Writing in The Hindu, C.R.L.Narasimhan, a respected financial journalist makes the following observation:
"The usual way senior executives of government banks get into trouble is through the actions of their subordinates in which case it becomes a question of vicarious responsibility. It is likely that where the number one person actually instigated the action that leads to criminal behaviour on the part of one or more of his subordinates he will be clever enough to camouflage his own role.
That leads to the puzzling question as to why Mr. Jain was brazen enough to demand a bribe over the telephone (and that too the one which he normally uses). A person with even half the intelligence a CMD of a bank has (or presumed to have) would have a thousand other ways to ask and receive bribes if he wants to be corrupt.
It is also logical to think that the vice-chairman of a large corporate ‘negotiating’ a bribe with a senior executive of a nationalised bank would be more discreet."
The writer has subtly indicated that corrupt deals are normally transacted in a more recondite and esoteric manner so that the guilty will have easy escape routes. Those conversant with banking transactions tend to believe that corruption is very rampant.
Therefore, Narasimhan's conclusion that " However, their top executives certainly do not deserve to be tarred with the same brush just because of the alleged corrupt ways of one of them" strains our credulity.
It is more realistic to say that honest bankers are not yet totally extinct.