Beyond the political infighting, the scandal has broad implications for India, the world’s second-fastest-growing major economy. Growth depends increasingly on turning whole swaths of the state-directed economy over to the private sector, whose capital and expertise are critical as India embarks on plans to build roads, bridges, ports and power plants.

But many analysts say the telecom scandal is just one indicator of crony capitalism and inadequate oversight that fuel public skepticism about capitalism and slow down reforms. The scandal also has revealed an incestuous world of journalists, corporate lobbyists and politicians and has reinforced the perception of an Indian economy dominated by a small, tightly connected elite.

“Even as the government cedes control over large parts of the economy, its graft-ridden approach to privatization could leave long-lasting scars that hold India back from reaching its potential,” said Eswar S. Prasad, a professor of trade policy at Cornell University and an adviser to India’s Finance Ministry. “Open corruption and rising stark disparities in wealth are a volatile mix that could affect social stability if the benefits of growth don’t filter down.”

For the Congress Party, the scandal has even tarnished Mr. Singh, considered the most upright and squeaky clean politician in India. He has not been linked to any wrongdoing, but his image as a capable administrator has been damaged as more allegations emerge about members of his cabinet.

To many analysts, the telecom scandal is emblematic of what many consider India’s gilded age, as a small group of powerful conglomerates scramble to fight for resources or projects, whether mining rights, land, infrastructure projects or the electromagnetic waves known as spectrum that carry cellphone service.

Photo

India is the world’s second-largest cellphone market, with nearly 700 million subscribers, and the profits of private operators depend on licenses for spectrum. In a hearing this month, India’s Supreme Court expressed astonishment over the irregular practices of India’s Department of Telecommunications in dividing up the spectrum in 2008.

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

On the final day of the allocation, telecom officials issued an unexpected notice informing applicants of a rule change. Spectrum would effectively be awarded by schoolboy rules; the first companies to reach the counter with completed paperwork and a license fee of $355 million would qualify. Businessmen sprinted down the hallway, jostling down stairs, as they rushed toward the office where a clerk was processing applications. Investigators are now looking into whether certain companies were tipped in advance to the rules change.

“The bizarreness of it took us by surprise,” one executive who witnessed the scramble said in an interview. “People were pushing and shoving, making sure they were ahead of everybody else.”

Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.

Less than two years ago, India was horrified over a scandal at Satyam, an Internet technology company whose founder and chairman admitted to fraudulent accounting. That now seems quaint, as scandals of far greater magnitude multiply in illegal iron ore mining, banking, the staging of the recent Commonwealth Games and more.

The telecom industry in India was essentially born in the mud pit of corruption. Telephones were once a rarity in India — made rarer by the plodding intransigence of the government service provider, which might take one year, or three, to fulfill a customer’s order for a new line. Then in 1994, three years after India began embracing market reforms, telecom was opened to the private sector.

The move unleashed nothing short of a revolution, eventually providing hundreds of millions with their first telephone service. But corruption also soon surfaced: in 1996, the minister overseeing the telecom field was charged with accepting bribes. Investigators searching his home discovered more than 24 million rupees, or roughly $550,000, stuffed inside trunks, pillowcases and toilet tanks.

Photo

Nearly 15 years later, the style of corruption is far different, as is the money. This year, India’s cellphone customers are expected to pay nearly $20 billion in bills, according to the technology research company Gartner. Most of this revenue will go to a handful of big players — Reliance Communications, Airtel, Vodafone, Tata Teleservices and Idea Cellular — which together account for almost 80 percent of the market.

With the exception of Vodafone, a British corporation, these giant telecom companies are all subsidiaries of India’s biggest conglomerates, headed by some of the nation’s most powerful tycoons. Their companies reach into steel, autos, natural gas, power plants, mining, construction and media. Today, India has 66 resident billionaires whose combined wealth of roughly $244 billion is equivalent to more than a fifth of the country’s $1.1 trillion gross domestic product.

This trend of the richest getting even richer, in a country where 800 million people survive on $2 or less a day, is raising concerns, especially since so many fortunes are rooted in industries intertwined with government licenses and rife with corruption.

“There is a risk that India will evolve toward a condition of oligarchic capitalism, in which the market and political power of major corporations will become a drag on long-term growth and a source of distortion in policy,” a report sponsored by the Asian Development Bank warned.

Now many analysts say that the scandal represents a major test for Indian governance and capitalism — and whether the system can mete out punishment for wrongdoing.

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

“When the entire government structure sees that people are getting away with taking bribes and no one is getting punished, right down the line everyone starts trying to do it,” said Raghuram G. Rajan, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago.