Supreme Court of India

We can divide the Supreme Court history into 3 periods. The first was when the judges had good grasp of both law and English (Justice Patanjali Sastry and others). The second crop of judges were adept in English and not so in law (Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer). The present is amateurish in both. 

Chief Justice S.A.Bobde has commented "there is no let-down in crimes against women." This conveys the opposite of what he wants to say. He meant let-up and goofed up with let-down. Let-down means disappointment!

Supreme Court and Chidambaram's bail

Reading the 36 page judgement of the Supreme Court reversing the Delhi High Court decision and granting bail to P.Chidambaram, one gets the impression that one's faith in the judicial process is neither sustained nor restored.

The Supreme Court substantially agrees with the High Court, but cleverly and perhaps cunningly arrives at the contrary decision. The apex court accepts that economic offences are a class apart. It is therefore the case that the tripod test (flight risk, tampering with documentary evidence and influencing the witnesses) is not the only consideration to decide on bail applications. Yet it is also held that bail is the rule and jail the exception.

The sealed cover may contain the reasons why bail is not called for. But then, bail is the rule. The accused is 74 years old. He had to consume antibiotics in jail! Is PC the only pre-trial prisoner satisfying these conditions? The court could have used this opportunity to enquire how many such prisoners were there in Tihar jail itself. Does the court care for equality before the law?

The court accepts that the gravity of alleged offence is a relevant consideration. There is a rider there also. The maximum period of prison sentence for his alleged offence is ONLY 7 years and so bail is the norm.

Tushar Mehta had made it clear to the court that the charge sheet is not yet exhaustive and that further investigation is necessary in the interest of justice. Witnesses had confirmed that they had come under pressure from the accused and his family. All these matter little to the court because the accused is 74 years old and has lost weight while in prison. If these are accepted as exculpatory reasons for lenience in grant of bail, the prisons will become almost empty.

Ayodhya verdict

Ayodhya is an antonym for war. The name is associated meaningfully with the likes of Ram who was averse to waging a war ; Ayodhya can have no attributes of a person, a descendant of Genghis Khan,  who waged multiple wars to gain territory and commit unspeakable atrocities.

It is unfortunate that Indians are known for their xenophilia. Evils emanating from this tendency were highlighted by George Washington in his famous 'Farewell Address': (tedious but worth reading):

"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter."

It is not surprising, therefore, that criticisms abound about the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in the Ayodhya case. Archaeological Society of India had firmly concluded that the Masjid was built on the ruins of a non-Muslim construction. This was typical of the acts of a murderous marauder. Clamour for imparting a higher legal title to a merciless invader indulging in lawless adventure than to wronged and helpless locals is a typical manifestation of spineless xenophilia.

Come clean on NEET

The Madras High Court has made some spectacular observations in a NEET (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test) - related case. These observations are perhaps born out of genuine concern for the poor students. But apparent failure on the part of honourable judges (N.Kirubakaran and P.Velmurugan) to ask relevant questions seems to have misled them.

In Tamil Nadu, a preponderant majority of successful students in NEET has gone through private coaching which costs around Rs.5 lac. This isolated statistic has made the judges observe that NEET is anti-poor. Is this the case in other states also?

There is widespread resistance (fuelled by donation-greedy medical colleges promoted by political leaders) to NEET only in Tamil Nadu. It is not possible that other states are not concerned about the prospects of poor students. Students in other states are able to clear the NEET exam even without additional coaching because the educational standards in their state schools are good enough to enable their students to get through NEET.

So the answer to the problem faced exclusively by poor students in Tamil Nadu lies in improvement in the standards of school education. Instead, if we do away with NEET, we will only throw the baby with the bathwater. The court's gratuitous question "Why can't the Centre cancel NEET like other systems implemented by the Congress-DMK regime?" unnecessarily paints the issue in political colour.

Tamil Nadu should stop treating the students as dumb folks who need to be protected from knowledge and start respecting them as eager minds which have a welcome hunger for relevant knowledge.

Artificial Intelligence on steroids

Google recently announced that they have designed a quantum computer that processes in just 200 seconds what the most efficient computer that exists today will take 1,000 years to process. ‘Quantum Supremacy’ has arrived!

It has been speculated for quite sometime now that the Moore’s Law which states that the speed and capability of computers can be expected to double every two years, is becoming outdated because the limits of computational ability are approaching. The advent of quantum computer has obsolesced the Law in an unexpected way!

John McCarthy who coined the term ‘Artificial Intelligence’ (AI) defined it as the science and engineering of making an intelligent machine. The question therefore arises as to what is intelligence. Intelligence may be classified or taxonomised in two different ways. The macro taxonomy as defined by psychologists Raymond Cattell and John Horn is crystallized intelligence and fluid intelligence.

Crystallised intelligence is accumulation and retention of knowledge. It comes out of experience and memory. Fluid intelligence is the ability to think, connect the dots and come to decisions. Both are important in order to succeed in life. Therefore AI also is supposed to incorporate both.

The micro taxonomy is elucidated by Howard Gardner. He contends that intelligence is of nine different types. These are spatial, kinesthetic, naturalist, quantitative, existential, linguistic, musical, inter-personal and intra-personal. These intelligences are exhibited illustratively by pilots, dancers, botanists, engineers, spiritualists, orators / writers, singers, leaders and psychologists respectively.

It is not possible for a human being to be adept in all nine types of intelligence. However, it is theoretically possible to design artificial entities which will exhibit all of these.

Artificial intelligence of a computer is categorized as Artificial Narrow Intelligence (ANI), Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI) depending on the variety of tasks the computer can perform. ANI is the limited capacity to perform only one kind of task. AGI involves the ability to perform any task that a human being can do. ASI transcends the limitations of human intelligence and is the ability to do what humans cannot.

AI can work 24 hours a day unlike the human intelligence. AI can execute hazardous and boring jobs without complaining. It can consistently perform activities flawlessly, a far cry from what a human can do. On top of all this, AI does not have a bias of its own. Contrarily, an unbiased human being is perhaps an oxymoron.

The Infosys drama

The whistle has been blown once again in Infosys. It is alleged with recorded evidence that the CEO Salil Parekh and CFO Nilanjan Roy care two hoots for accounting niceties and they have been exhorting the Finance team to play ball. The whistle-blowers claim that the CEO has told the Finance team, "No one in the board understands accounting principles, they are happy as long as the share price is up. Those two Madrasis (Sundaram and Prahlad) and Diva (Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw) make silly points, you just nod and ignore them."

