Bancroft's dilemma

"In March 2018, the Australian cricket team was involved in a ball-tampering scandal during the third Test match against South Africa in Cape Town when Cameron Bancroft was caught by television cameras trying to rough up one side of the ball to make it swing in flight. Captain Steve Smith and vice-captain David Warner were found to be involved and all three received unprecedented sanctions from Cricket Australia."

Bancroft used sandpaper to rough up the ball. He was banned from international and domestic cricket for nine months.

Bancroft has now admitted that he acted on the suggestion of David Warner and that he made 'a massive mistake' in implementing the suggestion. Sequence of events up to this is understandable. Aussies are reportedly not known for their cricketing ethics and they go for the kill in every match. They seem to claim "all is fair in cricket." But what unfolds after this intrigues any logical mind.

Bancroft accepts that he had a choice. He could have ignored Warner's plea and avoided the public infamy that caught up with Australian cricket. He regrets complying with Warner's suggestion. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that he would have been happier if he had not tampered with the ball.

But alas, no !  Bancroft says he would have felt bad for letting his team down ! He has painted this as a catch-22 situation of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

How do we explain Bancroft's dilemma? Though he admits that he was not a 'victim' of Warner's plan in the sense that he could have decided not to comply with the latter's suggestion, if the plan proposed to him was actually a Morton's fork as he claims, then he was really a victim of Warner's game plan. If Warner had not made this proposition, Bancroft would not have been in this pickle.

Why did Bancroft take the huge risk of getting caught indulging in an unethical act? If he had underestimated the risk of exposure, he is downright stupid. If he had thought that the act was not unfair given the circumstances of defeat glaring at the Australian team, he must have philosophised that "end justified the means".

Does one's opinion on one's choice depend on whether the (im)morality of the choice is found out by others or not? In case the TVs had not captured Bancroft's disgraceful act, would he have felt any pang at all or would he have been disconsolate nonetheless? Is every dirty trick OK as long as it is not found out?

Does an unethical act become less so if it is done for the sake of one's team and not for personal benefit?

Why Kamal Haasan cannot succeed in politics

Success in one field does not guarantee success in other fields. Expertise in one vocation cannot automatically become expertise in another. Despite this truism, many successful actors in Tamil Nadu drift into politics optimistically.

Kamal Haasan has done the same thing. Does he have what it takes to excel in politics? I was listening to his debate with Smriti Irani in a television channel yesterday and got convinced that the probability of his success in his new avatar as a politician is almost zero.

Binary rules do not operate in the political jungle. Successful politicians do not give a definitive yes or no answer to any question. They are required to provide convoluted and long answers even to simple questions. This unfailingly provides an opportunity to wriggle out of any unforeseen contretemps. Yes or no answer does not enable one to come up with statements like 'this is not what I meant' or 'the media misreported what I said' if and when subsequent circumstances demand backtracking. Such circumstances are very common in politics.

In a way, Kamal Haasan was unlucky to be pitted against Smriti Irani who is a seasoned politician with a masterful play on words. She is capable of saying something and immediately thereafter proving that she never said such a thing. In contrast, Kamal Haasan came out as a babe in the political woods.

The actor has another problem. Oral articulation helps in politics. Somehow he is very economical with words in political conversations and is unable to put across his ideas convincingly and with clarity. Perhaps clarity of expression is constrained by inadequate clarity of thought.

RBI Governor

Appointment of Shaktikanta Das, a retired IAS official, has predictably attracted a lot of criticism. There are three main layers of criticism. One is that he is not a hardcore economist. Second, he was supportive of demonetisation which 'failed to deliver intended results'. Last, his integrity is suspect.

He is the 25th Governor. Among these 25, only six have been 'economists'. RBI was established in 1935. The first economist to become a Governor was B.N.Adarkar. He was a stopgap pending appointment of a new Governor. He was earlier a Deputy Governor. He remained as Governor only for 42 days till he was replaced by S.Jagannathan, a career civil servant. This happened in 1970. (The Governor with the shortest tenure was Amitav Ghosh for 20 days in 1985 pending assumption of office by R.N.Malhotra., a bureaucrat. Ghosh was a commercial banker and then a Deputy Governor of RBI.)

