POV. Some of the controversies he is adding - one alluding to the sale of VSNL to Tata is not verified or even being investigated. The disinvestment process under Arun Shourie and Mr Baijal has been the only period where a successful disinvestment process was run in India. Lets give the man his due; and continue to inspire all of us junior officers - who hope to take positive decisions and impact the India around us.

The current protected version is libelous in nature, and assumes or alludes to a conspiracy; which is neither true or defensible. It has been written by those who are politically motivated, and paid to create negative public perception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adminoff (talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

First, as you have a personal connection with the subject, you should read WP:COI. Second, we do not call him "intelligent" or "distinguished" as those are flowery non-neutral descriptions of the subject. Finally, do not accuse other editors of a "personal vendetta" without some sort of evidence. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Current Protected Version clearly negative POV

I agree with the comments from adminoff. Thank you sir. Ashlonerider has inserted his own personal interpretation to what is a very difficult topic to understand. It alleges and alludes that Mr. Baijal is corrupt - while there has not been a single formal charge against him. He continues to serve on several corporate boards, and continues to be a UN consultant to several emerging countries. This is politically motivated editing, and I would urge Wikipedia administrators to block Ashlonerider and return this page to the neutral version (4-5 versions back), and only then protect the page. The current version is unfair, and clearly upholding the point of view of only one editor (who clearly is spending all his time trying to maliciously attack Pradip Baijal).

Arjunagra (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Arjunagra

See my reply to Adminoff above. Praising the subject is not neutral. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

=================

The current version which has been protected has clear negative bias

Radia has been called the kingpin of the 2G scam. She is just a lobbyist with no real powers, and cannot be the kingpin. Alluding to it is alleging corruption. Not needed as part of Mr Baijal's page. The man has been a distinguished servant for the country.

The issue of conflict of interest is just speculation. There is no conflict of interest, if someone after 4-5 years of retiring from a post works in the same sector. All government permissions were taken. There are innumerable examples of other officers. There is no source for it, other than speculative media articles.

There are repeated references to certain companies being clients of Niira Radia firm. Firstly, he did not work in that firm, but in an affiliate. Ms Radia's firm had more than 200 clients, including 10 of the top 20 clients. It does not mean someone is corrupt or is taking advantage of his position. Fact of the matter is - Mr Baijal is a subject expert, and not more. He is a retired officer, with no powers. Ashlonerider has inserted these malicious comments just to give an impression of culpability. No formal complaint, or chargesheet has been issued against either Mr Baijal or Ms Radia.

None of the policy changes can be characterized as flip flops. That again is media sensenationalism. Here is a man who has been awarded as a role of the regulator. The US government has conferred praises. He has won the award as the best regulator. All policy changes impact different players - but the overwhelming number of people believe it was done to the benefit of the consumer (which is the charter for the government)

Mr Baijal has his own website - the reference to which has been deleted (pradipbaijal.com)

120.62.4.138 (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC) arjunagra