If the CEO has really said what is ascribed to him, he has no right to continue in the company. If the CEO has no respect for the board, either the CEO or the board needs to quit right away. It is easier for the company if one person departs. The term 'Madrasi' has multiple meanings. Originally it referred to a person from Madras Presidency which was a substantial part of southern India. Later on, the word started representing anyone from the Madras state (now called TamilNadu). There was a time when the north Indians would refer to anyone uncomfortable with Hindi as a Madrasi. Now that most people from the south are proficient in Hindi, this epithet has lost its linguistic meaning.

The sense in which Salil Parekh has used the term perhaps is that any person who asks an inconvenient or trivial question is a Madrasi.  Prahlad, a relative of N.R.Narayana Murthy is probably not a Madrasi since he could be from Karnataka. Since the CEO is averse to Mr.Prahlad, he may also be spoiling his relations with NRN which means that Parekh's departure is only a matter of time.

Mr.Seshasayee, a former Chair of the board, must be enjoying the fun now. He was overthrown unjustly or so it appears in retrospect. It is time for the present Chairman, Nandan Nilekani to take tough decisions. He has to explain why the board has apparently been quiet for almost a month since the whistle was blown. The audit committee has belatedly retained Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas and Co. to investigate the matter. A predictable but costly trick to buy time.

The drama taking place in a company whose promoters are justifiably known for better corporate governance is a cruel joke on the shareholders. The company's share has lost 14% of its value in the market since the news became public. Who or what is to be blamed for this? The CEO's urge to 'perform' by hook or crook or the market's expectation of sustained growth or the board's incapacity to assess how the company was faring or the 'Madrasis' ' penchant for questioning?

N.Ram's blitzkrieg

Ram has launched a blitzkrieg to retrieve P.Chidambaram from the ignominy of incarceration. A lengthy leader in The Hindu , an article in the same newspaper questioning the legality of custodial  interrogation and Ram's retweet of Kart Chidambaram's "4 Raids, 25 Summons and Custody has yielded results!" (sic) are the day's loyalty fee to PC.

Let us deal with the main arguments one by one. 1) Why pre-trial imprisonment? Is it not punishment before judgement? There are thousands of pre-trial and under-trial prisoners in India. This has not been held unlawful by the courts. PC brought pre-trial imprisonment upon himself by his execrable conduct in responding to the investigative agencies. The Hindu which did not feel the necessity for condemning arbitrary arrests and torture of innocents during the Emergency is now pleading for freedom of an allegedly corrupt former minister because he happens to be Ram's friend. When Kanimozhi and A.Raja were lodged in Tihar jail pending court hearings in the 2G case, PC found nothing wrong in the law taking its own course. (Of course, The Hindu was not in favour of their arrest also.)

2) "Custodial interrogation should be disallowed because one should not be forced to incriminate oneself." This argument is acceptable in the case of common people against whom 'third-degree methods' are possibly adopted during such interrogations. Investigative agencies dare not apply such methods where a person as well-connected as PC is involved.

3) "So many raids, so many summons and yet what has been found?" This is exactly the problem with the alleged offenders whose loyal contacts cultivated over time in many places brief them on confidential information on raids. Chidambarams are intelligent enough to throw the investigators off the scent and then ask "what have you found?" The perverted smartness of PC leaves the CBI and ED with no choice but to seek extended incarceration and custodial interrogation of the accused.

4) It is disappointing that PC is treated differently from other prisoners. How many prisoners are permitted to avail of home-made food? How many of them are allowed to meet their relatives on a daily basis?

Abhijit Banerjee's inconsistent criteria

Abhijit Vinayak Banerjee is one of the three economists honoured with the Nobel this year for adopting Randomised Controlled Trials in attempts to alleviate poverty. These trials emanated in the pharma industry and adopting them in economic studies is a trail blazer in its own way. Just like any adoption of a new methodology in any field, this transplant of a pharma idea in the economic field has attracted a lot of scepticism. But the Nobel committee thought it fit to award the prestigious prize to the pioneers in this area namely Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer.

It is an opportune time for Banerjee and Duflo to market their recently published book "Good Economics for Hard Times." Any trial aims to isolate the variables which result in a particular consequence. For example, one may try to find out which variable results in faster reduction in poverty: adoption of Universal Basic Income or incentives for investment.

These trials will yield useful results only if strict criteria are made applicable to understand the cause and effect relationship. If Banerjee's recent utterances are any indication, Banerjee does not seem to apply consistent criteria. He keeps saying that high rates of income tax do not negatively impact economic growth. He arrived at this conclusion because the American economy grew at a fast pace during Dwight Eisenhower's presidency when the marginal tax rate was vertiginous at 95% (Is it not possible that other variables counterbalanced the impact of tax rates? There was no controlled study done.)

Applying the same logic, when Banerjee was asked if the NYAY proposal was an electoral failure because the Congress party which included this in its electoral campaign was comprehensively defeated, his response was disappointingly different. With an apparent self-interest (Banerjee was one of the architects of NYAY),  Banerjee claimed that there were other variables which caused the defeat of Congress at the hustings.

N.Ram on P.Chidambaram

N.Ram of The Hindu confidently claims there is 'no evidence against Chidambaram.' He may well be right. However, his conclusion that 'monstrous injustice' has been done to P.C. is monumentally wrong. While talking about Chidambaram, Ram becomes as clever as the former. He only says there is no evidence of wrong-doing; he does not say that P.C. did not indulge in wrong-doing.

Why am I saying this? There is a report in The Economic Times today ( The Hindu does not believe in publishing such relevant news) regarding the invoices sent by Chess Management Services Private Ltd to INX Media for payment after FIPB absolved INX Media. Some of these invoices were drawn by Advantage Strategic Consultants Private Ltd. These original invoices were returned to CMSPL later, on their advice. These invoices would prove the connection between these two companies and PC's son and such evidence would expose the scam. Therefore, the scamsters were cleverly ensuring that any palpable evidence would be out of the reach of any future investigator. Thus the modus-operandi was "Commit the crime, make money, but destroy the evidence." So, Ram is absolutely right in saying there is no evidence! There cannot be, when the criminals are thoughtfully clever!

Ram also claims that the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court came to wrong decisions. These courts were privy to confidential information provided by investigating authorities. We may not know what this information is; but Ram would know because he has access to all confidential and secret notes (remember Rafale Notes?). Would The Hindu reveal what this confidential information is? Without this information, Ram could not have concluded that the two courts erred in their judgments.