There have so far been only six economists donning the mantle of RBI Governorship, namely Adarkar, I.G.Patel, Manmohan Singh, C.Rangarajan, Raghuram Rajan and Urjit Patel. There is no study to indicate that economist-Governors performed better than others.

P.Chidambaram has argued that Das was an advocate of demonetisation and that his appointment comes so soon after the appointment of another proponent of demonetisation, Krishnamurthy Subramanian, as the Chief Economic Adviser to GOI. Chidambaram argues that this means the government appoints only those who are favourably disposed towards government decisions. Politically this is what all governments do. Which government would want an ideologically inconvenient person in a key position? Chidambaram's alleged role in appointment of chairmen of various banks makes one wonder if this is not a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

The third criticism is voiced by Subramanian Swamy. He doubts Das's integrity in the light of his alleged complicity in and connivance at Chidambaram's various alleged misdemeanours.

These are controversial times. Therefore, each and every proposal is likely to be viewed as a colourable exercise.

Saving Economics from Politics

An editorial appeared in The Hindu on November 30th which is reproduced here.

                                                                   Number Theory

"The larger lessons from the GDP back series must not be clouded by a political slugfest"

"Backcasting, or reworking past national accounts statistics based on the latest base year, is a regular exercise that governments carry out. Mainly done to enable precise comparison and analysis, it is a difficult exercise prone to contestation as it involves the inclusion of newer data sources, exclusion of outdated ones and making some subjective assumptions in the process. Throw in the political element, and GDP backcasting can become a controversial exercise, as it has now become in the case of the release of back series data from 2005-06 to 2011-12, the new base year. The data computed by the Central Statistics Office (CSO) and released by the Niti Aayog show that India never really grew in double-digits in 2010-11, nor was it the high-growth economy in the five years preceding this as earlier thought to be. It so happens that this period covers the two terms of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government, and the new data have predictably set off a political storm. The Congress may feel aggrieved as its biggest achievement, of taking India on the high GDP growth path, has come under question. During earlier instances of backcasting of GDP data, the political environment was not as deeply polarised as it is now, and so the exercise remained more academic.

The danger in the political slugfest now is that the many valuable insights that can be gleaned from the data will be lost sight of. The biggest of these is that India never really decoupled from the global economy during the years of the financial crisis (2008-10), unlike what was earlier believed. The new back series data show a much lower growth rate. This is an important learning for policymakers, going forward. Any criticism of the data has to take into account the fact that it has been generated by a thoroughly professional organisation, the CSO, and the methods have been scrutinised by experts, including past chief statisticians, and the Advisory Committee on National Accounts Statistics. Certainly, the release of the back series by the Niti Aayog goes against convention and is bad in optics. But this should not be reason to contest its integrity. The method of computation reflects the latest United Nations System of National Accounts; it also captures changes in the economy since 2004-05. Data sources have also been updated. Experts had testified to the robustness of the method when it was introduced in 2015, even while underlining that the availability of reliable data was crucial to arrive at the correct overall picture. There is little doubt that India needs to invest more in data collection and integration and do informal sector surveys more frequently. Robust, updated data are, in fact, insurance against politicians hijacking what is essentially an economic exercise."

    Comment on this editorial by the Readers' Editor of The Hindu on December 3rd is reproduced below:

"There were problems with the fundamental assumptions of a recent editorial on the new GDP back series

I generally refrain from commenting on editorials and opinion pieces. I recognise that there are points of convergence as much as there are points of divergence between the newspaper and its myriad readers, and even within the newspaper itself. These conversations lend plurality to the newspaper and they should not be viewed from any narrow ideological prism. However, I have to break from this norm to discuss the editorial “Number theory” (Nov. 30), which generated some sharp and divergent reactions.

