An ethical dilemma

Is  Ethics  teachable as a subject ? Assuming it is, the follow-up question is 'Is Ethics worth teaching?'

While harbouring this pesky thought, I chanced upon the pragmatic views of Jeffrey Pfeffer, the author of 'Leadership BS: Fixing Workplaces and Careers One Truth at a Time'. Says he:

"An almost infinite number of recent books, blogs and seminars on leadership equate being efficient with being virtuous, arguing that traits like authenticity, modesty and concern for others are paramount. Meanwhile, Donald Trump leads the race for the Republican nomination, and the world’s most lauded business leaders include Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk and many others who display few, if any, of these prescribed qualities. What gives?

In essence, we’re confusing good stories with good advice. The most cited example comes by way of Jim Collins, whose 2001 book Good to Great included a study of so-called Level 5 leaders–successful executives who were both driven and demure. But while these tactics may have worked for the small group of leaders Collins studied, they’re exceptions, not rules. The vast majority of research shows that narcissism, rather than modesty, predicts being selected for and surviving in leadership roles.

Of course, this won’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s read Machiavelli’s The Prince–or the New York Times piece published on its 500th anniversary, “Why Machiavelli Still Matters,” which draws from centuries of history to conclude that “following virtue often leads to … ruin … whereas pursuing what appears to be vice results in security and well-being.” Sometimes, the best bosses have to lie and manipulate to save money and jobs. Often, they have to disregard concern for others. These truths may not be as inspiring as the latest wave of leadership fables, but they’re backed by social science and knowledge of contemporary organizations–and they’re likelier to help people lead."

A responsible teacher aims at enhancing the prospects of his / her students. If being ethical is a proven handicap in the workplace, the teacher is bound to doubt the relevance of ethics in the curriculum. It is now easy to understand why educational institutions do not get into this ethical quicksand. Like individuals, institutions also prefer to avoid cognitive dissonance.

UBI CMD resigns

According to moneycontrol.com,

"Bhargava reportedly had a stormy stint at the bank after she brought up several issues of accounting malpractices before the central bank and was said to have had a run-in with other top employees at the state-run lender."

Archana Bhargava was the CMD of the public sector bank, United Bank of India. The view expressed by moneycontrol.com is the generally held opinion on what has happened in the bank. It is unfortunate that an executive who preferred to share the ills of the bank with RBI has had to quit. 

This is not a healthy situation. If bankmen begin to feel that careers are not sustainable sans compromise, it only means that the rot has gone deep. This is a real test for Raghuram Rajan's integrity.

Update as on 9th March:

Some insiders say that AB united all executives of the bank and made them into a team. She made them united against her!

Scott London

After posting the last message, I came across the following news item.
                                                                                        Scott London was a New York based Senior Partner in KPMG. He is only 50 years old now, but has already ruined his career by inappropriately sharing "insider information" with a jeweller friend of his.

The criminal case against him is said to be airtight.

London's lawyer says (according to the Guardian), "London just can't understand why he did it. It makes no sense".

Confronted with the opportunity to make money, even otherwise thoughtful professionals are apt to become unethical. Maybe they are taking what they assume to be a reasonable risk. For every crook who is caught, hundreds may be going "scot-free" (unintended pun).

BJP in self-destruction mode

The Buffoons and Jokers Party has developed suicidal aspirations. Its President has managed to obtain a clean chit from an interested Chartered Accountant for all his murky business deals. The party (except some saner elements in it) claims there is no reason for Gadkari to resign. BJP should be ashamed to take a stand like this.

If Congress is corrupt and unethical, BJP is giving it a tough competition. These two national parties may as well get into a pact to apportion the nation into two halves between them and loot national wealth. After all what can the citizens do? They can protest or keep quiet. Either way, the parties are not going to mend their mendacious ways. Winston Churchill warned that Indians do not know how to govern. Congress and BJP are proving him right. 

Kingfisher Airlines

Vijay Mallya's Kingfisher Airlines has the most employee-friendly terminal benefits scheme in the whole world. It has the policy of paying career-long salaries to employees only at the time of retirement. The only catch is that it does not allow its employees to quit.

The government was mindful of Vijay Mallya's munificence and therefore did not take any action for a long time. When the pilots and engineering staff went on strike demanding payment of salary, a minister sought an audience with Mallya. Being as responsible as ever, Mallyaji condescended to host a meeting. The minister was overwhelmed by Kingfisher's spirited hospitality and readily agreed that employees did not recognise their responsibility. The minister advised his secretary not to precipitate the issue by placing any note. So it became Government's policy not to 'interfere' in the affairs of a private airline.

Vijay Mallya (a polar opposite of his father, Vittal Mallya) is getting harassed by all and sundry. In addition to the employees' unreasonable demand for salary payment, the payees of cheques want encashment of their cheques! One creditor had the temerity to approach a court of law! The judge who perhaps was not aware of Mallya's legendary hospitality went to the ridiculous extent of ordering a warrant for arrest. Which policeman would be a fool to arrest him?

Finally, Vijay Mallya (as the name indicates, he always wins) decided enough was enough. He advised the Ministry of Civil Aviation why it was high time that his planes were grounded to teach the employees a lesson they would never forget. The minister knew that Mallya was infallible and then did the needful.

In the last eight months, the employees had written thousands of letters to Prime Minister seeking his intervention. The Prime Minister has advised his office to look into the matter and not to brief him on developments. PMO is expected to follow up within a year or two.

Pot and Kettle

Allegations of impropriety and additionally perhaps illegality against Nitin Gadkari are too serious to be ignored. He has disproved the hypothesis that the BJP is a party with a difference. The pot and the kettle (Congress and BJP) are blackening the entire country.

RSS has mud on its face. It was instrumental in imposing Gadkari's leadership on the party. As if two mistakes make a right, RSS was also keen to enable Gadkari be the party's president for a second term.

It is horrifying to note that Gadkari has not yet chosen to resign. It is praise-worthy that Ram Jethmalani has called a spade a spade and has advised his own party to behave ethically.

It is common in the US for a businessman to turn to politics for a short time and then to come back to business. In India, the political "rewards" are too attractive for a businessman to give up politics

Would the President apologise?

The British deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg has apologised to the British public because he could not keep up his electoral promise not to hike tuition fees. He has also undertaken not to make any promise in future which he cannot keep up.

Our present President, Pranab Mukherjee when he was the Finance Minister assured the parliament that the government would not go in for FDI in multi-brand retail before evolving a consensus among all political parties. This promise stands broken.

The president has only two decent options: 1)He may advise the Union Government to abide by the promise or 2)He may tender an apology to the parliament for his inability to deliver on his own commitment.

Is it prudery to expect decency?

Fareed Zakaria's wilful blindness

Fareed Zakaria has joined the select band of eminently successful people whose feet of clay are ultimately exposed. Why does such a talented writer (a graduate from Harvard and Yale!) resort to plagiarism? Is this tendency an as yet unexplored aspect of what is popularly called as "Winner's curse"? Does the so-called "Progress trap" contribute to this ugly phenomenon? Is it possible that "Icarus paradox" inevitably takes its toll?

It is strange that persons and organisations which have gained glory in their respective fields do not desist from taking extreme risks that will eventually undo them. Rajat Gupta, Standard Chartered Bank and Fareed Zakaria are the names readily coming to our mind .

Rajat Gupta had everything to lose when he got close to Raj Rajaratnam. StanChart was probably aware that it was risking its reputation built over decades when it apparently misused the " U-turn" transactions at its NewYork branch. Fareed Zakaria could not have been blind to the possible consequences of plagiarism and to the certainty of being found out especially when he was copying a widely-read Yale professor.

These examples are most likely to figure in the next edition of Margaret Heffernan's best seller titled "Wilful Blindness".

Updated on 20th August: Time magazine suspended Fareed Zakaria briefly and reinstated him with unexplained haste. Given his "stature" in the world of opinions, it is possible that the magazine was afraid of losing him in case suspension lasted longer. Is he a person too big to employ?

Further update on 2nd Sept.: It is surprising that magazines like Time and Economist have chosen not to mention this unsavoury episode in their issues. It appears that unattributed copying was done by a ghost-writer for Fareed Zakaria. We cannot expect FZ to admit that he employs ghost-writers.