Lord Ram is known for protecting anyone ,even if most sinful, once the person offers Saranagathi to Him. Narasimhan Ram probably feels that it is his duty to protect his friend. Let him be faithful to his friend. But let him not accuse the honourable courts of perpetrating injustice. Ram's grievance that PC is wronged for political reasons does not entitle him to demonise the judiciary. He has advised that a review petition or a curative petition has to be moved immediately, as if Kapil Sibal and Manu Singhvi are ignorant !

Transfer of the senior-most HC judge

The Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani is under orders of transfer to the Meghalaya High Court. The former has 75 judges and the latter 3 judges. Therefore there is no doubt that this is a punitive transfer. She is the senior-most High Court judge now and in the normal course would have been elevated to the Supreme Court in the near future.

According to NDTV, she is transferred on the basis of feedback from the Madras High Court. This is as enigmatic as anything can be. The transfer recommendation has been made by the Supreme Court collegium. Foreclosing one's opportunity to become a judge of the apex court is not a trifling matter. The collegium must have thought twice before making this portentous recommendation. The proposal is mysterious because Tahilramani has generally been considered non-controversial.

Tahilramani is likely to resign as she feels victimised. It is incumbent on the collegium to clear the air surrounding this mystery. It has made its recommendation "in the interest of better administration of justice." It has also rejected her plea for reconsideration. So, it strongly feels that Tahilramani's continued presence in the Madras High Court is not desirable.

Did the collegium come under governmental pressure? If it acted under pressure, the quintet forming the collegium at present do not deserve to be judges. Thus it is in their own interest that the collegium owes a clarification to the nation which is anxious that judiciary must not wilt under any kind of pressure.

There is onus on the part of the government also to explain what has happened. It cannot wash its hands off on the plea that it only acted on the collegium recommendation. The Law Minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad needs to remember that he had often claimed that the government is not just a post office conveying the collegium's recommendation to the President and that it duly applies its mind. Did it occur to the Law Minister that there is something sinister about the collegium proposal? Or is he the author of the proposal? Both the collegium and the government will do well to come clean on this apparently mischievous move. If the honourable judge had invited this action through her below-par performance, she must not be allowed to play the victim card. Whichever way you look at this sordid development, there is a crying need for clarification.

'Crazy' Mohan

Mohan Rangachari is no more. Though we knew him as a simple person, he combined in himself abilities which are generally considered contradictory.

Jubilant when he cracked jokes, he was also pensive as he wrote poems. He was intellectually a philosopher; but he was also capable of positioning himself as an ordinary person amusingly commenting on quotidian happenings. He was both a comedian and a humorist. His comedy was without rancour. His humour was without arrogance. Self-righteousness was unknown to him.

He was known to and liked by people of all ages. Despite his well-earned fame, he was totally bereft of ego. Mylapore - Mandaveli was a joyful place because of his effervescent conversations. He was never shy of greeting people, known and unknown. M-M has fallen into sepulchral silence due to his untimely demise. The void created by the departure of an egoless person like 'Crazy' Mohan is impossible to fill. 

Rahul Gandhi's shocker

Opposition parties have a key role to play in any democracy. It is often said that China can develop faster than India because there is no democracy in China and therefore government takes quicker decisions there. Though this argument is plausibly logical, this overlooks the fact that the government in a democracy gets the benefit of opposing views which are often useful. Democracy is a political arrangement that facilitates sustainable economic progress.

Unlike in an autocracy, there are checks and balances in a democracy. An effective opposition provides an effective check against egregious behaviour by the ruling party. The leader of the main opposition has therefore to be politically aware and functionally contributive. As a prospective leader of the government, he or she must set a suitable example to his/her party people. He must earn the confidence of the people and offer constructive criticism of actions and plans of the government.

As president of the Congress party, Rahul Gandhi has failed his party and the country on every count. He was not elected as the party's president democratically. His reading of the political situation is abysmally poor and hence his party's poor show in the 2019 elections. He could not win the parliamentary poll even in his family fiefdom of Amethi. He exhorts his party MPs to 'shout a little more' and thereby create difficulties for the government. In short, Rahul Gandhi exhibits abundant amateurishness and scant seriousness.

The greatest service Rahul Gandhi can now render to his party and the country is to keep his word on resigning from presidentship of the party. Sycophants, mother and sister may try to dissuade him for their own benefit. Congress has put up with him too long and has already paid a heavy price. Should the pain continue?

Congress' egress as a political force

"It is not necessary that the president (of INC) should be from Gandhi family" declared Rahul Gandhi in the Congress Working Committee that was discussing the poll results. Rahul was resisting the attempts (genuine or dubious?) of other members of the CWC to persuade him to continue to lead the party. P.Chidambaram took the histrionic cake by breaking down in tears when Rahul expressed his determination to resign from leadership. PC warned Rahul Gandhi that his resignation would lead to Congressmen in Tamil Nadu immolating themselves. What a blend of sycophancy and deception!

PC and his ilk require a non-thinking leader like Rahul Gandhi to save them from many criminal cases. Rahul Gandhi has faulted the leaders like PC, Kamal Nath and Ashok Gehlot for pushing the candidature of their children. Why did he allow this in the first place? Kamal Nath has ensured the victory of his son. Gehlot could not save his son from defeat. Karti Chidambaram won piggybacking on DMK. KC would now claim that the people's court has exonerated him from charges levelled by the CBI  and the ED.

Rahul Gandhi has blamed these leaders for the poor performance of the party. These leaders would blame the Congress workers who in turn would blame the voters for not supporting the Congress. 

Lessons from the elections

The long-stretched general elections have at last come to an end. The exit polls whose reliability has always been in doubt have also made their entry. Actual results which will be available on the 23rd may or may not be what most exit polls have predicted.

Do the 2019 elections hold any lessons for us? We take pride in being a democracy and rightly so. Sustainability of a democracy depends more on effectiveness of the opposition than on governance standards of the ruling dispensation. Any government not monitored by capable opposition tends to become autocratic and undemocratic. A disjointed opposition is an invitation to dilution of governance.

The exit polls, at least most of them, point towards absence of any national party barring the BJP. This is an unwelcome development. In the parliamentary elections, the influence of the Congress party is confined to the states of Kerala and the Punjab. It piggybacks on DMK in TamilNadu and is reduced to irrelevance in most states. Communists have been virtually banished from W.Bengal and are losing ground in Kerala. Other parties like the SP, BSP, DMK and Trinamool Congress are complete non-entities beyond a state or two. Weakness and dysfunctionality of the opposition are therefore guaranteed.

If Indian parliamentary polity is becoming unipolar, it will be a huge disappointment. The blame would rest with the Grand Old Party.

