A walking moral hazard

 

After the 2024 Parliamentary elections, I’d written this blog: 

https://b-b-dash.blogspot.com/2024/06/dial-m-for-murder-of-democracy.html

 

That time, I actually thought, the Election Commission of India (ECI) couldn’t sink any further. I was proven wrong. It’s as though each Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) is trying to outdo his predecessor in terms of how low he can go.

 

In a huge country like India, elections have always had problems – booth capture, wanton violence, rigging of electoral rolls, rigging during polling and counting, bahubalis and so on. However, hardly anyone questioned the verdict because everyone felt that given the complexities and the problems, ECI had done its very best. Now, everyone feels that ECI has been doing its very best just to favour a particular party, credibility be damned.

 

The mind boggles at how much just one man, Gyanesh Kumar has achieved in just one and a half years (since 19.2.2025). And, how blatant he has been. Amidst all the din from the politicians, journalists, twitterati, a few things are clear.

 

Gyanesh Kumar treats the Election Commission as a tiny cell in a corner of the PMO and he is the bada babu, i.e., the Section Officer. The other two election commissioners are a mere formality to keep up appearances and pose for photo-ops. By ECI’s own reply to RTI queries, ECI didn’t decide on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls. So, obviously Gyanesh was following orders from outside ECI. In which case, his continuance as CEC is untenable.

 

Once Imran Khan told Allan Border “AB, give me Sunil Gavaskar and Chandra Shekhar from India, we will beat Australia". Allan Border retorted and said, “Imran, just give me those two umpires from Pakistan and we will beat the whole world.” Similarly, with two veritable hench-people in the form of Seema Khanna and Manish Garg, Gyanesh Kumar didn’t need anyone else to decimate Indian democracy. In fact, Kim Jong Un, Putin and all dictators in the world might be lining up to avail the services of these two now, and Gyaneshji’s too.

 

As per the law, the Election Registration Officers (EROs, usually Sub-Divisional Magistrates) and when so delegated, Asst. EROs, are the sole authority to decide who will or will not be on the electoral rolls. This power cannot be usurped by higher authorities. What Seema Khanna did was, through her software architecture, centralise this in her own hands and illegally usurp the legal powers of the ERO. Thus, she and her minder/s (most likely Gyanesh Kumar), sitting in Delhi, decided who will be on the rolls or not. One bulwark against electoral manipulation by the ECI was the involvement of hundreds of EROs in the process and that decentralisation was the excuse trotted out by ECI earlier. That bulwark is gone and so is the excuse. Another feature she introduced was deleting names through a software for something called “logical discrepancy.” No one fully knows what are the parameters for identifying these discrepancies and what is the legal basis. This was also introduced suddenly in the middle of an SIR (Special Intensive Revision) in West Bengal without any prior information or transparency. 62 lakh voters who were earlier verified as genuine voters by EROs got suddenly red-flagged (27 lakhs eventually disenfranchised) and the appeals process is still going on for them long after the election has been over.

 

The jugalbandi of Gyanesh Kumar and Seema Khanna did another diabolical thing. They asked the voters to map their names to their parents’ in another SIR held about two decades back. The twist was, the records of those previous SIRs were in PDF files, booth-wise. Very few people remembered where the parents were voting two decades back and which constituency and which booth, both of which had undergone any number of changes. Then they had to trawl through thousands of names in list after PDF list to find out the parents’ names which may have been grossly misspelt also. If SIR was so important, the minimum the ECI should’ve ensured was making the names machine searchable – it’d have taken a few months but that should’ve been the precondition for launching this horrendous exercise. Not doing so was deliberate. So were the compressed timelines.

 

In West Bengal, the ECI itself has filed appeals against 16.1 lakh voters who were actually cleared by judicial officers in the SIR process. No one knows, least of all the other two commissioners, who filed these appeals and who authorized such filing. Most of these appeals are still pending.

 

These were obviously major policy issues with far-reaching consequences, not only for specific polls but for Indian democracy as well. It’s clear that two of the election commissioners were not in the loop and were objecting. Enter the other hench-person, Manish Garg. Seema Khanna’s work used to be supervised by Deputy Election Commissioner Sanjay Kumar. This oversight layer of Seema Khanna’s functioning was removed by Manish Garg unilaterally and behind the backs of the two dissenting election commissioners.

