‘The devil made me do it,’ is a child’s excuse for bad behaviour. Former NSE CEO Chitra Ramkrishna has sought to justify wrongdoing by passing the buck to a ‘higher’ power. The contention that she had no agency and was the innocent dupe of a manipulative guru lacks credibility.
The degree of credulity that Ramkrishna claims is unheard of among Indian professionals and bureaucrats. They may extend patronage to a guru – as they would to a relative or an associate – but are not known to submit to his/her diktats. No more than a doctor relies on a godman to decide a patient’s course of treatment.
Besides, the system of checks and balances does not allow individuals unlimited scope to oblige anyone. Decision-making in a public authority is dependent on hierarchy and procedure, and subject to oversight. Corporate governance likewise comprises set rules and processes. It compels individuals, no matter how devout, to keep their religious and secular roles separate.
T.N. Seshan, the man who transformed the electoral process (he passed away in 2019), was an ardent devotee of Sathya Sai Baba and the Kancheepuram seer. But the idea that either of them could influence his decisions as chief election commissioner was laughable.
For all its flaws and scope for abuse, the system can potentially bring down anyone, “be ye ever so high”. Not even the patronage of a serving prime minister could protect Chandraswami from investigation, or prevent an order for his arrest. Indeed, the infamous godman has since served as a cautionary tale, and no politician or bureaucrat wants to be seen as acting under the sway of a guru.
Even our famously superstitious politicians who hare off to a godman before an election for a good luck charm, a special puja or a horoscope reading, know where to draw the line. A politician/minister may well oblige their guru in terms of ticket distribution, transfers and postings, allocation of lucrative contracts, bending land use norms and so on. But the question of pro-actively seeking a godman’s ‘approval’ in administrative or policy matters does not arise.
As the chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi refused to allow any interference in investigations against godman Asaram Bapu. In fact, a judicial commission was appointed to probe his misdeeds. Asaram, who enjoyed the support of BJP heavyweights and had a large body of adherents, threatened to topple Modi’s government, but the CM was unmoved.
Gurmeet Ram Rahim famously parleyed his following into mobilising votes for political patrons and subsequently sought to intimidate the administration and judiciary through a show of force. That didn’t stop special CBI judge Jagdeep Singh from sentencing him to prison. Likewise, Baba Rampal’s thousands of disciples didn’t prevent the Haryana police from executing an arrest warrant against him, although six people died in the process.
For all his vast clout and access within the judiciary, bureaucracy and political establishment, it took Swami Raghaveshwara Bharathi, head of the Ramachandrapura Mutt, seven years and over a dozen recusals to obtain a discharge in a rape case filed against him in 2014. A judge may recuse themselves in a case, but will not dismiss any matter outright.
Against this backdrop, it seems unlikely that Ramkrishna would have sacrificed her career and reputation for a random godman. An educated woman, especially one of her standing (Forbes’ Woman Leader of the Year 2013), would have been all too aware of the risks involved and could hardly have been brainwashed into setting aside her professional obligations.
Having faith and being gullible are two very different things. The system, for all its endemic corruption, weeds out individuals it deems unsuitable. Ramkrishna could not have risen through the ranks if she came across as naive and dupable. Yes, devotion may render an individual blind to self-interest. Dozens immolated themselves when M.G. Ramachandran died. But self-sacrifice is intensely personal. It does not involve one’s role in the public sphere.
Thus, the National Stock Exchange’s (NSE) contention that Ramkrishna, in sharing confidential information and following instructions on the minutiae of its functioning, was “exploited” and “manipulated” by “Mr Rigyajursama (the identity assumed by the alleged guru)” as per “the opinion of human psychology expert” does not sound plausible.
All it does is obfuscate the identity of her mentor and their shared motives. The absurdity of her claims – that the ‘Himalayan Yogi’ was capable of teleportation – smacks of a cover up. The veil of secrecy that shrouded her interactions with the so-called guru allowed the abuse of process to continue.
There’s no denying that the system of checks and balances failed. The fact that Ramkrishna had a free run in following her guru’s “instructions” indicates that she enjoyed an extraordinary degree of patronage – but from whom?
Bhavdeep Kang is a freelance writer and author of Gurus: Stories of India’s Leading Babas and Just Transferred: The Untold Story of Ashok Khemka. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the stand of this publication.
Read all the Latest Opinion News and Breaking News here
Comments
0 comment