Banking bandits

Who are the more notorious banker-bandits, Americans or the British? I am confused because the cover story in the Time magazine dated 23rd July reasons "why London breeds financial scandals" and claims that the Barclays' scandal is just the beginning. The Economist dated July 14th-20th sarcastically responds saying, "America has its scandals as well" and goes on to narrate a string of American bankers' shenanigans.

Updated on 9th Aug: The tussle between Britain and America has taken a more bitter turn after the NewYork regulators came up with a startling finding that Standard Chartered Bank had enabled unlawful movement of more than $250 billion to Iran. They have also threatened to cancel the bank's licence for its NewYork branch.

Comical Congress

One may not support the Congress party politically. However, for its sense of humour the party deserves 100% marks.

The party has opposed P.A.Sangma's candidature for presidency since "he does not have the ethical stature required for the post". How can he match Pratibha Patel's ethical stature? Has he committed any fraud in any cooperative bank? Was his spouse ever involved in a murder case? Did he ever try to own the land belonging to the armed forces? Is he capable of lavish spending on foreign tours including a swarm of relatives and service personnel? Is he in the good books of Sonia Gandhi? How can he even think of occupying the Rashtrapathi Bhawan?

Manmohan Singh has acknowledged that the country is facing economic problems. He has gone one step further and discovered that "Life will not be interesting without problems"! I hope he does not want to make our life more interesting.

State of the Legislatures

Arvind Kejriwal writes:

Shri Mukul Pande

Director

Rajya Sabha Secretariat



I have received the notices sent by you from Sri Rajniti Prasad and

Prof Ramkripal Yadav in which I am accused of insulting the

Parliament.



I unequivocally deny that I have insulted the parliament in either

speech or deed. I respect parliament immensely. I revere the

parliament immensely. I consider parliament as a temple of democracy.

For these reasons, I am immensely worried and pained that this temple


of democracy is insulted very often by the speech and deeds of a few


people who sit inside the parliament. Various facts and instances show

that parliament is insulted by a few people sitting inside the

parliament rather than by people outside. I respect the parliament,

many good parliamentarians, but find myself unable to respect a few

parliamentarians.



Recently, a movie called ‘Pan Singh Tomar” was released. A dialogue

from this film says rebels live in outback and dacoits live in

parliament. I watched this film three times. The audience clapped

whenever the hero uttered this dialogue. I was immensely pained each

time I listened to the ovation. Why is that when the hero referred to

dacoits in parliament, people felt that he was reflecting the

sentiments of the people of this nation. Its worth contemplating as to

what went wrong that the people of this nation have such an anger and

disdain towards people sitting in parliament? Who is responsible for

this impression about the parliament? The people of this nation or the

people sitting in parliament? The respect of parliamentarians is not

diminished by what is said about them. Their respect is commanded by

their conduct and behavior.







The present Lok Sabha has 162 parliamentarians on whom 522 criminal

issues are lodged. Out of these, 76 are heinous crimes. Murder cases

on 14, attempt to murder cases on 20, fraud charges on 11, kidnapping

charges on 13. In addition to these, there are many parliamentarians

on whom corruption charges are lodged. Ex; Shriyuts Suresh Kalmadi, A

Raja, Smt Kanimozhi, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav etc., If

Jan LokPal would have been in existence, then a few more would have

been charge sheeted. In this context please enlighten me weather the

presence of such people enhances the dignity of parliament or reduces

it? A few of the above are such that one would rather avoid inviting


them to their homes for marriages and festivals. Is not the parliament

insulted by the presence of such parliamentarians?



Why were such people given tickets? All parties pro-actively give

tickets to people with criminal backgrounds and each successive

election has seen an increase in them getting elected. In 2004

elections, 128 people in Lok Sabha were with criminal backgrounds. In

2009 elections their number went up to 162. By this progression, the

day is not far when the majority of the parliament will consist of

people with criminal background. Hence, we should not be surprised

when the audience gives an ovation to the hero who says dacoits are in

parliament.



All parties are responsible for bringing the parliament to this. In

2009, Congress gave tickets to 117 people with criminal background,

out of which 44 got elected. BJP gave tickets to 116 people with

criminal background, out of which 44 got elected. Other parties too

have proactively given tickets to the tainted. The court has charge

sheeted a good many of them with heinous crimes. What was the

compulsion of these parties? Did not the parties insult the parliament

by giving them tickets? Should not the parties be punished for


insulting the parliament?