 

It is also quite clear that Gyanesh Kumar has been allergic to inclusion of gen Z voters in the electoral rolls. A regular annual Special Summary Revision (SSR) is supposed to enable people turning 18 and new voters to register. However, this was pending since 2024 till the aftermath of the Indian Express expose. When the other two commissioners pressed for it, Gyanesh Kumar sought legal opinion – a typical bureaucratic tactic to delay things. Even after the legal opinion was available, he kept it pending. This allergy actually seems directly proportional to Gen Z’s allergy towards the current dispensation and the correlation is difficult to ignore.

 

After doing all this, Gyanesh Kumar is reported to have proclaimed, ““Tiger zinda hai, dekha jeeta diya naa Bengal mein …” He has lied and lied and peddled half-truths dressed in unconscionable arrogance. After the Indian Express expose, ECI came out with a press release which said that changes to Form 6 (for applying to be registered as voter) were upheld by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court judgement was in May and the change to Form 6 came about in July – he should be tried for contempt of court. The guy has turned the election commission into a SIRcus. He must go. If the other two commissioners are now saying (or bullied into saying) that these decisions have been unanimous, the whole lot should go. Fairest possible election is the heartbeat of India’s democracy. Gyanesh Kumar is a walking moral hazard.

 

 

The Marauding Executive

 

In a democracy, the excesses by the executive can be checked at various levels. Much of it used to be stopped at the level of the executive itself, thanks to the “steel frame” called the civil services of the country. That steel frame has now gathered so much rust that it almost invites being trampled upon. The second check used to be the constitutionally appointed bodies like the Election Commission of India, Comptroller & Auditor General, Union Public Service Commission, National Commissions (Human Rights, etc.). The appointments to these bodies have been so compromised that they are reduced to party toadies, with some exception for UPSC. However, UPSC’s independence also is under attack through the pincer movement of lateral recruitments and moves to allot services after training. 

The third bulwark used to be the legislature. No matter what, actually lying on the floor of the Parliament was a strict no-no. All ministers and officials were always anxious about what questions might come up in the Parliament regarding their actions or lack thereof. However, with blatant misuse of ED, CBI and other agencies and creative interpretations of the anti-defection laws, that check is also gone.

 

Up until 2016 or so, the Press used to be very effective in exposing many things about the government – remember the Bofors scandal, A.R. Antulay cement scam, 2G spectrum scam, Coalgate, Adarsh housing society scam? Now the Press has been squeezed so much through micro-managing column inches, air time allocation, complete blank-out of any unfavourable news, even daily instruction on topics to be covered and the stand to be taken by the anchor, ED, income tax, denial of government ads and other largesses and even corporate takeovers that hardly anyone reads, watches or believes mainstream media any more.

 

Ultimately, the buck stops at the Supreme Court. So, I have a few questions to ask M’lords.

 

The Citizenship Amendment Act has been possibly the most grievous assault on the very fabric of Indian constitution which espouses a secular state not only in its preamble but underlying many of its articles. There would’ve been no material  difference if that phrase, “belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community” was not included in the Act. M’lords, since the Act prima facie discriminates on grounds of religion, at the minimum, shouldn’t it have been stayed for contradicting the basic structure of the constitution and fundamental rights rather than the challenges meandering on in the Supreme Court since 2019 - it has been seven years now, and counting?

 

Stringent provisions of sedition are used even for school plays critical of the Prime Minister. The draconian sections of sedition were made more easily applicable through the new incarnation of IPC. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was made even more tyrannical by amending it in 2019 to include “persons,” in addition to only “organisations” earlier. M’lords, wouldn’t it have been possible to deem these amendments unconstitutional or at the very least, through instant bail and exemplary costs, their operation defanged?

 

Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was meant to clean dirty money from a specific list of crimes. In 2019, the government weaponised the Act and its enforcing agency, the Enforcement Directorate by introducing an explanatory clause making the offences a “continuing crime.” Thus, anyone, you read that right, just anyone, even suspected of enjoying the proceeds of any money laundering since Adam created Eve out of his ribs would’ve to prove with a family tree spanning eons that he was not a descendant, he didn’t enjoy and what proceeds?! Meanwhile, decades will go by until the matter can come up in a sub divisional court, let alone the Supreme Court. Unlike in Police cases where the accused can obtain a copy of the FIR, in PMLA cases, ED need not provide the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR, equivalent to the Police FIR) as it has been deemed as an “internal document.” So, the accused doesn’t even know what he is defending himself against until a chargesheet or prosecution complaint is filed in about 60 days. Already, bail provisions under laws such as PMLA are arguably more stringent than the anti-terror law, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. While under UAPA, judges cannot give bail if they are of the opinion that the allegations against a person are “prima facie true”, under PMLA, judges must be satisfied that the person “is not guilty of such offence” and “is not likely to commit any offence while on bail”. This imposes additional conditions when granting bail in PMLA cases. When the trial hasn’t even started, no judge can stick his neck out to determine that the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit any offence while on bail. This gives the executive carte blanche to keep people under custody for long periods, even if no offence has been committed. These provisions and the way they’re being misused strike at the very heart of fundamental rights and natural justice. Shouldn’t the minimum the Supreme Court could’ve done was to keep them in abeyance and granted bail whenever such arrests have taken place under spurious justifications?

