Author: T. V. R. Shenoy
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: September 1, 2005
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/archive_full_story.php?content_id=77317
Introduction: Chidambaram has a record of personal integrity, it was silly of his wife to take brief
The Opposition demands Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram's head and stages walk-outs when this is not on the menu. Priyaranjan Das Munshi reportedly concedes that the finance minister is guilty of "impropriety" (well, a water resources minister should never be short of crocodile tears). And waiting in the wings someone is undoubtedly clearing his throat to utter that immortal phrase about Caesar's wife being above suspicion in connection with Nalini Chidambaram.
Does anyone bother to find out what led the blessed Julius to deliver that epigram? He married Pompeia to forge a link with her cousin, Pompey. He divorced her as soon as he could marry off his own daughter (by his first marriage) to the great man, then marry for a third time himself. In other words, politics as usual.
So, many would say, is the storm over the CBDT's ill-advised decision to select the finance minister's wife to represent it. Personally, I believe P. Chidambaram's protestations of innocence. He has been accused of many sins - notably a self-assurance that some interpret as arrogance - but never of impropriety. As a newly-elected MP he was hand-picked by the then prime minister for the textiles ministry. Chidambaram demurred, pointing out that his family had extensive interests in that industry, which might give the Opposition the chance to embarrass the government. When he was commerce minister in the Narasimha Rao government he offered to quit as his wife had invested in the scam-tainted Fairgrowth (a fact that emerged long after she wrote out a cheque). Finally, in this age and day, it is quite possible that a husband would not know all the details of his wife's career.
Nalini Chidambaram has been practising since 1968 and happens to have specialised in tax laws. She was, with two riders, perfectly qualified to represent the Government of India in a dispute over interpretation of the tax codes. Yet it is those very caveats that have led to all the mudslinging. First, she was representing a department which operates under her husband. Second, she was appearing in a case where the the other side represented the textile mills - in which her husband's family has extensive interests. Impropriety or not, she stands condemned of poor judgment.
P. Chidambaram may not have known that his
wife had been hired by the CBDT, but there is no way that Nalini Chidambaram
did not know that her husband happens to be the Union finance minister! That
means there are some questions which need to be answered.
Sushma Swaraj - herself a lawyer by the way - pointed out that, "For
every hearing she gets paid Rs 2 lakh to represent the CBDT." (The cost
of justice in India is the true scandal if you ask me!) Nalini Chidambaram
countered: "I did not charge a fee for every hearing. I received a modest
consolidated fee." She did not spell out how "modest" this
was. The subsequent statement that she had returned even this token payment
is tacit admission that it was silly to have accepted the brief.
In other circumstances, Nalini Chidambaram's earnings would be between her and her erstwhile clients in the Income Tax Department, but I hope she realises that she has now opened the door to more queries.
Asking the right questions, however, means getting some facts straight. For instance, is it true, as the AIADMK alleges, that one of the mill owners in the case is a "blood brother" of the finance minister? We use the word 'brother' so loosely in India that it could even be a cousin up to the sixth degree! Unless proved otherwise I prefer to treat it is as a silly rumour.
Incidentally, the case itself is rather interesting even if it weren't for the personalities involved. The question raised before the high court in Chennai was whether replacement of machine parts could be classified as revenue expenditure or whether it was a capital expense. This question has vexed several industries from steel to paper to textiles; in standard judicial practice, many cases were clubbed together as they dealt with the same issue though it goes down in the annals in the name of just one client. The high court's judgment was delivered in April, but nobody paid attention until the AIADMK's N. Jothi - yet another lawyer - raised the issue of nepotism. (P. Chidambaram himself had been acting as counsel in the case until he became the finance minister. It is a pity the CBDT adopted the 'Laloo Principle', the wife taking on the husband's unfinished task!)
I suspect the ramifications of the case would be of greater interest to many Indians since it directly affects their wallets. However, the issue is the CBDT's appalling misjudgment in hiring Nalini Chidambaram and her arguably greater misjudgment in accepting the offer have muddied the waters. The CBDT has offered the finance minister a ham-handed apology, admitting it erred in not consulting him before appointing his wife as counsel. Once again, the CBDT has displayed its utter lack of perception.
The issue was not whether P. Chidambaram was kept in the loop. His honesty was never in doubt (others may disagree.) The issue was that of a potential conflict of interest. I wonder which genius had the brainwave of getting Nalini Chidambaram to represent the CBDT?