It is being said that presently, they are merely accused. Charges have

not been proved in court. The case is pending. My answer to this is

that these cases will never end. A single judgment takes more than

thirty years in this country to be pronounced. Why is our country’s

justice delivery mechanism so lethargic and procrastinating? The

parliamentarians were supposed to correct this anomaly. Why didn’t

they correct it in the last 65 years? Was it not done on purpose? Was

it because if it was corrected, swift justice delivery would have been

possible and most of such people would be incarcerated in jails? Is

not the doubt strengthened then that, till such time these people sit

in parliament, our justice delivery mechanism will not be reformed? Is

not the apprehension valid that till such time people like these are

in parliament, crime will not come down in our country? Please tell me

how can I respect parliamentarians like these?



Its correct that these people are merely charged at present. The

charges are not yet proven. Cases are pending. It is possible that

twenty years later, the courts may pronounce them innocent.

Alternatively, it is also possible that twenty years later, many of

these may be held guilty by the court. In such a scenario, isn’t this

a cause for immense worry that this nation’s laws were framed by

murderers, kidnappers and fraudsters? You say that I have insulted the

parliament. I respect the parliament immensely but can you explain to

me the rationale of respecting such parliamentarians.



There was a parliament in which Shri Lalbahadur Shastri resigned in


the wake of a single train accident. One feels the urge to submit

everything at the altar of such a parliament. But how can I respect a

parliament with the present composition?



On 29th December 2011, during the Lokpal Bill discussion, RJD

parliamentarian Shri Rajniti Prasad snatched the Bill from the hands

of the Hon’ble minister, tore it and threw it. Was not the parliament

insulted by this act? If we see parliament as a temple of democracy,

isn’t the presiding deity insulted by tearing the Gita in such a

temple? It was too much that not a single parliamentarian stood up to

protest this tearing of the Bill. The chairperson too was mute. Why

this speechlessness by those who swear by the parliament? This was not

the first such instance. Many bills have been torn in this temple of

democracy. But not one person has been punished ever. Don’t you think

that Shri Rajniti Prasad should be punished severely for tearing away

the Bill inside parliament? Such an exemplary punishment that no

parliamentarian dare ever to tear away any bill inside the parliament

in the future.



Rajya Sabha has many industrialist parliamentarians who have no

connection whatsoever to people or public service. A good many

industrialists enter the Rajya Sabha in the wake of their money-power

and tickets given by various parties. People like these misuse the

parliament to further their industry. Shri Vijay Mallya is the owner

of Kingfisher. It is not known that he has done any public service. He

is the member of the parliamentary standing committee on civil

aviation. He decides the civil aviation policy of this nation. So, it

is but natural that he will frame such policies that benefit

Kingfisher enormously. Isn’t this a direct misuse of parliament? Rajya

Sabha has a cluster of such parliamentarians who misuse the parliament

directly to further the cause of their respective industries. Isn’t

this misuse of parliament an insult to the parliament?



Cash for Questions in parliament came to light. This was a grave

insult to parliament. But such parliamentarians were merely sacked.

Giving or taking bribe is a criminal offence. Such people ought to

have been jailed when proven guilty. The fact that they were sacked

demonstrates that they were guilty. Why weren’t they jailed? Why were

they let off by mere sacking? For such a grave insult to the

parliament, if they were to be exemplarily punished, future

parliamentarians would not have dared to try insulting parliament

again. Since they were let off lightly, the 2008 open horse-trading of

parliamentarians was repeated. People saw buying and selling of

parliamentarians in the holy temple of democracy. The collective

conscience of the nation cried. Democracy wept. Parliament shed tears.

But the government survived. Not a single parliamentarian has been

punished till date. Was this not akin to treason? Isn’t trading of

parliamentarians considered as treason? How can I respect such

parliamentarians?



Microphones have been uprooted and thrown innumerable times in the

parliament. Chairs are hurled at each other. How can I respect such

parliamentarians? On one hand 8 Bills are passed without discussion in

17 minutes and on the other hand, there is daily disruption by

parliamentarians which results in parliamentary business being

stalled.



The nation is struggling against corruption and price rise. Common man

is finding survival difficult. Farmers are committing suicides.