Independence of the editorial

The arguments against the editorial were varied. Some took an ideological standpoint, while others interpreted the events that led to the release of the GDP back series. I would like to reiterate that my role as the Readers’ Editor is not that of a pre-publication censor, but of a post-publication evaluator. I do get complaints about The Hindu’s editorial policy, which is defined by the editor and his editorial team. I can explain the policy but I cannot interfere with it. It is vital to support the independence of the editorial. The acid test for the Readers’ Editor is how he conducts himself when his own opinion is at variance with that of the paper. Can he be an effective advocate for free speech, tolerance and plurality if he lacks these democratic traits? Hence, the issue I am discussing is not about the ideological thrust of the editorial but its fundamental assumptions.

The assertion of the editorial that “robust, updated data are, in fact, insurance against politicians hijacking what is essentially an economic exercise” seems like a statement yearning for an ideal reality rather than one that is based on reality. The sequence of events since the creation of Niti Aayog seems to point at a complete politicisation of numbers. Some facts lend credence to the criticism of the numbers put out by Niti Aayog. One, the government had failed to appoint a Chief Statistician for nearly eight months after the retirement of T.C.A. Anant in January. Two, it has had a tense relationship with the Reserve Bank of India. Three, a set of data presented by the committee set up by the National Statistical Commission was withdrawn. Four, the Agriculture Ministry backtracked on a report showing the adverse effects of demonetisation on farmers. Five, there’s the timing of the new data, which many see as a desperate ploy to distract people’s attention from the trenchant criticism of demonetisation by the former Chief Economic Adviser. The line between the Central Statistics Office and Niti Aayog is blurred, thereby lending a political colour to an essential economic exercise.

The practice of data torture

If the editorial is read along with the explainer “What’s with the back series GDP data?” (December 1), it is clear that the editorial jumped the gun to grant the benefit of doubt to the latest exercise and suspended essential journalistic curiosity. The explainer deals with the problem of finding matching data for the older series to the present MCA-21, which is available only since 2011-2012. As a journalist, my entry points for understanding a range of subjects have been science and literature. About pure qualitative methods and number crunching, one of the finest historians of science, Thomas Kuhn, observed that “nature undoubtedly responds to the theoretical predispositions with which she is approached by the measuring scientist.” The Anglo-American economist, Ronald Coase, gave an interesting economic reading of this statement: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.” It is true that governments and institutions do indulge in data torture, a practice of repeatedly interpreting source data until it reveals a desired result.

The editorial seems to be oblivious to this caution from the Nobel laureate. Its statement that “during earlier instances of backcasting of GDP data, the political environment was not as deeply polarised as it is now, and so the exercise remained more academic” fails to capture the full picture. In all the earlier changes, the methodology was not only robust but also transparent, and incomparable parameters were hardly used to deduct a number to understand macroeconomic reality. This was an editorial of forking paths, for how do we reconcile the assertion that “the release of the back series by the Niti Aayog goes against convention and is bad in optics” with the conclusion that “this should not be reason to contest the integrity of the new numbers”?

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in"

           My response to the comment of the Readers' Editor

Dear Sir,

I refer to your column in The Hindu today.

Though you are hesitant to comment on editorials, I think you have every right and perhaps even duty to make objective observations on anything that concerns readers. Readers do read, nay even study, the editorials in a newspaper like ours.

As a former banker, I have very often observed that a manager averse to lending ultimately selects a wrong borrower to lend.  In a similar way, though you are averse to comment on an editorial, you have finally chosen a wrong editorial to criticise.

You have noted the assertion that "robust, updated data are , in fact, insurance against politicians hijacking what is essentially an economic exercise" is a statement yearning for an ideal reality (sic) rather than one that is based on reality. In the process, you have ignored the presence among readers of those who look forward to The Hindu to play an effective role in shaping the tone and tenor of economic discussions. Freeing economic discussions from political prejudices is not only desirable but also essential to promote economic development. That The Hindu has done this in the editorial under reference despite the newspaper's proclivity to be harsh on the present powers-that-be is welcome. Please don't dissuade the editors from objective analyses.