Strange outpourings of legal luminaries

Legal profession demands that lawyers be opportunists and convenient twisters of logic. Opportunism done in excess attracts opprobrium. Reactions of legal luminaries to the outcome of the harassment charge against the CJI are a testimony to this.

In sexual harassment cases, law demands that anonymity of the complainant has to be ensured. The case needs to be concluded as speedily as possible so that agony for both the complainant and the accused is not extended over torturous time. But Prashant Bhushan has taken exception to in-camera proceedings and the 'haste' in completion. He complains, "An in-house committee of the CJI's colleagues which held informal proceedings in-camera without allowing the complainant a lawyer or a support person has given a hasty clean chit to the CJI."

Sanjay Hegde has contested Justice Bobde who is next only to the CJI  in seniority, heading the panel that enquired into the allegation. Why? The reasoning is as strange as it can get. "He will in all probability be the next CJI. Two of his immediate predecessors have come under public scrutiny of an unwelcome kind. The court has now chosen a status quoist denial over a serious exploration of the truth , regardless of risk. How will its actions be seen?" The insinuation is that Bobde is trying to protect himself against a possible complaint against him when he becomes the CJI. Activists are working overtime preparing affidavits against whoever becomes the next CJI?

Dushyant Dave makes a snide appeal to other judges of the Supreme Court. "Will the honourable judges stand up as the collective conscience of the Supreme Court?", he wants to know. Looking for a split in the court?

When eminent lawyers are keen on destroying the sanctity of courts in their attempts to denigrate a judge, the helpless citizen becomes more concerned about the future of the country.

Understanding 'dissent'

Dissent connotes disagreement. It is per se neither deplorable nor delightful. A committee or a court bench or a corporate / government department is expected to consist of persons capable of thinking differently from one another and thereby contributing variety and quality to decisional inputs. Lack of unanimity is therefore inherent in decisions made by such bodies. If these bodies are packed only with yes-men, unanimity will be the norm.

A lot has been written about 'dissent' among officials of the Defence Ministry especially regarding Rafale pricing decisions, among the three members of the Election Commission in their response to complaints against the election speeches of Narendra Modi and among the judges of the apex court regarding the harassment complaint against the CJI. It is ironic that the media which is supposed to be intellectually endowed and therefore ought to welcome different opinions has chosen to criticise the decisions of these institutions because of presence of dissent. It is a pity that what ought to be welcomed, is criticised as unacceptable.

Election Commission has three members and not two so that dissent does not lead to stalemate. The bench hearing the complaint against the CJI consists of three judges not to avoid dissent among the judges but to ensure that disagreement does not stifle conclusion.

The panel of three judges has now concluded that the harassment complaint against the CJI lacks substance. There is apparently a conspiracy against the CJI and an attempt to browbeat the Supreme Court. It is reported, though not confirmed, that Justice Chandrachud favoured inclusion of an outsider in the panel hearing the complaint. It is his opinion and he is entitled to it. But a dissenting opinion on constitution of the panel does not make the conclusion of the three judges any less valid.

An enlightened society learns to live with and even encourage dissent without deifying or demonising it. Constructive dissent adds value to democracy and does not demean it. On the other hand, motivated dissent with a hidden agenda destroys democracy.

Supreme Court under siege

It is distressing that there is a complaint against the Chief Justice of India that he had misbehaved with a lady Junior Court Assistant. Even as it is too premature to comment on the credibility or otherwise of the complaint, it is evident that the CJI is terribly upset. Under such immense psychological pressure, one is apt to make misjudgments. This is particularly sad because the function of a judge is to arrive at judgments.

The details provided by the complainant indicate that the CJI trained and even mentored her to become a better-informed and socially a more friendly person. He is said to have called her and texted her on many occasions before October 10th and 11th, 2018. These dates are relevant because the accusation is that the CJI misbehaved with her on these days.

The complainant has forwarded appeals against her harassment to the Delhi Commission of Women, Lieutenant Governor of Delhi Anil Baijal, the Prime Minister’s Office, the National Human Rights Commission, Special Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), Special Commissioner of Police (Law & Order), Chief Minister of Delhi Arvind Kejriwal, and the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. The appeal contains elaborate and date-wise details. If the complaint is false, then some expert must have prepared it and made it cogent.

It is too early to conclude if the complaint is genuine or as some claim is intended to preclude the CJI from pronouncing judgments in some politically sensitive cases.
“The allegations regarding 11 October 2018, as well as other allegations, are completely and absolutely false and scurrilous and are totally denied,” according to the secretary-general of the Supreme Court.

Pressure is telling on the Supreme Court. Without hearing the complainant, the judges who sat in the Court on April 20, a holiday, characterised the complaint as "wild and scandalous." The judges asked the media to exercise restraint and remove such material which is undesirable. Acute embarrassment is writ large in these words.

Indian politics and judiciary are facing one crisis after another. If a citizen anxiously wonders if we are capable of governing ourselves, we need not be surprised.

Anil Ambani and Rafale contract

The French newspaper, Le Monde (literally meaning 'The World'), has reported that a telecom company of Anil Ambani received the benefit of waiver of tax dues from the French government during the time the Indian government considered placing orders for Rafale jets.

It needs to be investigated if Anil Ambani was lobbying with the Indian government on behalf of Dassault and if the tax waiver is a reward for bagging the contract. Has Narendra Modi bent over backwards to help Anil Ambani?

If  Le Monde's version of linking the waiver and the Rafale contract is correct, it will be a big slur on Narendra Modi.

Contradictions / insinuations in N.Ram's 'exclusive'

Shri N.Ram continues to exercise his proprietorial liberty to foist his 'exclusive' Rafale reports on The Hindu readers, frontpaging his innuendoes and rehashing his exaggerated spins on confidential notes prepared in the Defence Ministry. He has mastered the art of contradicting one insinuation made by him and creating another hoping that if one does not stick, the other would.

I express my views with both anguish and anxiety, anguished by the fall of a reliable newspaper into a purveyor of partisan news and perverted views, anxious to know how the other family members (after all, The Hindu is family-owned despite the occasional veneer of professionalism) continue to allow the newspaper to be hijacked for political purposes.

In his 'exclusive' on April 9th, Ram points out the similarities between Rafale transaction and Bofors deal. He fails to point out the major dissimilarities, namely the absence of money trail in Rafale as against the bribery-based Bofors deal and Chitra Subramaniam-guided Bofors investigation as against sycophants-assisted misplaced investigation into Rafale agreement.

In one place, Ram discovers the 'discomfort' of Manohar Parikkar 'evidenced' by the latter's reference to the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) for approval of deviations from the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) instead of approving them himself. Ram does not utilise his 'investigative' skills to discover why P.Chidambaram arrogated to himself the Cabinet powers in Aircel-Maxis case. It is journalism turned on its head when investigations are avoided when they are needed and undertaken when there is no reason. These two instances bring out the difference between Modi and Manmohan as a leader. Ministers in Modi's ministry are not afraid of seeking the Cabinet approval when necessary whereas in Manmohan's ministry there was licence to do anything so long as Manmohan was not brought into the scene. Manmohan Singh explained this as coalition-dharma.

In another place, in sharp contrast, Ram insinuates as to why Parikkar did not refer to CCS for approval of deviations though they had earlier been approved by CCS in a different reference. Ram's incoherent and slanted investigation is amusing.

Ram is aware and has noted that 'offset' is usually rendered in French as 'contrepartie' (compensation). Yet his prejudiced mind forces Ram to cynically observe that an internal Dassault document revealed that "a senior executive of the French group told staff representatives that the joint venture with Reliance was agreed as a 'compensation' ".

I don't know how many people read these 'exclusive' reports. I am eager to know if even Ram is reading the reports which are possibly prepared by his assistants with the only objective of derailing Modi.

The Hindu's disbelief of the Indian government

The Hindu's Readers' Editor, in his sermon on April 8,  has  preferred to give greater credence to a report appearing in an American magazine 'Foreign Policy' than to the version of the Indian government on India shooting down an F-16 employed by Pakistan. In an insinuating tone, he has noted that authorities tend to hide behind anonymity. "The Indian Air Force's version was circulated through the news agency IANS."

Fine. Source of credible information should not be anonymous. I assumed that since The Hindu has trusted the Foreign Policy report, the identity of persons who have concluded that India's version is wrong must have been disclosed.

The Foreign Policy report says. " Two senior U.S. defense officials with direct knowledge of the situation told Foreign Policy that U.S. personnel recently counted Islamabad’s F-16s and found none missing." Who are these two officials? The report does not divulge.

The report further adds, "One of the senior U.S. defense officials with direct knowledge of the count said that Pakistan invited the United States to physically count its F-16 planes after the incident as part of an end-user agreement signed when the foreign military sale was finalized. " Who is this official?

The Hindu's policy seems to be that you can trust an anonymous report if it contradicts the Indian government. Otherwise, no. This is the consistency of jaundiced eyes.

Rafale and 2019 elections

The Hindu CSDS-Lokniti pre-poll survey conducted in the last week of March brings out an interesting aspect about the impact of Rafale allegations on popular perception.

52% of the people who are aware of Rafale transaction desire that NDA should get another chance at government. This is against only 39% among those who are not aware of the transaction.

What does this mean? Either the people are convinced about the genuineness and integrity of the transaction or the critics have done a bad job of analysing the transaction.

Will The Hindu take note of this curious finding and stop misinterpreting the transaction? Or will the newspaper stop supporting CSDS-Lokniti?

MIGS or PIGS

Rahul Gandhi has sought to up the ante in election rhetoric promising Rs.72,000 per annum to the poorest 20 % of families. If proposed by a government, this will be hailed as a welcome social security measure that seeks to banish 'absolute poverty'. If proposed by an opposition party with all relevant calculations and plans on raising requisite funds, it will be praised as a sincere attempt to convince the electorate as to why the party deserves a chance to govern. If proposed by an opposition party at the last minute just ahead of the elections sans any sincere attempt at economic arithmetic, it will be dismissed as nothing more than deceitful election rhetoric.

NYAY (Nyuntam Aay Yojana - Minimum Income Guarantee Scheme [MIGS] ) announced by the Grand Old Party on March 25th is long on promises and short on planning. 50 million poorest families are promised Rs.72,000 p.a. each to enable them to have a minimum yearly income of Rs.144,000 each. Those families falling short of annual income of Rs.144,000 despite the government's proposed assistance will be assisted by the Congress party with additional funds to bridge the gap. Assistance by the Congress party was mentioned only in one report. Many reports of the scheme have emerged with inconsistent details.

It is a top-up scheme ,assures one and therefore it will not be fiscally taxing. It is not a top-up and all these families will be given Rs.72,000 p.a. as claimed by another report. Further details will be provided by the architect of the scheme, P.Chidambaram in due course. It is really funny that different leaders come up with different versions. (Chidambaram has since confirmed that Rs.6,000 per month will be provided to each of the poorest 20% of families. He has discounted any difficulty in identifying such families. An expert committee will be appointed if the party comes to power and the MIGS scheme will be rolled out in stages. The amount will be directly credited to the bank account of a woman member of the family. Poverty abolition and women empowerment at one stroke! )

It sounds more like a battle cry with military metaphors thrown in. "It is the final assault on poverty." "It is a surgical strike on poverty." We are led to believe that India will become a poverty-less (Garibi-mukt) nation within five years if only the Congress party is voted to power. What the grandmother could only promise but not deliver ('Garibi hatao'), the worthy grandson wants to deliver!

P.Chidambaram is confident that the scheme will not require more than 2% of GDP for its implementation. So, if the scheme does not lead to withdrawal of any subsidy scheme and if additional taxes are not levied, fiscal deficit (that is the amount to be borrowed by the government as % of GDP) will increase by 2%. Fiscal Deficit is now 3.3%

Direct income transfer to the poor cannot be questioned on ethical grounds. Even the most fiscally imprudent social welfare scheme can work well if accompanied by administrative efficiency and political rectitude. At the same time, even a fiscally prudent social welfare scheme will come a cropper if accompanied by administrative bungling and political duplicity.

We are not sure if the Congress party is chastened by the debacle it faced in 2014 on account of its multiple scams. If it has not learnt any lessons, MIGS will degenerate into PIGS (Political Income Guarantee Scheme). As of now, it looks as though NYAY or MIGS is a desperate gamble by the Congress party to oust Modi from power. Even if there is a change in government, Congress may at best be a coalition partner in the government. "Coalition Dharma" will provide an excuse for non-implementation of poll promises. The much wanted relief for the poor is not likely anytime soon.

N.Ram's miscalculation

As Mr.Ram continues his tirade against the Rafale contract, the chinks in his armour are becoming more transparent. He has repeatedly and vigorously argued that Modi's government is paying more for the aircraft than what Manmohan Singh's government wanted to pay but never paid. Comparison between an event and a non-event is ridiculous enough. On top of this, Mr.Ram has used an inappropriate figure to arrive at the conclusion he wanted to reach.