Whistleblowers against corruption are being murdered. People are

writhing. On these issues the parliament is either quiet or semantics

are delivered. These problems which have beset our nation for years

have not been addressed. As a thumb-rule, there is no unanimity in the

parliament on these issues. The issues linger on in standing

committees, people writhe in agony.



Oddly, on any issue regarding parliamentarians all parties unite. When

a parliamentarian among them Shri Sharad Pawar is slapped, (slapping

was wrong, should not have been slapped) all parliamentarians writhed.

All parties got united. All leaders denounced this for two hours.

Whenever there is an issue of increase of allowance to

parliamentarians, their comforts, perks, we see instant unanimity

among parties. All parties unite against the use of an idiom (Chor kii

daadhii me tinkaa). This tiny idiom hurt the parties so much that

parliament discussed this issue for hours. All these instances force


us to contemplate – aren’t a few parliamentarians more concerned about


their self-interests rather than the people?



Along with parliament, legislative assemblies too are temples of

democracy. In such a temple if some legislature and the child & women

development minister of that state watch porn publicly, please tell me

how can I respect such legislatures?



Its not that this parliament doesn’t have good parliamentarians. Many

good parliamentarians exist. And I respect them immensely. But the

voice of such good parliamentarians is drowned in the cacophony of the

parliament.



I have raised a few fundamental questions on the notice received to my

statement. The same constitution that gives powers to parliamentarians

to enact laws gives the people the power to ask questions to the

parliamentarians. Questions are raised weather the parliament that is

comprised of so many criminally tainted parliamentarians can ever

enact an efficient law to end crime? If the parliament which is

comprised of so many people with corruption charges can ever enact a

good anti-corruption law. A law which, if enacted will create problems

for some parliamentarians? During the Jan Lokpal movement, the people

of this country came down to the streets demanding an effective law.

People have started asking questions when the government and the

parliament seemed reluctant to enact such a law. People have a

question whether Jan Lokpal Bill will be enacted?



All these make it clear that the parliament is insulted not by

me but continuously by a few people sitting inside. By those on whom

the people put their faith and future. I just stated the facts. I have

not stated anything wrong. I just raised the queries of the people. If

in the eyes of your law, I am guilty, I am ready to be punished under

such a law. If you find me guilty under your law, my request would be

to give me an opportunity to present myself in person to air my views.



With regards



Arvind Kejriwal



403, Girnar, Kaushambi



Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh****



** **

Misdemeanours in high places

"Bertie Ahern, a former prime minister of Ireland, was accused of lying about the source of large sums of money in his bank account by a tribunal investigating corruption. He quit his Fianna Fail party before it threw him out."

"Pal Schmitt resigned as president of Hungary, after Budapest’s Semmelweis University stripped him of his doctorate because of plagiarism. His resignation means that Viktor Orban, the prime minister, has lost a loyal ally who rubber-stamped all of the government’s new, and contentious, laws."

"The treasurer for Britain’s ruling Conservative Party resigned after being caught on video suggesting to journalists posing as lobbyists that they could buy access to David Cameron, the prime minister, and influence policy. Mr Cameron said the party would investigate, but the opposition Labour Party called for an inquiry that was more robust. "

It is evident that unbecoming behaviour at top political levels is a universal phenomenon. It goes unnoticed in a few countries. Even if noticed, it goes unpunished in some countries. India unfortunately is one among these few countries. Where accountability is not enforced, misbehaviour becomes common. Societies / economies pay the price for misdeeds of individuals.

IIT Delhi's dubious distinction

It has often been debated whether institutions of higher learning like IITs and IIMs have failed in instilling ethical behaviour in their students. Though one may argue that brilliance has no correlation with morality, it disturbs us whenever we come across an IITian or IIMite who has achieved "success" by transcending acceptable standards of decency.

The names of Rajat Gupta and Ravi Rishi readily come to our mind. The former has allegedly abetted Raj Rajaratnam in scandalous insider deals. Ravi Rishi owns the UK-based $800 mn Vectra Group that is alleged to have adopted controversial methods to market Tatra army trucks to the Indian Army. Both Rajat Gupta and Ravi Rishi are 'distinguished alumni' of IIT Delhi.