The editorial has rightly drawn distinctions between who prepared the data and who communicated them to the wider populace. We should not stigmatise the data because the communicator (Niti Aayog) is allegedly political. The leader has correctly referred to the "fact that it has been generated by a thoroughly professional organisation , the CSO, and the methods have been scrutinised by experts ------". What else do you desire?

I salute The Hindu for its brave attempt to elevate economic discussion from the cesspool of dirty and partisan politics. I hope that the newspaper will continue this crusade despite the dominant presence of carping critics with a hidden political agenda.

Regards,

K.R.Srivarahan,

Urjit Patel

The resignation of Urjit Patel is not surprising though the timing certainly is unexpected. It has robbed the London court ruling on Mallya extradition of its due share of discussion and limelight. Our exhilaration over India's victory in the Adelaide cricket test has been subdued thanks to this untimely development.

Urjit Patel has politely attributed his resignation to personal reasons. But the former Governor, Raghuram Rajan, has not been polite enough. In an interview to CNBC, he has characterised the departure as 'a statement of dissent'. When reminded that Urjit Patel has quoted personal reasons, Rajan remarked, 'You have to read between the lines'. Apparently the mental scar that Rajan suffered over the way he was treated by the government has not yet healed. However, one expected a little more finesse from Raghuram Rajan.

Narendra Modi's reaction is intriguing.  " He steered the banking system from chaos to order and ensured discipline. Under his leadership, the RBI brought financial stability."

Does the prime minister imply that Raghuram Rajan left the banking system in chaos? Was the financial system unstable under Rajan? Is Narendra Modi praising Patel or blaming Rajan?

A lawyer's poser to Justice Kurian Joseph

I take the liberty of posting the views of an advocate concerned about delivery of justice:

Dear Hon’ble Justice Kurian Joseph,

Unlike many former judges of the supreme court, even the distinguished ones, you shot into limelight soon after you retired. Not for reasons that did you proud.

You laid down your office a week ago, on the 29^th November, and four days later NDTV aired your interview. Sorry, you didn’t shine in the interview – mainly because you spat on the institution you served by attacking, without rhyme or reason or proof, the man who headed it as Chief Justice of India.  

You didn't tell the interviewer anything significant about your contribution as a judge of the supreme court for over five and a half years. Nor about any great judge of earlier times, in India, UK or the USA, who might have inspired you. Nor about improving the administration of justice in the lower judiciary.  All this may be ignored, if the purpose of your interview was merely to mark your retirement.  But not your criticism of a brother judge of the supreme court - Chief justice of India Dipak Misra - against whom you and three other companion judges held a press conference in Delhi last January.  It makes no difference that chief justice Misra had also retired when you faulted him on television.

Some may have presumed that a bit of decorum of a judge in office prevented you in January from revealing more about chief justice Dipak Misra though you possibly had details to disclose. But even after retiring, all you could say against the chief justice are pompous nothings, defamatory and perhaps contemptuous too.  This is the plain truth. May I please explain?

You spoke these words when talking to the television channel, to say what you saw wrong in chief justice Dipak Misra and why four sitting judges of the supreme court, including you, gathered against him and met pressmen in January this year: “The existence of judiciary should be independent. If it is not independent and if it is dependent, the independence of the judiciary which is the hall mark of Indian judiciary is gone. It is shaken……So we found that there has been external influences on the Chief Justice of India, and he has not been making independent decisions …. We discussed. We brought it to the notice of the Chief Justice of India that things are not going in the right direction. ‘You should correct your ways.’  We met him.  We brought to his notice in writing.  Then finally, without finding any result, as I used to say, the barking dog had to bite… We brought it to the notice of the whole nation.”