Under Table 2 : Comparison of Costs, the media baron points out that the aligned cost under the UPA's otiose proposal was 7488.58 million Euros including the cost of bank guarantee. In the actual contract under NDA, the comparable cost without bank guarantee is 7168.57 million Euros. So, the savings, the argument goes is only 320.01 million Euros. The learned journalist compares this savings with the cost of bank guarantee in terms of commission payable to guarantee-issuing banks which he reckons at 574 million Euros. This is where the miscalculation has occurred. (The allegation is savings to Dassault arising from avoidance of guarantee is not fully passed on to GOI.)

574 Million Euros is the cost if SBI issues the guarantee. But the guarantee was supposed to be issued by French banks and not by SBI. Commission on guarantees chargeable by the French banks was 143 million Euros which Mr.Ram has mercifully and hesitantly quoted, though with much less prominence. So, in effect, though the French company would have saved only 143 million Euros by avoiding the bank guarantees, GOI could extract cost reduction to the extent of 320.01 million Euros from the French.

It is said that if you torture the data enough, you can arrive at any conclusion. Apart from torturing the data, Mr.Ram uses the wrong data to suit his politically motivated conclusion. In the process he continues to mislead the reading public. As if this deviation from journalistic ethics is not enough, the Attorney General has now said that The Hindu is using 'stolen data'. N.Ram pleads that his exercise is in public interest. Is misleading the public in wily ways really in public interest?

There is another major problem arising from Mr.Ram's 'exclusive reports'. He has named the 'three dissenters' whom he calls the 'domain experts' in his reports. This jeopardises their security given the fact that the reports relate to competing players in arms and ammunition who because of their enormous reach are potentially capable of causing grave injury to person and reputation of bureaucrats. Mr.Ram has violated the right to privacy of these dissenters which includes the right to public anonymity of bureaucrats as far as their file notings are concerned.

This has another deleterious effect. If a newspaper chooses to publish names of officials who took a particular stand in an important issue, bureaucrats in future will opt to play safe by not articulating their views in the file. Any responsible newspaper will not indulge in this scandalous game. There are ways of presenting a report without causing possible hurt to officials. The Hindu chooses to hide 'Secret' from the face of an extract from a confidential Defence file, it chooses to publish deliberately truncated extracts, but feels free to give unnecessary publicity to names of 'dissenting officials'. Is this journalistic ethics?

N.Ram has accused a former Defence Secretary of being 'economical with the truth'. Mr.Ram is using wrong data and thereby distorts truth. I do not know which is a graver offence: an alleged economy with the truth or a deliberate distortion of data.

N.Ram 'exclusive' : "Government waived anti-corruption clauses in Rafale deal"

The Hindu has assured us that 'investigative reports' on Rafale will be released in dribs and drabs. It is the newspaper's prerogative to do so. However, prejudiced and one-sided reports deserve to be avoided.

The newspaper's headline on February 11 is "Government waived anti-corruption clauses in Rafale deal". The headline is sensational enough. But a more important step is awaited from The Hindu. How does it establish that the transaction was polluted by actual corruption.

A cursory reading of the day's report gives us the impression that modification of clauses is indicative of existence of unfair practices including bribery. It is significant to know whether there is any provision for deviation from standard clauses in IGA (Inter-Governmental Agreement) and contract documents. This is significant because The Hindu emphasises that  "DPP (Defence Procurement Policy) states explicitly that the Standard Document 'would be the guideline for all acquisitions' ". There is a convenient omission of any reference to para 71 of DPP-2013 governing the Rafale transaction.

Para 71 of DPP-2013 on Inter-Government Agreement (IGA) states that “there may be occasions when procurements would have. to be done from friendly foreign countries which may be necessitated due to geo-strategic advantages that are likely to accrue to the country. Such procurements would not classically follow the Standard Procurement Procedure and the. Standard Contract Document but would be based on mutually agreed provisions by the Governments of both the countries."

It is significant to note that DPP -2013 was not formulated by the present government. In all fairness, The Hindu ought to have mentioned this para in its report. 

The report also refers to the Letter of Comfort provided by the French government. What does the LoC say? The newspaper itself points out the following:

The letter of comfort issued by the French Prime Minister on September 8, 2016 (put out by ANI) states that “assuming that Dassault Aviation or MBDA France meet difficulties in execution of their respective supply protocols and would have to reimburse all or part of the intermediary payment to Government of the Republic of India, the Government of the French Republic will take appropriate measures so as to make sure that said payments or reimbursements will be made at the earliest.”

An assurance given by a government does not cease to be an assurance simply because it is not called a guarantee. 

Another sticking point, though not mentioned in this report is the government's refusal to accept Eurofighter Typhoon's reduced offer. The government has already responded as under:

"In another effort to twist facts, the Government is asked why it did not conduct negotiations with a particular company representing a competing fighter aircraft.  It seems to have been conveniently forgotten that the then Government itself had rejected that company’s unsolicited offer made days after closure of the bid process, declared Rafale (DA) as the L1 bidder and had commenced negotiations with it in February 2012."

If Ram presents all relevant details when he publishes 'exclusive' reports, a meaningful discussion will become possible. Else, 'dribs and drabs' will take us nowhere.

Misreading the leaders and misleading the readers

N.Ram continues his tirade against his bete noire, Narendra Modi and in the process belittles the intelligence of his readers. Caught with his pants down in his truncated presentation of a Defence Ministry note, he is now unleashing a fusillade of weak arguments from his fellow journalists in The Hindu.

Varghese K.George claims to present four reasons why the attacks on The Hindu story on Rafale are 'shallow' and 'self-incriminating'. Let us see how logical these four reasons are.

1) "Investigative stories come in drips." "No single report on the story is the last word on it." Nobody contests these motherhood statements. The criticism is not against reporting in instalments. What is questioned as duplicity is presentation of a part of a page and deliberate omission to include the minister's observation which is included in the same page. This omission is plain deception and not mere mischief. It is silly to conveniently modify the criticism and address the modified criticism. This is a subterfuge.
By quoting Carl Bernstein, "We are reporters. Not judges. Not legislators. What the government or citizens or judges do with the information we have developed is not our part of the process nor our objective" The Hindu is hoist with its own petard. N.Ram has failed to act as a reporter. He is blatantly judgmental. His objective of derailing the Rafale deal is as clear as daylight.