IIT Delhi has ofcourse produced many engineers of unsullied reputation. This list includes Raghuram Rajan, Y C Deveshwar, M S Banga, Vinod Khosla, Rajendra S Pawar and Padmasree Warrior. But it is a cause for concern if the institute produces even one morally distorted apple.

World's most ethical companies

The Ethisphere Institute, a reputable think-tank has released the list of world's most ethical companies for the year 2012. The list contains 145 ethically sound companies of which only two are based in India, Tata Steel and Wipro.

Rarity of India's presence in such enviable lists underscores our eager willingness to trade off ethics for short-term profits. Critics may argue that interpretation of ethics differs from country to country. This solace can only be self-defeating in the long run.

Prejudices in reasonable minds

It is not uncommon to witness otherwise reasonable minds to vehemently disagree on certain issues of public interest. Yesterday, NDTV presented a discussion featuring Prannoy Roy, Narayana Murthy, Shekhar Gupta (of Indian Express) and Arvind Kejriwal. It was not surprising to hear all of them praise the efforts of Anna Hazare to centrestage the issue of corruption. The first three however took serious exception to Anna's controversial statements like "If Lokpal were in existence, Chidambaram would be in jail" and "Alcoholics may have to be beaten to wean them away from addiction". Since he was in a hopeless minority. Kejriwal could not defend Anna fully. Perhaps one way of looking at the issue is to trace the genesis of such statements to Anna's obsessive sincerity.

No human mind is completely free from bias or prejudice. "Stereotyping" is a bias most of us are prey to. Anna while reforming and transforming Ralegan Siddhi had come across many incorrigible alcoholics and he was privy to the resultant sufferings endured by many women and children. To him. the village was the universe. He formed a stereotype in his mind that consumption of alcohol and family distress go together. Similarly, some of the controversial acts and utterances of Chidambaram made Anna to fit him into the stereotyped version of a politician as a venal, arrogant person. Absence of direct exposure to social evils like alcoholism and its impact on economic conditions has enabled formation of a different kind of prejudice in the minds of PR, NM and SG. Because of inevitability of powerful prejudices like these, the otherwise wise people are forever condemned to disagree among themselves and let the sinister rule the world.

Mahatma Gandhi and Anna Hazare

Comparison between Anna Hazare and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is inevitable in view of the ethical foundation of their approaches to social issues. Their modus operandi, atleast apparently, is similar. Hunger strike and Satyagraha lend commonality to their campaigns. How do we make a comparative assessment of  the roles played by these two gentlemen?

Gurudas Dasgupta, an erudite parliamentarian, avows there is no second Mahatma. In a caustic criticism of Anna's ways, the Bombay High Court says,"One man's Satyagraha may be another's nuisance". (This was what the British used to say!)  The Mahatma is held in high esteem by the entire country and rightly so. Ofcourse, praising the Mahatma's approach does not seem to preclude the self-proclaimed Gandhians from adopting unethical and corrupt ways in their life. Such Gandhians are a dime a dozen among particularly the politicians.

The Mahatma was a legend in his lifetime and has taken on divine dimensions in his afterlife. Therefore any earthly characterisation of even his mundane dealings is considered profane. Hence I attempt only a tentative comparison between the two giants.

The Mahatma was well educated in India and in the inns of London. He had advisors / followers like Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajaji, Satyamurthy, Vallabhai Patel and others. He was a gifted writer and an orator equally at ease in English and Hindi (and ofcourse in Gujarati too).  Most of all, he fought for India's freedom from aliens who had not forsaken all vestiges of integrity and decency.

In contrast, Anna Hazare is barely educated, had never been abroad to facilitate broader vision, and has to fight against a cabal of corrupt, dishonest and unethical persons whose overpowering aim in life is to amass wealth (if the economy is destroyed in the process, why should these venal elements bother?). He can speak only in vernacular languages.

If inspite of these disadvantages, Anna Hazare is able to make the kind of impact he has already made and has stirred the nation's conscience through his crusade (albeit misguided at times, because of the limitations mentioned above), is he not in some ways atleast (yes, I am commiting the sacrilege) better than the Mahatma?

Anna is no Mahatma. The Mahatma was no Anna either.

