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?