2) "Parikkar note implicates, not absolves, the PMO." So what? Is the journalist not giving the game away here? Has he not come to a judgment that Parikkar's note is implicatory? Is Carl Bernstein forgotten?
Interpretation of Parikkar's note is not the issue. The issue is why this observation of Parikkar was left out. If N.Ram accepts that the omission was a mistake, there is no need for further argument. But his hubris and narcissistic monomania will not let him accept his mistake. He makes other journalists in The Hindu to toe his line and further mislead the readers.

3) "PMO role in negotiations hidden from the SC." Words speak for themselves. A non-judgmental expression would be 'PMO role not disclosed'. Usage of the word 'hidden' gives the journalist's game away. The Hindu has decided that the PMO was an active player in negotiations. Therefore, the assertion that the PMO was only monitoring falls on deaf ears. How could these journalists forget the pain brought on the nation by Manmohan Singh's turning a blind eye to the shenanigans committed under his nose? Do these journalists want an ineffective prime minister who does not monitor what his ministers are doing?

4) "PMO role is not supervisory or of oversight; it is blindsiding the principal ministry." Again, is the journalist not judgmental? When a journalist is blind to a part of the note contained in the same page either by design or by negligence, he becomes delinquent and instead of informing the readers, he becomes a 'rogue journalist'.

Mr.Ram and his ilk have the freedom to misread the intentions and actions of national leaders, but they cannot arrogate to themselves any right to mislead the readers. Let them keep their coloured glasses to themselves and do the readers a favour by desisting from propagating misinterpreted and opportunistically truncated information.

In sum, Ram and The Hindu have first come to a conclusion that Narendra Modi  has not played fair and are now trying to fit half-truths and half-concealed faxes to suit their premature conclusions. This is not what Carl Bernstein advocated.

Investigative Journalism or motivated duplicity?

 N.Ram continues to write on a wing and a prayer. This time he has given up all pretences to his going after the truth. He has suppressed, ignorantly or maliciously, the concluding part of a confidential note of Ministry of Defence in an awkward attempt to bring disrepute to purchase of Rafale aircraft.

If Ram had access to the entire note and yet failed to disclose the Defence Minister's conclusive utterance, he is guilty of a journalistic fraud of misleading the readers. In case he could lay his partisan hands only on a part of the note, the conclusion would be that he is too amateurish and opinionated to seek what any reasonable journalist would have looked for: that is, what was the view of the then Defence Minister? If someone had favoured Ram with an incomplete note, he was probably taking Ram for a ride so that Ram would look foolish in readers' eyes. Whichever way you look at this sordid chapter in The Hindu's quest for truth (?), the conclusion is inescapable that Ram has jettisoned any idea of  preserving the newspaper's credibility.

The Hindu is a family-owned newspaper. The family needs to seriously introspect if they are ready to gamble away the newspaper's reputation garnered over decades just to satisfy Ram's egoistic political slant. When questioned as to why he published only a convenient part of the note, he replied that he would not rest till he reaches the goal. What could be the goal? As a journalist, he has every right and in fact duty too to try to unearth Bofors-like bribery, if any. Instead of doing that, if he keeps coming up with 'exclusives' containing truncated truths and fascinating falsehoods, readers will dismiss him as a discredited writer whose hobby is only to 'cry wolf'. At this rate, in the unlikely event of his noticing a real wolf, nobody will believe him.

The function of a journalist is to provide authentic news, not novate perceptions. Ram is desperately trying only to besmirch Modi's image. The Sinophile was awarded Padma Bhushan in the year 1990 in the field of Literature and Education. He may well be rewarded with Padma Vibhushan for Distortion and Misrepresentation if his political masters come to power.

N.Ram in The NewYork Times

The New York Times carries an article by N.Ram captioned "A Murky Arms Deal Haunts Modi". The gist as provided in the newspaper is "India's prime minister faces charges of bypassing procedures, causing loss in public funds, compromising national security and using the arms deal to offer a lucrative contract to an ally."

The article is a brief summary of the 'exclusive' report that had earlier appeared in The Hindu. The biased and non-exclusive nature of that report is now common knowledge.

Unsurprisingly, the NYTimes article makes no reference to the findings of the Supreme Court in the Rafale case. Either Ram does not read the Supreme Court judgements or he has scant regard for Supreme Court. Either of these ill behoves a journalist.

Times of India stated as follows on December 14, 2018:

" The Court gave the clean chit on  three aspects:

1)Decision-making process to purchase 36 Rafale jets instead of 126 by UPA

2)Pricing of Rafale jets

3)Selection of Indian offset partners including Anil Ambani- owned Reliance Defence by Dassault."

The Supreme Court has pronounced its judgment on three out of four factors highlighted in the gist given above. What remains is compromise of national security. Manmohan Singh could not take a decision even after seven years of negotiations with Rafale. Narendra Modi took only a year to come to a conclusion. Manmohan Singh could not place orders even for a single aircraft because his Defence Minister admitted, "We have no money." Narendra Modi placed orders for 36 planes by prioritising funds for defence of the country. Yet Ram claims that national security has been compromised. 

The New York Times introduces Ram in its byline as "the author of 'Why scams are here to stay: understanding political corruption in India.' " If a biography of Ram were ever to be written, it would fittingly be titled, "Why biased journalists are here to stay: Understanding media malaise in India."

It is said (it is not my 'exclusive' finding) that a lie if repeated over and over again is accepted as the truth. Ram is aiming at that truth.

Let us await Ram's next 'exclusive'.

N.Ram's report in The Hindu.

I wrote a letter to the editor of The Hindu on January 21st on a vainglorious report by Shri N.Ram. This letter predictably was not published. I followed up with two letters to the readers' editor of The Hindu. These three letters are reproduced below.

To

The Editor,

The Hindu , Chennai.

Dear Sir,

I request you to publish my letter given below in your newspaper's 'Letters to the Editor' columns.

                                                                              Rafale Contract

The Hindu has published an 'Exclusive' report on "Modi's decision to buy 36 Rafales shot the price of each jet up by 41%". The caption was arresting and I could not resist the temptation to read it in detail.

The report claims that this 'article is based on information exclusively available to The Hindu.'  This claim is untrue because all the details covered in this report have found a place in many reports appearing in various newspapers earlier. For example, one may refer to two articles in Economic Times one by Raghav Ohri and Manu Pubby on September 29, 2018 and the other by Manu Pubby on August 23, 2018.

In addition, the caption is unusually too sensational to appear in The Hindu since it is also stated in the report that the increase in price per aircraft is 14.20% if the comparison is with the 2011 escalation cost factored in. Even this is subject to the assumption that 2011 prices hold in 2016. I wonder how this misleading caption and unfair comparison escaped the editor's eagle eyes.