Chidambaram's discomfiture

The Home Minister is embroiled in a spate of controversies. He is alleged to have gone easy on A.Raja who decided on pricing of 2G spectrum. His narrow victory in the last election to the Lok Sabha is legally contested. The latest controversy is regarding the grant of permission to withdraw a criminal case against a fraudulent hotelier. In this case, the minister had earlier argued in the courts in favour of the hotelier and lost the cases. Chidambaram has taken a position that he does not remember all his erstwhile clients.

On 22nd Nov 2010, we argued as follows:

"The ever-repulsive spokesperson of the Congress party has unconvincingly argued that CAG's report on 2G Scam refers only to "presumptive loss" to the exchequer and therefore the country is needlessly agitated over a non-issue.



Even before we could digest this argument, the normally sensible P.Chidambaram has sought to throw further light on the theory of presumption. "I place some 50-60 signatures in a day with the presumption that they are right to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps few may go wrong, but they were not malafide because the intentions were right." (The Hindu dated 22nd Nov.)


Is Chidambaram serving advance notice on the prime minister ? This specious presumption argument can be used by every decision-maker. So no one can be held accountable for any decision, for who will accept his intentions were wrong? "

One is afraid that Chidambaram's continuance in the cabinet has become untenable.

Auditors' misdemeanour

We are coming across cases of delinquency among auditors with distressing and depressing regularity. The latest to hit the public domain relates to one of the "Big Four", Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu.

P.N.Sudarshan, a Senior Director of this reputed audit firm has recently admitted in a Hyderabad Court that they had succumbed to pressure in inflating the value of Jagati Publications, a media firm owned by Jagan Mohan Reddy, son of a former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh.

Sudarshan clarifies that the company's value was overstated to Rs.3500 cr whereas the value was assessed as Rs.2500 cr. He was also under pressure to show the date of his report as Nov 2007 though the assessment was done in April 2008. He was influenced by Jagati's former auditor, Vijay Sai Reddy. The latter is now vice-chairman of Jagati Publications.

It is unfortunate that the reputation of esteemed auditors is really up for sale.

Political bloviation and judicial ire

The saga of 2G scam meanders along keeping courts and CBI awefully busy. The Law minister Salman Khurshid unlawfully advises Advani not to speak about the scam as the matter is "sub judice" and as his utterances may influence the courts! What a poor opinion about the capacity of the courts!

The Supreme Court also has fallen a prey to political red-herrings and has started warning the media to abstain from misrepresenting the court proceedings. Markanday Katju, a recently retired judge of the Supreme Court who is now heading the Press Council repeatedly cautions the press not to give too much coverage to matters like cricket, astrology, actors etc. He wants the Press Council to be empowered to suspend publication of newspapers that do not ' behave'. He desires that visual media should also be monitored by the Press Council. He has already given vent to his ire against preponderant sections of the visual media which are screening programmes not to his taste. How democratic! One also wonders how ethical it is for judges to accept post-retirement jobs.

Added on 6th Nov: Saubhik Chakrabarti has quoted Marshall McLuhan in the Economic Times today: "A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding." I hope Justice Katju reads this.

Lessons from Rajat Gupta

Rajat Gupta is obviously going through tough times. Charges against him are formidable and proving them will require enormous ingenuity on the part of prosecutors. Given the amazing skills of U S prosecutors and absence of political interference, Rajat Gupta's future is dark.

It is difficult to believe that Gupta succumbed to an error of judgement. He is too intelligent for that excuse to be accepted. (I am assuming he did what he is alleged to have done.) He must have been confident that chances of being caught were next to nil. Perhaps luck deserted him when he needed it most. Every dog has its day. It is equally true that every 'kutha' (dog) has its night too.

Congress party's loudmouth, Digvijaya, has drawn a strange lesson from this. He argues that Indian judges should learn to provide bail to the accused pending hearing and finality. Yes, Rajat Gupta is out on bail. Digvijaya should appreciate that the bail has cost Gupta $10 mn and his passport. The bail amount is a staggering amount of $10 mn though Gupta's gain from his crime is yet unknown and may be much less. Indian courts should insist on Rs.hundreds of crores as bail amount when the alleged crimes involve humongous moolah. In the meanwhile, the likes of Digvijaya will be better advised to draw relevant lessons. Will the Indian government let the prosecutors do their job without outside influence?