Non-application of mind

I have come across the title phrase in at least a few judgements of the Supreme Court of India while rejecting the reasons of a lower court and setting aside its decision. I do not know why, but in the context of the “tussle” between the trial court and the Karnataka High Court over the J Jayalalithaa’s disproportionate assets case this phrase has come to dominate my thinking.

But, before I go into the why of such thinking, let me say that I find that phrase abhorrent, even given that the Supreme Court may have good enough reasons for mouthing those words. Yet, my severe unease comes from the fact that there can be no response to such an evaluation, as there is no authority to appeal to for “expunging” the comments by the Supreme Court Bench. To make an unsavory comparison, it is much like branding cattle. Tut, tut … After this alleged “non-application of mind”, can any case be assigned to the judge whose judgment has been reversed?

Back to Jayalalithaa’s case. Obviously I have no access to the details of the case beyond what is available in main stream media, and even that only at many removes as I am not too bothered. If the Exchequer gets a few crores of rupees, so be it; my household budget needs no adjustments.

My interest in this case is at a different level. The dispute between the two contradicting decisions is over an audit job. But, as the assessments as regards the quantum of disproportionate assets of the trial court and the high court differ by almost an order – in terms to be understood only mathematically, from about 8% to 70% – my curiosity level has gone through the roof. I believe if the case goes to the Supreme Court, it will be hard put not to use the title phrase, against the judge of either the trial court or the high court! The “false” reasoning in this case cannot have any reason beyond “non-application of mind”. Is such mindlessness a case of immathematicity (innumeracy as applied to auditing!), or more fundamentally, one of auditing itself?

At first instance, it looks like it is one of mathematics. The case of Nobel Laureate Kenneth Rogoff comes to mind. Not very long ago he made a claim about when a country would go into debt trap. And, it later came out that there were mistakes on his MS Excel sheets and his predictions are wrong. I am not sure whether the economist admitted mea culpa.

But thinking further, we may note that in the instant case, the difference in the numbers arose because the items in the audit were shifted from one side of the ledger to the other side. Yet, doing the job of the auditors, both the judges must have done enough due diligence (one, over 18 long years, and other in a “blink-of-an-eye”) before placing the numbers on one side. If the numbers themselves are not to be blamed, even then it is a fit case for “non-application of mind”.

Now, my curiosity has reached sky high.

What will the Supreme Court say? Did the erring judge not know his numbers or did not know where to put them? Where exactly and through whom the “non-application of mind” played its part?

It is for this reason and solely for this reason, I would like an appeal of the Karnataka High Court decision.

Raghuram Ekambaram

Indian elections and quantum mysteries

The first time one hears about the famous double-slit experiment in physics, one returns perplexed, mystified. Indeed, that is the effect desired by the raconteur. The student must be introduced to the weirdness of quantum physics at the most basic level just so she would be able to take additional perplexities in her stride.

It almost feels like I am going through what that student would have experienced from the second telling of the experiment. I am talking about a candidate in Indian elections being able to contest from more than one constituency. The first time I thought about this situation was when Sonia Gandhi contested from two places, from Amethi in UP and Bellary in Karnataka, in 1999. The situation is being reprised at that level in the upcoming elections for the Lok Sabha.

The attention grabbing character this time round is none other than the putative prime minster, Narendra Modi, NaMo. He will be contesting from the high profile constituency Varanasi and another one from Gujarat (the name escapes me, if indeed it has been announced).

I draw a parallel with the double-slit experiment in more ways than one. The easier is the straight forward one, the first thought that comes to one’s mind – which constituency would he discard if he won from both? This is precisely like asking which of the two slits did that photon not go through! In case he wins both, during the campaign he must have been, just as Sonia Gandhi, lying to people of one of the two places, of his willingness to represent them in the parliament. Would a Gujarati have been lying to the masses of that state? Perish the thought. But, Varanasi, the stairway to Heaven, particularly for the RSS man, beckons.

As an aside, should anyone be aware of the debates in the Constituent Assembly that endorsed our Constitution, please do let me know why it did not stipulate that a candidate can contest from only one constituency in any particular election.