Regards,

K.R.Srivarahan,

Chennai.

From: K.R.Srivarahan
To: "readerseditor@thehindu.co.in"  
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 1:40 PM
Subject: Exclusive report on Rafale

Dear Sir,

I wrote to the Editor on 21st inst. regarding the captioned subject. This was not published in the newspaper. A copy of my letter is attached for your kind reference.

Any exclusive report by Mr.N.Ram attracts attention. A front page report with a sensational headline must contain something significant. I was disappointed to find that the report was not exclusive to The Hindu. The details contained in the report had earlier been published by many newspapers as mentioned in my letter to the editor. I am surprised that there is no clarification on this by Mr.Ram despite the fact that the misleading information has been pointed out by many.

You have quoted Aidan White in your space on January 21st , "When media act ethically and have systems in place for monitoring their journalism, admitting their mistakes and explaining themselves to the public, they create loyalty and attachment." Neither the newspaper nor the reporter has admitted the egregious deceptions contained in the report. Am I to infer that The Hindu is not concerned about loyalty of its readers?

I hope you will respond to this.

Regards,

K.R.Srivarahan

Dear Sir,

I pointed out the misleading nature of 'exclusive' report by Shri N.Ram and of the sensational headline of the report in my communications to you as well as the Editor. My allegation is serious because it casts aspersion on credibility of the newspaper. When such a serious charge goes unresponded, the only conclusion possible is that the newspaper does not want to own up its responsibility. During the 50+ years of my association as a reader and occasionally as a contributor, I have all along thought that The Hindu is a responsible and authentic newspaper.

Nothing gives a newspaper reader more pain than the fact that the newspaper he reveres has chosen to abdicate its accountability as a truthful purveyor of news and reports and has taken to sensationalisation of headlines. Coincidentally, a disclaimer appears in page 2 of The Hindu today. "Readers are requested to verify and make appropriate enquiries to satisfy themselves about the veracity of an advertisement before responding to any published in this newspaper. --------- In no event can the owner, publisher, printer, editor, directors, employees of this newspaper / company be held responsible / liable in any manner whatsoever for any claims ------". I am afraid this disclaimer is required for your presentation of news and reports also. (You may notice the pun in the word 'claims'.)

Regards,

K.R.Srivarahan

Rafale and Chidambaram

P.Chidambaram has questioned the purchase of Rafale on two vital issues. 1) Why did the government settle for 36 fighter jets instead of 126 and thereby jeopardise our security and 2) Since payment is made over 3 years instead of 10 years the net present value of money received by Dassault is higher and therefore they are 'laughing all the way to the bank'.

Both are good questions, but not good enough to come from a former Finance Minister.

1) The relevant comparison is not between 36 jets and 126 jets. There was no contract for 126. The UPA government lost 10 years dillydallying on the proposal and never reached any finality. The government was comatose. So the comparison is between 36 jets and 0 jet. The answer is obvious.

2) Fixed cost incurred by the supplier has to be recovered through pricing. If more jets are bought, fixed cost per jet will obviously come down. One may argue that if we buy 252 jets instead of 126 jets, price per jet will come down further. But the moot question is how much money can we afford to pay. The trade-off between security needs and cost affordability has been struck at 36 aircraft. Chidambaram's argument is the present value of money given in the 10th year is less than the same money given in the third year. Up to this point the argument is genuine. But we also should take into account the fact that in one case we will receive the jet only in the 10th year whereas in the other case the product is received in the 3rd year itself. These are actually 'forward' transactions and money is paid when supply of jet is made. Comparison is not between money paid in the tenth year and the one paid in the third year. The composite comparison is between the jet received and money paid both in the tenth year on the one hand and the jet received and money paid both in the third year on the other. Obviously getting the jet in the third year is better than getting it in the tenth year. If we calculate the present value of price paid, we must also calculate the present value of the aircraft received. Going further, the risk of the product becoming obsolete is much more in the tenth year than in the third year. Therefore the 3-year contract is better than the 10-year contract.

The honourable former minister may also fallaciously argue that the forward price for a 10-year transaction is cheaper than the same forward price for a 3-year transaction assuming there is no further premium for the intervening 7 years. But actually there is a huge premium paid by the purchaser because of product obsolescence risk in the intervening 7 years.

Chidambaram is too smart to be ignorant of these simple principles. But he is under political compulsions to make unprincipled and dubious arguments. Intellectual integrity has never ever suffered such a sharp debasement..

Rafale and Ram

Only yesterday Arun Jaitley posted his highly readable "Compulsive Contrarians" in Facebook. As if to lend more credibility to Jaitley's view, N.Ram has written in his newspaper today on "Modi's decision to buy 36 Rafales shot the price of each jet up by 41%" in an accusatory tone. He has converted a simple Accounting Principle into an allegation.

Fixed cost incurred by Rafale to design and develop the jet for India is slated to be Euro 1.3 billion. As we all know, total fixed cost remains the same irrespective of levels of production. Fixed cost per unit is higher when sales are low and it is lower when sales are more. If 126 aircraft are purchased / made as per UPA's original plan, fixed cost per aircraft would be Euro 10.32 million (but shown as Euro 11.11 million in Ram's report). If 36 aircraft are bought as envisaged now, fixed cost per aircraft is Euro 36.11 million. Any seller has to recover its total fixed cost as well as variable cost. This is simple business logic. There is no scam in this.

Ram compares Rafale acquisition with Bofors purchase. He claims, "The process of decision-making on a vital defence acquisition in 2015-16 does bear an eerie resemblance to how decisions were made in 1985-86; but unlike Bofors, where journalistic investigation was able to uncover corruption disguised as 'commissions' paid secretly into Swiss bank accounts, no money trail has been discovered so far in the current case." Therefore, should not the likes of Ram wait till some money trails, if at all,  are spotted instead of jumping the gun and thus proving that they are 'compulsive contrarians'?

The basic difference between the Bofors journalism and Rafale journalism is that in the former case, evidence was painstakingly discovered bit by bit and then conclusions arrived at. In the case of Rafale, the compulsively contrarian journalists have concluded that there is corruption and are now desperately looking for evidence of possibly non-existent corruption.

Of course, we cannot blame Ram. In 1985, the spade work for him was done by Chitra Subramaniam, an analytical journalist who values objectivity. Now, Ram is probably assisted by his sycophants who feed him with whatever views he likes. However, as an experienced journalist, Ram is expected not to let his morbid dislike for Modi run riot and mislead his readers.