Under what authority or law have these bulldozers become so ubiquitous? When a high authority flaunts them in election rallies as how he dispenses instant justice without due process of law, shouldn’t the concerned gleeful officials be begging for mercy, not the persons whose houses they demolish wantonly? Then, of course, there’re the so-called "encounters" ...

 

So, M’lords, is the last hope of the citizens against a marauding, rapacious executive to be extinguished?

[To be continued]

A bad taste in the mouth II

Continuing from the previous piece at:

https://b-b-dash.blogspot.com/2026/09/a-bad-taste-in-mouth.html

In the Court, Nestle pleaded that it was not given a proper hearing, FSSAI predetermined the issue and thus, there was violation of natural justice. It also said that the government testing labs were not accredited by NABL (National Accreditation Board for testing and calibration Laboratories); that Nestle’s own lab reports favoured Maggi; and, that the Noodles and the Tastemaker should be tested together.

In their counter, FSSAI stated that there was presence of lead above 2.5 ppm in Maggi samples; that “No added MSG (Mono Sodium Glutamate)” on the packs was misleading; that Nestle was selling one variant of Maggi, viz., Maggi Oats Masala Noodles without risk assessment and approval; and, that the company was given a due hearing on June 4, 2015. FSSAI also averred that the product needed to be temporarily banned as it was a public emergency and the order caused no undue harm as the company had already recalled Maggi and the ban was temporary. It also pointed out that Nestle, on its own, incinerated 37,000 tons of Maggi without the regulator having asked for it.

Surprise, surprise – the Court sided with Nestle and overturned the ban. It also ordered that another round of 90 samples will be tested for lead by three labs accredited by NABL within six weeks and that production of Maggi would be allowed to be resumed thereafter. This was the Court’s reasoning:

There was violation of natural justice because show-cause notice was not issued. No risk analysis was carried out by the authorities. Report received from some of the states was conveyed over phone. Results for more than 50 % of the samples were within permissible limits - only 30 of the 72 samples tested had lead in excess. The state food commissioner rather than the central food regulator had the authority to impose the ban. Some of the laboratories were not accredited by NABL. The procedure for sample taking was not followed. There were some anomalies in some of the reports – quantity of the sample, etc.. The Kolkata lab tested a sample after its expiry date. Nestle had already issued a press release recalling the products. MSG is found in some substances naturally. The penalty for mislabelling was only Rs. 3 lacs and the company had agreed to withdraw the label. The company had applied for approval for the ninth variant of Maggi. Since eight variants were approved, why not sell the ninth, pending approval?

The court directed to test the samples in the possession of the company and not with the government. The court did not agree to at least simultaneously test the samples with the government.

The Bombay High Court Order (dated August 13, 2015) can be seen here:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/66718388/

I went through the Court order several times – all 69 pages of it – and was really intrigued.

First, why Bombay High Court? The ban was imposed by FSSAI whose headquarters are in Delhi so the petition should’ve been filed in Delhi. Also, Maharashtra was not the first state to impose the ban; Telengana and Uttarakhand were the first. In fact, Maharashtra was the sixth state to impose the ban. The timeline also surprises. Normally, even a petty case takes years to wind through the courts and here there was such a major case decided within exactly two months.

The company sought to take advantage of India’s “regulatory incoherence” in the Court. A very major portion of the 69 pages in the judgement appears to concentrate on the technicalities of which section the orders were issued under, etc. rather than the basic problems – misleading labelling on MSG and lead content.

The Kolkata lab is one of the oldest and respected laboratories in the country. Lead testing is not complicated. Even if the date of testing was a little over the expiry date, how can lead get into a sealed packet, that too in such high quantity? Other labs which tested were also competent. I think, there was undue quibbling about laboratory and accreditation rather than the health issues. 17.2 ppm lead was found as against the mandated limit of 2.5 ppm and this is seriously alarming.

The labelling of “No added MSG” was mischievous, to say the least. It obviated declaration of MSG content and the warning as mandated by the regulations. High lead content in such a popular product does amount to a serious health risk and a temporary ban was needed. In any case, it did not affect the outcome. Rather than paying the fine of Rs. 3 lacs when it had clearly violated norms regarding MSG and rather than responding to the FSSAI notice, the company rushed to the Court. That smacks of arrogance and having something to hide.

The company destroying such a large quantity of Maggi without being mandated to was suspicious. When the incident broke, Uttar Pradesh was ruled by the Samajwadi Party. Contrary to the nudge, nudge, wink, wink, it is unlikely that the food inspector was influenced by a different party’s government at the Centre.

The Court’s objection to the telephonic communication of lab test results is intriguing. There is a well laid out procedure for telephonic communication and it is followed by written confirmation.

What I found the most intriguing was the Court’s observation that more than 50 % of the samples had lead within permissible limits and only 30 samples (out of 72) had lead in excess. Hello?! Not a single sample should have excess lead. Is it okay if 42 % of the consumers die and not okay only if the death exceeds 50 %?

The judgement also says that the application for approval of Maggi Oats Masala Noodles was pending so where was the problem in selling it, pending approval? Is it okay to go ahead with selling something if the application is pending? What if the product is something dangerous or poisonous?

The Court directed that the samples in the possession of the company be tested and did not allow even simultaneous testing of the samples with the govt agencies.  Wasn’t it a bit like putting a lunatic in charge of the asylum?

Cut to 2026. Tukaram Mundhe’s FDA has now been pulled up by the Court for “taking a pedantic instead of pragmatic view.” The Court also asked, “Do you feel you are a Lord and you can do anything?"

 

A bad taste in the mouth

 

Suddenly food, or the safety thereof, is all the rage in India and its social media. All thanks to the efforts of one IAS officer, Tukaram Mundhe, Commissioner, Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in Maharashtra. He has now become a social media sensation. His efforts have had ripples even in far-off Kolkata where the food inspection has gone on an overdrive.

 

 

 

However, much before Tukaram Mundhe, there was one Sanjay Singh, in Barabanki. I bet, you haven’t heard of him. I’m sure, you haven’t heard of Barabanki either. Well, it’s a small, remote place in Uttar Pradesh. Unlike Tukaram Mundhe who is a senior IAS officer, Sanjay Singh was a small-time food inspector, doing his small-time things in small-time Barabanki. However, one of his very small actions nearly brought a 100-billion-dollar global behemoth (Nestle) down.

 [Sanjay Singh, Barabanki]

 

What happened was this.

 

On March 10, 2014, Sanjay Singh was browsing around in a retail store, Easyday, close to his office and “No added MSG” written on a Maggi pack intrigued him. The regulation was for MSG (Monosodium Glutamate) which is actually legal in India. So, the product had only to declare whether there was MSG or not so why the word “added?” Sanjay Singh seized a four-pack sample of Maggi from the retailer and sent it off for routine checking to a government laboratory in Gorakhpur. The lab test result was positive for MSG. The mischief was that the company knew its product was having MSG but didn’t declare it properly by using the word “added” because, presence of MSG required a declaration on the package warning that the product was not recommended for children under 12 months. This warning would have made parents concerned and the infant and child markets of Maggi would’ve been adversely affected, hence the subterfuge.

 

This was actually a minor infringement and involved a fine of Rs. 3 lacs. If Nestle had paid up, that would’ve been the end of the story. However, despite knowing that they had been caught out, Nestle decided to appeal. Thereafter, another sample of Maggi was sent to the referral lab in Kolkata. And, things went haywire for Nestle. 

The Kolkata lab report (April 2015) confirmed the presence of MSG. However, this was a more comprehensive report and it also tested for lead which turned out to be 17.2 ppm, against a permissible limit of 2.5 ppm. This sent the alarm bells ringing because, lead is a powerful neurotoxin; lead poisoning through food carries serious health risks including behavioural disorders, hypertension, cardiovascular problems, kidney damage. Possibility of cancer has also been flagged.