Before you were interviewed for television, on the same day Press Trust of India quoted you: “The then CJI was remote-controlled by an external source. There was some influence of some external source that was impacting the administration of justice.” When asked to specify the basis of your assertion, you told PTI it was the perception among you and three other judges who figured in the January press conference - and some unnamed judges as well. That’s all.  You told other journalists also about your 'perception' as the basis of your claim. Today’s edition of The Hindu reports that when questioned on proof to substantiate your ‘external influence’ theory you said, “It was a perception. There was a perception in the minds of not only the four of us but among several judges and the media.”  

       I am still searching for maturity and credibility in your statements.  For instance, you didn't reveal how you found that, apart from the four of you, several other judges too had an identical perception of an external influence driving chief justice Dipka Misra. Did those other judges tell you or was it your perception that they had the same perception like yours? Can you guess what an image of yourself you create in the minds of others, Hon’ble Justice Joseph? Litigants will hope you did not decide cases all through as a judge on the basis of  similar perceptions.

Do you realise what a damning criticism you uttered against India's head of the judiciary, with whom you served?  You know that independence is an essential quality of a judge in whom people can trust. If you fault Justice Dipak Misra for lacking in that trait, you portray him as a most unfit judge, even at district level. If you still believe you spoke with responsibility when decrying him, I need to quote more from your interviews to the press and to television and ask you a few things, so you become clearer to those watching you.

The television interviewer queried you on your view that chief justice Dipak Misra was “remote-controlled” and asked, “Who was holding the remote control?  Was it the influence of the government or was it political influence?”  Having been a supreme court judge, you gave this stunning reply to back up your charge: “I … we have no idea as to who was the person behind.  But we were quite sure that the Chief Justice of India was not taking decisions independently… I am not able to pinpoint as to who was influencing him.  But we were much sure he was under some influence.” Well, when you spoke these words you managed not to laugh. What more can anyone say, Hon’ble Justice Joseph?  

                                             

Did your January press conference curtail the ‘external influence’ emanating from an unknown source and affecting Justice Misra? You seemed to believe so when you told PTI recently that the presser “had an impact and things started changing for good during the remaining part of Justice Misra’s tenure as CJI.” So, you say that chief justice Misra was reforming himself and freeing himself from that ‘external influence’ as a result of your press meet in January. But this cause-and-effect story is hard to believe. 

If you cannot pinpoint that ‘external influence’ now, surely you didn't do it while sitting face to face with chief justice Misra in his chamber in the supreme court. By simple logic, three other judges who were with you at the January press meet could not also identify that 'external influence' up till now, since the four of you would have shared any such knowledge among you if even one of you gauged it. Then how did chief justice Misra banish that 'external influence' - when you did not know what it was or where it came from and so the chief justice did not have to fear you exposing him? Or, are you saying that after you and three other judges met pressmen last January the chief justice turned a new leaf on his own and got himself out of that 'external influence?' If indeed the chief justice did so, what kind of a real influence was that ghostly force when its victim could shake it off instantly?  You were a judge, that too of the supreme court of India. Do you sound convincing to yourself, leave alone others? 

      I was also puzzled by  some  thoughts you  expressed to the same interviewer at different stages of a sitting and to different interviewers, and I just couldn’t put two and two together. You told NDTV early on that you didn’t know if the government was the ‘external influence’. Towards the end of your dialogue, when the interviewer asked you, “Will future chief justices be not remote-controlled?” you quickly replied, “Governments will always try to somehow influence the chief justice because they are not happy at all …..”Did you, per chance, let the cat out of the bag? And then, in The Hindu interview of today, you praised both the present Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, who was with you at the January press conference, and prime minister Narendra Modi for the good rapport between them.

      If  anyone understood or misunderstood you as hinting that the former Chief Justice of India was under the influence of the present government, but that the same government maintains smooth honourable relations with the present Chief Justice of India, the listener or viewer could be left utterly confused. When I see these conflicting pictures coming from you, am I at fault sir?