Back to the main discussion, to ratchet up the complexity. Just assume, and here I will be stepping on the toes of the NaMo faithful, that he lost the high-profile Varanasi contest (not unthinkable, but with longer odds than Jayalalithaa appearing in a court in Bengaluru). What happens to NaMo’s street cred to lead the country? I believe this is the thinking behind our street fighter Arvind Kejriwal choosing a direct fight against the BJP supremo.

It is not as though should NaMo win Varanasi, Kejriwal retires unhurt. Kejriwal has something to lose, without a doubt. If he had chosen a “safer” constituency to contest, he could have claimed that being in the parliament and serving the people came first for him, whichever constituency, never mind it being “safe”. Now, he has painted himself in a corner. If he lost Varanasi, the AAP parliamentary party (with strength of how many ever seats) will be without its acknowledged leader. Or, will Kejriwal pull a fast one and do a NaMo and contest from an additional seat? It gets curioser and curioser.

This is what happens with more complex versions of the double-slit experiment. It now appears that even if the experimental set up is changed after the light particle left its source, it still figures out how to adjust itself and pass through the “right” slit (it is far too complicated for me to explain, but this is the crux)!

So, Indian elections are quantum experiments!

Raghuram Ekambaram

August 15 v. January 26

The above case must be decided in the people’s court. And, as I see it, it will end in a tie.

On August 15, we celebrate Independence Day. On January 26, we celebrate Republic Day.

On August 15 we celebrate our freedom from someone other than ourselves. Yes, it is an occasion for celebration. On January 26, we celebrate our freedom from ourselves! Yes, this too is time for celebration. The difference is stark. Yet, the case is balanced on a knife edge.

On August 15 it is the Prime Minister, the head of Indian government who holds fort (from the Red Fort). On January 26, the head of State of the Republic of India – the President – gets the attention, sitting/standing regally on a platform along, ironically, Rajpath.

Both instances grate on me. Taking August 15 first, was it the government that secured independence for the people? No. It was the people. Then, why not discard the government or at least dilute its presence on this special day? All across the nation, across hierarchy. The celebration should be multi-nucleated, and most importantly the meta-nucleus can be none other than the idea of freedom, and definitely not the government.

I will resort to quoting Martin Luther King:

Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring … And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

The point to be noted above is he did not ask for freedom to ring from the White House or Capitol Hill, the seats of governance. That is the meaning of freedom, and it flows up from the people to the government. This is what should be celebrated on August 15. Freedom should not be celebrated by listening to the head of the government setting out its policy, or worse, defending a policy that has gone wrong, and if you are a pessimist, irreparably wrong by the people. This is not celebration of freedom.

Much as I hate the supposedly patriotic songs of Manoj Kumar, being played out, even as I am penning this, in the housing society I live in, it is better than listening to Man Mohan Singh droning on and on, and taking a cue, Jayalalithaa doing an encore from Chennai. These have no connections to freedom, and ironically today, do not evoke the connection to our independence.

The case against the Republic Day celebration is very short. Power did not flow from the barrel of a gun when our republic was established. Then, why the focus on the fly-past by the air force? Why army tanks trundling down Rajpath? Perhaps because Russia celebrates it that way!

Why every float from every state is a homogenized celebration of the culture of that state? Why not about the nation’s science, its sports? Why not highlight our contribution to ITER, to the Square Kilometer Array (SKA), even if only as an associate member? Why not our “Green” initiative (if and when they come to pass!)? But, even as I suggest these, what I would truly want is abolishing the event itself. There is no logic behind Republic Day parade along the Rajpath in Delhi and along Kamarajar Salai (Beach Road) in Chennai.

Where is the Republic in our Republic Day? The Rajpath is lined with rows and rows of seats for the VVV…IPs. Are these the only public? When Connaught Place has been changed to Rajiv Chowk, at least change the name Rajpath to something like Republic Way.

Did you know that the word “Republic” comes from res publica?  That is, the idea that the affairs of the state are that of the public. Even admitting that ours is a representative democracy, at least on this day, the public should be allowed independent expression, independent of the state.

So, were I decide to judge the case, I would ignore all the celebrations and enjoy the holiday in bed. This way, I will be insulting the idea of freedom and republic the least.

I am free from all obligations and I am my own ruler – my wife cannot bid me to do anything!

Raghuram Ekambaram