After the Kolkata lab report, the Food Safety Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh served a notice on Nestle with the report on May 1, 2015. In their multi-national corporate arrogance, Nestle “dismissed” the report, sent a stack of its own internal monitoring documents, and “advised” the regulator that, based on its (i.e., Nestle’s) own review, no further action should be taken in this case. I have served as a regulator for six years with government of India (BCAS, Civil Aviation). This kind of attitude and reply would’ve stunned and riled me no end and propelled me to the severest action.

Enter Mr. Yudhvir Singh Mallik, IAS, head of FSSAI (Food Safety and Standards Authority of India), the pan-India regulator in this case. On May 25, 2015, he wrote to all state food safety commissioners asking them to test Maggi and submit findings to FSSAI by June 1. Out of 72 samples tested across India, 30 had lead content above the maximum prescribed 2.5 ppm. Seeing as things were getting out of hand, on the morning of June 4, the global CEO of Nestle, Paul Bulcke landed in India. He led the Nestle team for a hearing held by FSSAI on the same day.

During the Meeting, Bulcke presented Nestlé’s internal lab data, arguing fiercely that Maggi was perfectly safe. However, the FSSAI officials remained unconvinced. They presented data from government labs showing lead content up to seven times the legal limit, as well as mis-labeled MSG packaging.

Sensing that the regulator was not satisfied (read, everyone can’t be bought over), Nestle put its PR machinery and firefighting teams into overdrive. Just after midnight of June 4/5, at 1 AM, they issued an emergency public statement announcing a voluntary, nationwide recall of Maggi noodles. Early morning on June 5, Bulcke sent urgent emails to all business partners and stakeholders across India, ordering them to stop selling the noodles and pull them from store shelves. They sent a short statement to Stock Exchange: “In spite of Maggi noodles being safe, Nestle India decides to take the product off shelves.” They also sent a message to FSSAI on this and decided to hold a Press Conference on the same day (5.6.2015) at 1200 hrs. at The Oberoi Hotel, New Delhi.

Roughly 40 minutes into the live-broadcasted press conference, there were breaking news flashes across TV screens nationwide: The FSSAI officially issues a nationwide ban on the manufacture, sale, and distribution of all nine variants of Maggi noodles. Actually, FSSAI gave the reasons for rejecting the submissions of Nestle and banned the products for 15 days pending reply by Nestle as to why the product approvals should not be revoked. The ban pronounced Maggi as “unsafe and hazardous for human consumption.”

This was a disaster for Nestle on an epic scale. In 2014, 3.5 million outlets in India sold Maggi and Indians consumed 4,00,000 tonnes of instant noodles. There were ripple effects in other countries including Nepal, Bahrain and some African countries. U.K., Canada, Singapore, etc. launched rigorous inspections of Maggi samples, especially Maggi imports from India. In some cities in India, protestors smashed and set fire to packets of Maggi and photos of Bollywood stars who had endorsed them. One news channel compared it to the Bhopal Gas tragedy.

Nestle lost at least $ 277 million in lost sales, $ 70 million in executing the product recall and an estimated $ 200 million in loss of brand value. However, its response was interesting. Instead of replying to FSSAI’s notice, it rushed to the Bombay High Court to file a writ petition on June 11, 2015 against the ban. There were rumours that the whole controversy was created to facilitate either Baba Ramdev’s entry into the noodles market or ITC promoting its product ‘Sunfeast Yippee.” There were also rumours that these rumours were spread by Nestle. 

[To be continued]

The Silicon-chip SHO

 

Today Artificial Intelligence (AI) is everywhere. It’s in the smart-alec student’s assignment paper; it’s in the Income Tax officer’s financial forensics to catch tax dodgers; it’s in the dystopian scenario of the doomsday soothsayers; it’s in the ongoing attempts at self-driving cars; most importantly, it’s in the adda-intellectual’s morning discourse – he calls it Chai GPT (Genuinely Pure Tea) enhanced with AI (Adrak and Ilaichi). Has the time come then for AI to replace the SHO (Station House Officer), the pivot around which the entire policing system in India revolves?

Let’s see what all the SHO is expected to do.

The SHO supervises all the work of the police station including work allocation, general management, discipline and all the administrative work. In turn, he is the most supervised officer in the Police or in any governmental set-up, with at least six layers fairly closely supervising his work. This includes the senior officers and the judiciary to whom all his crime-related work is accountable.