       When you speak to the public, the public too will speak to you as I do. Also, you fairly told the television interviewer, “People have a right to raise questions”.  So, you won’t surely mistake the questions I have posed here. Your answers could help everyone understand you better.

     Finally, let me ask you.  The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines ‘criminal contempt’ to include any act which (i) scandalises or lowers the authority of any court, or tends to do so; or (ii) interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice in any other manner, or tends to do so. Assume you were functioning as the Chief Justice of India, and that I met you and accused you of being remote-controlled by some external influence which I felt affected the administration of justice. Assume further I admitted that I could not pinpoint or prove who was influencing you and I still demanded that you correct your ways. Then would you not have hauled me up for criminal contempt, and would I not be close to being convicted? And if I laid the same charge against you publicly after you retired as such chief justice, what would you or anyone sensible think of me? Will you please enlighten me, Hon’ble Justice Joseph?

            Warm regards.

                                                                                                        
            R. Veera Raghavan

Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice C.S.Karnan

Justice Kurian Joseph was one of the judges on the seven-member Bench of the Supreme Court which found Justice C.S.Karnan guilty of foul-mouthing brother judges and handed out a six-month jail term to the latter. Karnan had accused the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court of not assigning appropriate cases to his Bench. He also blamed some judges for 'insulting' him because of his caste. He questioned their integrity in ample measure.

Kurian Joseph alongwith three other judges questioned the 'arbitrariness' of the Chief Justice of India in assignment of roster in various cases. He has also alleged that CJI was remotely controlled by an external force. Being remotely controlled is also a manifestation of corruption. He had earlier questioned the right of the then CJI Khehar to hold meetings of judges during Easter and asked if he would do the same during Diwali or Eid.

Allegations of Karnan and Kurian have many similarities. There is one vital difference though. Karnan had the courage of conviction to battle single-handedly whereas Kurian only toed the line of three brother judges in addressing the press regarding their grievances against the CJI , while in service. He 'disclosed' the remote-control aspect only after his retirement.

Kurian Thomas contradicts himself with ease. One day he says that higher judiciary is free from corruption. Just a few days later he argues that the CJI was remote-controlled. One day he insinuates that the government was remote-controlling the CJI. (Who else can do this now?) Soon thereafter, he hastens to play safe complimenting the prime minister and CJI for holding discussions between themselves.

Allegations of Kurian Joseph are serious though he has aired them irresponsibly and unprofessionally. These charges place the government and the Supreme Court in the dock. It is incumbent on them both to ask him to prove his charges or be prepared to be treated as he and other judges treated Karnan in the Supreme Court suo motu case against Karnan. A delinquent and loose-tongued judge of the Supreme Court deserves to be dealt with at least as firmly as a High Court judge.

Section 2(c) of The Contempt of Courts Act defines criminal contempt as follows:
 "Criminal contempt means the publication (whether
by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other
act whatsoever which-

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to
lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due
course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends
to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner."

The claim that the CJI was remote-controlled certainly lowers the authority of the court and calls for appropriate response from the court. 

Corruption in judiciary

Justice Kurian Joseph who retired recently from the apex court has told news reporters:

" I  will never really agree that there's corruption in higher judiciary. If it is in the lower judiciary, it is the state's concern. In the higher judiciary, it has not come to my notice."

The learned judge is wrong on two counts. First, absence of corruption in higher judiciary is too good to be true. What readily comes to mind is the rhetorical statement that absence of proof is not proof of absence. Kurian Joseph was among those who implicated directly or indirectly the then CJI  in a medical college corruption case. However, one fervently hopes that Kurian Joseph's view as stated now, on corruption is true.

Secondly, is corruption in the lower judiciary the concern of only state governments? Can the Supreme Court wash its hands off what is happening in lower judiciary? This amounts to judicial dereliction. Simultaneous display of overreach and dereliction by the apex court may be entertaining but is also deleterious in its implications for the society.