New Delhi, July 31: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh donned the war-paint ahead of entering the parliamentary trenches which are well girded-up for battle tomorrow on, turning to offence as preferred form of defence.

His office worked overtime on the weekend, drafting a stout rejoinder to cut through sniper-fire media allegations that Singh had “looked the other way” fully aware of misdemeanour in A. Raja’s telecom dispensation. Titled ‘AT ARMS LENGTH Explained’, the pointed seven-para rebuttal ventured to clear the air on “unwarranted inferences” made from a January 23, 2008 PMO (Prime Minister’s Office) noting which said the ‘PM wants this informally shared with the department (of telecom). (He) does not want a formal communication and wants PMO to be at arms length.’

It listed detailed directives from the PMO on the requirements of procedural propriety and a level playing field among competing telecom operators, and concluded: “The noting under question can in no way be construed to mean that the Prime Minister or his office looked the other way on matters relating to the grant of licence or spectrum charges etc.”

And while that response was being finalised, Singh himself displayed a bellicose bone saying he was unafraid to take the corruption campaign right into the opposition camp. “We are not afraid of discussing issues of corruption,” Singh told journalists at the close of an all-party meeting called by Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar this afternoon, “The Opposition has too many skeletons in its cupboard. We are not afraid of discussing any issue.”

Leader of Opposition Sushma Swaraj was quick to leap on the dare. “See, he (the Prime Minister) has started it, but let us see who attacks from tomorrow. The government is free to bring out all the arrows in its quiver, let us see who has more arrows.

So even though the Prime Minister wished a “peaceful and productive session” and Swaraj hoped the House would “function”, a quite dissimilar and dissonant tone has been set between Singh and his opposite number in the Lok Sabha. The next five weeks could well witness tumultuous parliamentary standoff, feeding collateral fire to civil society cannons being rolled around to take fresh aim at the political class mid-month.

Parliament awaits sparring on a catalogue of contentious issues — rising prices, the Telangana simmer, renewed concerns over internal security following the Mumbai explosions — but corruption is likely to deliver debilitating decibels in both Houses, much to the delight of the Anna Hazare league seeking to impose itself as nominated corrective on the elected but errant political class.

Aware that the Opposition would come straight and strong at him on the 2G issue, armed with A. Raja’s court submission virtually making Singh and then finance minister, P. Chidambaram party to decisions taken, the Prime Minister said: “ The matter is before the court. It should be left to be decided by the court and Parliament should not pre-judge the issue....I sincerely hope that these matter should be left to be decided by the courts.”

Swaraj immediately disagreed, arguing “issues are decided inside Parliament not outside.” Asked if moving a no-confidence motion was part of the Opposition’s strategy, Swaraj was cryptic: “We have not thought of it yet,” she said.

Congress managers — aided by a new junior minister for parliamentary affairs in the eager-beaver Rajiv Shukla — remain worried over how hard the Opposition’s assault may be. Party sources suggest their best bet might be to turn it into a “your corruption is worse than my corruption” debate. When 2G is flung at them, the treasury will fling back Bellary taint and the messy ouster of B.S. Yeddyurappa from Karnataka chief ministership. “It is not going to be a one-way thing, take my word,” said a Congress MP, “As the Prime Minister himself has said, the Opposition has its own mess to grapple with.”

It is clear the PMO’s refutation of “unwarranted inferences” that the controversial noting was in “response to the Prime Minister being informed of steps being taken which he knew were inappropriate but he looked the other way” is timed to offset the Opposition’s attack. The clarification, pasted on the PMO’s website late this afternoon, said: “The note of the Prime Minister's Office, on which the above noting was recorded, proposed consideration of an approach as follows:

a) Fix a ‘threshold’ level of spectrum that each operator must have in order to function with a minimum level of efficiency.

b) Existing operators holding spectrum above the threshold level may be allowed a certain amount of time to raise the subscriber levels to reach full utilization of spectrum, failing which the excess spectrum may be withdrawn.

c) New operators may be allotted spectrum only up to the threshold level on payment of the normal fees.

d) The balance spectrum may then be auctioned among all those who hold spectrum up to the threshold level.

It may be seen that the approach was intended to create a level playing field between existing operators and new entrants. It did not deal with either issues relating to manner of grant of licence or charges for spectrum up to the threshold level.”

It further argued that the proposal of the PMO was to forward these suggestions to the department of telecom (DoT) for further consideration on the basis of individual consultations with the main players and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai). “It was well known at that time that there were conflicting interests between existing operators and new entrants. The Prime Minister felt that this matter required detailed examination and deliberation by the DoT in consultation with Trai and others. He felt that, under the circumstances, it was not appropriate for the PMO to pronounce on the matter till the subject had been carefully considered by the administrative ministry in consultation with Trai and other concerned departments. Therefore, it was sent as an informal suggestion to the DoT for consideration,” the clarification said. Arguing that the note related “solely to the manner in which the approach summarised above should be conveyed to the department of telecom to be considered on merits without being viewed as a direction from the Prime Minister or his office”, the clarification concluded: “The above clearly brings out that the noting under question can in no way be construed to mean that the Prime Minister or his office looked the other way on matters relating to the grant of licence or spectrum charges etc.”