Under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, he is the de jure Investigating Officer of all crimes in his Police Station area. All the investigation is carried out by officers of the Police Station under powers delegated by him. A senior officer takes up investigation under powers of the SHO assumed by the former.

The SHO is also responsible for maintaining public order in his jurisdiction. He arranges both preventive and mitigation actions in this regard. Preventive actions include patrolling, keeping an eye on evolving situations, surveillance of known offenders, lookout for suspicious or unknown faces, predicting disturbances and so on. When a major disturbance occurs, the SHO is usually the first one on the firing line and has to meet fire with force.

The SHO is expected to deal with situations and persons with empathy and emotional intelligence. He is called upon to treat people with a rare nuance which distinguishes between a crime of malice from the same crime born out of desperation or mortal distress. He navigates with resourcefulness (mostly illegal) demands from political parties of various hues, ever alert to the fact that today’s no-hoper opposition may be tomorrow’s king.

The general citizenry has huge expectations from the SHO. Frankly speaking, there is not a single other agency of the government which is open and responsive to the public 24 x 7 x 365, come hell or high water. When everything else is shut in the odd hours or during major depredations, there’s at least a sentry and mostly an officer available at the police station – in that sense, it is always the governmental arm of the last resort. 

Apart from all this, there’s a huge social role thrust upon the SHO. All government offices have a person who is called Bada Babu or its equivalent in various languages. In the housing department office, for example, the Section Officer is called Bada Babu. However, to the general public, Bada Babu usually means the SHO. So, amongst the Bada Babus, the SHO has an outsized eminence, he is primus inter pares. This is because of the influence he and his work wield, touching everyone at a very basic level.

Given such a complex job description, can he be substituted by AI? Let’s look at what AI can or cannot do, as of now.

The term AI is being used as THE ONE BIG THING which is turning everything topsy-turvy now. Well, it has been disruptive but it’s not one single thing. It’s an umbrella term comprising at least three categories: Generative AI, Predictive AI and Content moderation AI.

Generative AI has had the maximum success and has caught the popular imagination and also filled people with a lot of apprehension. However, what it actually does is basically recognise patterns in data, words and pictures and correlate them through layer-by-layer iterations so well that its output comes across almost as human. All that it’s doing, based on its training, is choosing the most appropriate words, picture patterns, etc. to give the most suitable response as per its algorithms. Since it has been trained on a very large amount of data and has had some moderation built in, its responses have been very impressive but not always accurate. It doesn’t have sentience, i.e., consciousness, regardless of the hype and the claims. However, its speed and abilities have been formidable.

As far as the predictive part is concerned, AI hasn’t worked well so far. In Police-related work, it has been tried out for criminal risk prediction (i.e., whether to release an accused on bail with low risk of his committing crimes again), hiring (whether the person will do well on the job), face recognition and crime prediction, with indifferent results and racial/ gender/ economic biases. So far, it has been somewhat satisfactory only in “predicting the past,” which is of no use to anyone.

Content moderation has been used extensively by social media platforms but has shown large and grave mistakes. So much so that one can’t even search for “gorillas” in Google photos or Apple photos apps now – blocked by the apps themselves because it identified all black people as gorillas.

At the present stage of development when AI is more of “Microsoft Excel than The Terminator,” it is not feasible to replace the SHO with a robot. Things might change when AI becomes capable of judging the context, cultural and political nuances and is able to do AI research itself, i.e., progress to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). That would require AI agents to self-improve through interacting with the physical world and the social world. To my mind, that is still some distance away.

That said, there’re still tremendous benefits to be had if we adopt AI for a lot of automation in policing, specifically at the police station level. I think, the utility through automation and not the hype of a sentient SHO-replacing-AI, is the part worth sitting with. That calls for another blog. Next week.

[To be concluded]

Let's go TACO

 

So, after spending USD 200 billion, losing 13 U.S. defence service members and causing world-wide disruption, what did Trump get from the US-Iran war? To see it in perspective, I prepared a comparative chart and juxtaposed the outcome with that of Obama without firing a single shot.