Don't treat it as a storm in a teacup. The reaction appears overblown today because of P. Chidambaram's personal integrity. Would we take charges of nepotism equally lightly had it involved one of his other, more colourful, colleagues?
Does anyone bother to find out what led the blessed Julius to deliver that epigram? He married Pompeia to forge a link with her cousin, Pompey. He divorced her as soon as he could marry off his own daughter (by his first marriage) to the great man, then marry for a third time himself. In other words, politics as usual.
So, many would say, is the storm over the CBDT's ill-advised decision to select the finance minister's wife to represent it. Personally, I believe P. Chidambaram's protestations of innocence. He has been accused of many sins - notably a self-assurance that some interpret as arrogance - but never of impropriety. As a newly-elected MP he was hand-picked by the then prime minister for the textiles ministry. Chidambaram demurred, pointing out that his family had extensive interests in that industry, which might give the Opposition the chance to embarrass the government. When he was commerce minister in the Narasimha Rao government he offered to quit as his wife had invested in the scam-tainted Fairgrowth (a fact that emerged long after she wrote out a cheque). Finally, in this age and day, it is quite possible that a husband would not know all the details of his wife's career.
Nalini Chidambaram has been practising since 1968 and happens to have specialised in tax laws. She was, with two riders, perfectly qualified to represent the Government of India in a dispute over interpretation of the tax codes. Yet it is those very caveats that have led to all the mudslinging. First, she was representing a department which operates under her husband. Second, she was appearing in a case where the the other side represented the textile mills - in which her husband's family has extensive interests. Impropriety or not, she stands condemned of poor judgment.
P. Chidambaram may not have known that his
wife had been hired by the CBDT, but there is no way that Nalini Chidambaram
did not know that her husband happens to be the Union finance minister! That
means there are some questions which need to be answered.
Sushma Swaraj - herself a lawyer by the way - pointed out that, "For
every hearing she gets paid Rs 2 lakh to represent the CBDT." (The cost
of justice in India is the true scandal if you ask me!) Nalini Chidambaram
countered: "I did not charge a fee for every hearing. I received a modest
consolidated fee." She did not spell out how "modest" this
was. The subsequent statement that she had returned even this token payment
is tacit admission that it was silly to have accepted the brief.
In other circumstances, Nalini Chidambaram's earnings would be between her and her erstwhile clients in the 1Income Tax Department, but I hope she realises that she has now opened the door to more queries.
Asking the right questions, however, means getting some facts straight. For instance, is it true, as the AIADMK alleges, that one of the mill owners in the case is a "blood brother" of the finance minister? We use the word 'brother' so loosely in India that it could even be a cousin up to the sixth degree! Unless proved otherwise I prefer to treat it is as a silly rumour.
Incidentally, the case itself is rather interesting even if it weren't for the personalities involved. The question raised before the high court in Chennai was whether replacement of machine parts could be classified as revenue expenditure or whether it was a capital expense. This question has vexed several industries from steel to paper to textiles; in standard judicial practice, many cases were clubbed together as they dealt with the same issue though it goes down in the annals in the name of just one client. The high court's judgment was delivered in April, but nobody paid attention until the AIADMK's N. Jothi - yet another lawyer - raised the issue of nepotism. (P. Chidambaram himself had been acting as counsel in the case until he became the finance minister. It is a pity the CBDT adopted the 'Laloo Principle', the wife taking on the husband's unfinished task!)
I suspect the ramifications of the case would be of greater interest to many Indians since it directly affects their wallets. However, the issue is the CBDT's appalling misjudgment in hiring Nalini Chidambaram and her arguably greater misjudgment in accepting the offer have muddied the waters. The CBDT has offered the finance minister a ham-handed apology, admitting it erred in not consulting him before appointing his wife as counsel. Once again, the CBDT has displayed its utter lack of perception.
The issue was not whether P. Chidambaram was kept in the loop. His honesty was never in doubt (others may disagree.) The issue was that of a potential conflict of interest. I wonder which genius had the brainwave of getting Nalini Chidambaram to represent the CBDT?
Don't treat it as a storm in a teacup. The reaction appears overblown today because of P. Chidambaram's personal integrity. Would we take charges of nepotism equally lightly had it involved one of his other, more colourful, colleagues?