 

What Obama had in 2015	What Trump got in 2026
Iran gave a written commitment never to seek a nuclear weapon.	Iran gave a written commitment never to seek a nuclear weapon.
Tight ​limits on Iran's efforts to produce weapons-grade uranium, aimed at extending the "breakout" time it would need to produce a bomb.	Only a general path, no specific commitments from Iran.
Forced Iran to ship 98 percent of its enriched uranium out of the country.	Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium is to be diluted inside Iran — not destroyed — contingent on what may prove to be years of difficult diplomatic negotiations.
Extensive international inspection of nuclear enrichment.	Not mentioned in the MoU.
Unfroze tens of billions of Iranian monies held overseas and lifted crippling economic sanctions imposed by the United States and EU. Freed Iran's central bank to operate in the global economy. Also included cash transfers of previously seized assets amounting to $1.7 billion.	Lifted oil restrictions, promised to help create a $300 billion reconstruction fund in Iran with regional partners, and dangled the promise of sweeping sanctions relief if the two sides could reach a broader nuclear deal. But most of the sanctions relief is contingent on future negotiations that haven't yet materialized.
Allowed Iranian oil exports only after Iran shipped its enriched uranium out of the country and was verified to have dismantled core elements of its nuclear program.	Allowed Iran to immediately restart exporting oil — roughly 90 percent of which is sent to China — which will bring in a flood of petrodollars, directly funding the Iranian regime.
In exchange, Iran agreed to reduce its nuclear centrifuges by two-thirds, committed not to build new enrichment facilities for 15 years, significantly reduced its stockpile of enriched uranium, disabled a major heavy-water reactor and agreed to IAEA inspections.	In exchange, along with the lifting of the naval blockade by the United States, Iran  agreed to open the Strait of Hormuz.   Point 5 of the 14-point MOU states the strait will be toll-free for 60 days, but after that Iran will work with neighbouring Oman to “define future administration and maritime services” in the strait. That means tolls are not ruled out down the road.
Allowed Iran to enrich uranium up to 3.67 percent for 15 years – enough for developing a nuclear power programme, but well below the 90 percent needed to produce nuclear weapons.	The memorandum does not mention whether Iran will be allowed to enrich uranium at all or for how long.
Had very specific terms for sanctions in the event of non-compliance.	No such details are in the memorandum.

 

Trump claims to have obliterated ALL nuclear facilities of Iran. According to him, he has sunk its navy. He has killed its leadership and Iran no longer has an Army. So what exactly is the MoU about and who is it with?

 

If one is to believe Trump (like many of his MAGA supporters do), the United States didn’t wage war against Iran so didn’t need Congress approval, either before or after expiry of 60 days as mandated under War Powers Resolution. Nobody knows when this non-war began. Either it began in June 2025 when he didn't bomb Iran’s so-called nuclear sites “beautifully obliterating” them or it began on February 28, 2026 when Trump again “did not” start a non-war so that Iran couldn’t build the nuclear weapon with the totally obliterated Uranium that they didn’t have.

 

Following this, Iran closed down the Strait of Hormuz with weapons they didn’t have and its navy which was sunk. So, the United States had to continue waging its non-war to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Everything has now panned out beautifully due to Trump’s charismatic leadership and "Art of the Deal" and lo and behold, he has achieved unprecedented success which no other President was able to achieve, in reopening the Strait of Hormuz which was open before his non-war. For good measure, he has kept a provision for Iran to charge tolls in the future.

 

Glory be!

 

P.S. My take: Trump just couldn’t bear the economic pressure generated by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and caved in. TACO: Trump Always Chickens Out.

The straight and narrow

 

While Police academies and MBA classes have courses and lectures on how to be ethical or how to build an ethical organisation from scratch, not much emphasis is accorded to how to intervene in an unethical organisation. My thoughts on how to go about it crystallised over a long time. I feel, while individual situations vary, there are five essentials one should think of when suddenly parachuted into a situation of endemic and pervasive high-corruption.

First, define the transparency goals and see what level of corruption and indiscipline one could live with – sometimes, complete transparency or 100 % diligence to rules and regulations may not be feasible. As a DIG, I went to a lot of trouble to collect the transfer policies of organisations similar to mine, analysed and tried to improve upon them, prepared a draft policy for my organisation and got the same approved by the government. After this, I stuck to the policy to the letter. However, my DGP got increasingly annoyed at not having any discretion, not being able to oblige anyone and being helpless against a lot of pressures from different quarters. Finally, he changed my assignment and also revised the policy. My successor, a very good officer and senior to me, once advised, “Look, it’s important to be practical. If a transfer policy is implemented to even 70 %, that is a big achievement.”

 

Along with defining the ethical goals, it is important to keep the leadership on board and get them to have a buy-in. In my last assignment, I was face to face with rank indiscipline and corruption of one particular unit, WWCD. In the name of a ruling-party supported union, they had become a law unto themselves. I heard from my predecessors that whenever they’d tried to impose any discipline, the WWCD guys used to march up and down the corridors shouting slogans against the authorities in an aggressive manner. The Commandant used to quake when their union leaders threatened.

 

I compiled a list of their misdemeanours. A new location with modern buildings and facilities were constructed for them at a distance of 120 kms and government had ordered them to shift. However, in defiance, they’d refused to move, primarily because of the vested interest of some of the union office-bearers. I went to the Cabinet Minister, appraised him of the situation and told him that I was planning to shift them forcibly and I needed his support. He was hemming and hawing but I told him that it was not possible for me to work in such an environment and I was prepared to resign over the issue.

 

One day, in a coordinated operation, under heavy Police deployment, I organised the shifting process to start at 9 AM from the five locations of the wing, well before the personnel used to roll in casually at 11 AM. When they came and saw what was happening, they rushed to meet the Minister and other bigwigs of the ruling party but thanks to my prior efforts, they didn’t get to meet any of them. They tried to involve the press but didn’t get any purchase.

 

The second thing I learnt over time was that, rather than trying to attack corruption piecemeal, one should start with “frying a big fish.” In that WWCD unit, there was a constable rank person who was actually running the show because he was the head of the union. I mapped him in my mind as “The Don.” He used to decide who will get what duty, who will attend office and who will “work from home” [this was all way before Corona times], who will never be given any duty, who will get the contracts and so on. He himself was always on office duty and used to hold court after office hours to “decide” on everything for small and big considerations and distribute the day’s collections.

 

I decided to start with him. During the monsoon season, I put every single person on the field with water boats and rescue gear. The Commandant came to me in a panic and repeatedly asked whether the Don would also be sent on field duty and I asked why not. Then the Don walked in with his entourage and asked me how I’d put him on the field when none of my predecessors had dared to do so in the previous 26 years. He mobilised the entire wing to “boycott” the duties. In my research into his conduct, I’d found that he had kept a died-in-harness employee’s dues and benefits pending while processing applications of much later vintage. Based on this, I placed him under suspension and started the Departmental proceedings. I also threatened to start a Police case against him for criminal breach of trust. That broke the back of the revolt. When the office was moved, 123 empty liquor bottles were found in the room where he used to hold court.

 

The third important means of taking an unethical organisation towards an ethical culture is to incentivise ethical conduct and disincentivise unethical acts. Incentivisation in the Police context includes generous rewards, glowing testimonials, favourable appraisals, medals – even a pat on the back works wonders. Disincentives must be harsh for unethical acts. In Police, many unethical acts are punished through minor punishments like a “censure” or “warning.” The most stringent punishment is usually a suspension and a Departmental Enquiry which meanders on for years. These are not very effective nor immediate. When I was SP of a district, I learnt that the night patrolling was a major source of illegal income for the Thana personnel. Against a specific complaint, I went to the Police Station and got the concerned persons arrested. That served as a chilling effect throughout the district.

 

The fourth thing I’ve tried to do was encouraging whistleblowing. However, this is a delicate step. The whistleblower runs serious risk, not only of his life and limb but sometimes his family members’ too. While encouraging whistleblowing, one must make sure that the potential whistleblower is fully protected. His identity should be guarded.

 

Fifth and finally, sunlight is the best disinfectant. When I joined the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), I found that corruption was rampant. There had been several CBI cases against the personnel and even very senior officers. The main way of extortion was through delays. Many permissions and licenses needed to be obtained by airports, airlines, concessionaires and so on before they could operate in the aviation environment. A single day’s delay meant losses of crores of rupees for them. What I did was put everything on the website. All permission/ licensing processing were put up there right from the application stage through each of the stage of processing with details on where it was pending and why, with names and designations of the official concerned. It was now easy for any applicant to track his application on a real-time basis. It was also easy for me to continuously monitor. This put paid to the delays. Further, in the teeth of severe opposition from my staff and their contrary counsel, I put up my mobile phone no. on the BCAS website. Sure, there were a few crank calls but I received such quality information that the organisation and I could respond to developing situations promptly and robustly. I think, these two measures contributed immensely to India hitting the top spot in terms of civil aviation security across the world.

 

Unfortunately, some of these telephone calls still come, despite my having left BCAS and even retired from the service long back because the no. is somewhere on the net. I don’t mind. At least, I managed to keep some people on the straight and narrow.