Whose file is it anyway?

 

Kashmir files, Kerala files, Bengal files, and now, Epstein files. I’m deeply dismayed by this intrusion of filmmakers and others into what is strictly a bureaucrat’s domain. 

A file is a sacrosanct thing, built carefully and nurtured assiduously with a bureaucrat’s blood, sweat and tears. You take the files away from a bureaucrat, you’re committing “sar tan se juda” (segregating the head from the torso). 

I didn’t know the layers of meanings attached to things around files. For me, a file merely meant a folder with papers inside. I joined my first posting in the IPS after my predecessor and the SP had a falling out. Shortly after, an Inspector asked me to recommend a reward for him for some good work. When I told him that this was already done by my predecessor, he said that ALL my predecessor’s recommendations, good, bad or indifferent, had been “filed.” I couldn’t understand then but later learnt that something “being filed” meant that it was buried six feet under, never to be found again. 

A file is not exactly an immaculate conception, i.e., a Babu doesn’t just produce it out of thin air. It starts with an FR, i.e., a Fresh Receipt, a fresh paper received by the Babu. He labels it a PUC, i.e., a Paper Under Consideration for the first time and on later occasions on the same matter as FRs. There is then a mysterious entity called a DA (Dealing Assistant) who puts the PUC to file and pen to paper to “initiate” the file. This is a critical thing. In 90 % of the cases, the final fate of the PUC depends on that first “noting.” After the noting, the DA puts his signature below and the file starts its laborious trudge upwards. 

Each one on the food chain, the Section Officer (SO), the Asst Secretary (AS), Deputy Secretary (DS), Joint Secretary (JS) and so on puts in his “valuable” inputs and his signature until it reaches the Secretary or the Minister or whoever is the Competent Authority (CA) all of whom put in their deliberations and signatures. At each stage, a lot of very peculiar words get added in the “notings” – PUC (Paper Under Consideration), FR (Fresh Receipt), supra, FPP (From Previous Page), FN (Forenoon), AN (Afternoon), SFA (Submitted for Approval), SFKA (Submitted for Kind Approval), NFA (No Further Action), draft, redraft, re-re-draft of U.O. (Unofficial letter), Letter, Memo, Self-contained proposal and so on. The file can be Master file, Linked file, Single File System (SFS), Reference File and so on. During one of my assignments, the only contribution my boss used to make was to substitute my name in the draft letter by his – that was all. 

In a classic case, one such file landed up on the desk of Lord Curzon who went through the various outpourings by various officials along the chain. He wrote, "I agree with the gentleman whose signature resembles a squiggle." It is believed that that is how the Victoria Memorial got built in Calcutta. 

After the approval, again the file travels majestically down that food chain until the same DA takes the final action. 

When I became a boss, the subordinate staff realised that the easiest way to get me to “approve” anything inconvenient was to put up the notes in Hindi. The Hindi used in these files is a formidable language. Thus, I’m not a PhD but a Vidya Vachaspati; post-retirement, I became a Ghumakkad Pradhyapak (Visiting Professor). I’ve invested in Pradhan Mantri Vaya Vandana Yojana. The file notings in Hindi include terms like Apariharya (Unavoidable), Anveshan (Investigation), Adhisuchna (Notification), Vinirdisht (Specified), Anirneet (Pending), Aabantan (Allotment), Agrasaarit (Forwarded). When I caught on to this, I started writing “Please discuss” or “Please attach an English translation.” That put paid to that particular stratagem. 

The files themselves have certain labels, Immediate, Urgent and Priority, depending on whether the DA can sit over it for a week, a month or for eternity, respectively. Then the files and the outgoing letter, U.O., etc. have classifications like “Restricted,” “Confidential,” “Secret” and “Top Secret.” The rules of this classification itself are classified by the Ministry of Home Affairs so I’m not reproducing them here. However, Department of Defence Production (DDP) has given their version on their website: 

“TOP SECRET” shall be applied to information and equipment, the unauthorised disclosure of which could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the National Security or national Interest. 

“SECRET” shall be applied to information and equipment, the unauthorized disclosure of which could be expected to cause serious damage to the National Security or National Interests or cause serious embarrassment to the Government in its functioning. 

“CONFIDENTIAL” shall be applied to information and equipment, the unauthorised disclosure of which could be expected to cause damage to National Security or could be prejudicial to the National Interests or would embarrass the Government in its functioning. 

“RESTRICTED” shall be applied to information and equipment which is essentially meant for official use only and which should not be published or communicated, to anyone except for official purpose. 

BTW, as per rules, all notings in these files can only be in blue or black ink, except the final approval or refusal thereof, which can be in red. 

I once found a food recipe book marked “Restricted.” I wonder what devastation will be caused if it falls into wrong hands. Maybe, someone, somewhere will produce a more efficient babu to deal with PUCs. 

The replies to the PUCs have deeper meanings. “Under consideration” means, “We’ve lost the file/ paper.” “Under active consideration” means, “We’ve lost the file/ paper and are trying to find it.” “Filed” means it’s a dead letter/ issue. 

Now there are all these files without our being able to put in PUCs, FRs, FPPs, NFAs and our squiggles and we are really chagrined. One of us, Mr. Hardeep Singh Puri has made it into the Epstein Files and the rest of us are all filled (filed?) with envy.

The cop has dirty hands

 

What happens when the cop has dirty hands? 

What I’m talking about is not physical grime but situations of ethical dilemma. It’s very easy to tell people and to police trainees to “be good, do good,” “do the right thing, always,” “do the right thing, even when no one is looking,” and so on. Problem is, many times, the cop is faced with choices where whatever alternative is chosen, it has unethical implications but the cop has to choose one. These are called the Wrong-vs-Wrong choices. Whatever alternative is chosen leaves the cop’s hands dirty. That is why this set of problems are collectively called “the problem of the dirty hands.” 

Let’s take a hypothetical example, some variation of which is all too common in a cop’s life. 

There is information that a few devastating bombs have been planted in a crowded locality and, on suspicion, a hardened terrorist with a high probability of having committed the crime has been arrested. He is denying it and the bombs are likely to go off in short order. What does the cop do? 

What are his options? If he takes the terrorist at face value and the bombs go off, many innocents would die and he would have serious blood on his hands. On the other hand, he might try to extract information from the terrorist. He doesn’t have time for sustained enquiry hence some amount of what is euphemistically called “enhanced interrogation” may be required. That is serious violation of human rights of the person apprehended on suspicion. Since the accused is a hardened terrorist, the interrogation needs to be harsh and might just result in his death. Finally, there may not be any information elicited or he might be innocent of this particular crime, despite his antecedents. Thus, whatever option the cop chooses will be a grossly unethical option and he would come out of it with his hands dirty. This is a classic “dirty hands dilemma.” 

There is a third option which is that he might be so wracked with indecision and the ethical dilemma that he would up and quit. This would mean his abdicating the role he has signed up for and this is no option at all. 

So, what will the cop do? 

Most probably, what he would do is indulge in severe third degree, try to extract the exact location of the bombs and go and diffuse them. Will that be “A GOOD THING?” May be but, may be not. A large no. of lives may be saved. Or, may be not. The terrorist may confess. Or, he may not. He might die in the process. Assume that all the rest is yes and the terrorist confesses and doesn’t die. What next? 

The cop would be a hero. He’d be feted by the media, the populace; even the PM or CM might congratulate him. He’d feel pretty pumped up. Next time, there is a less dire situation but still a heinous crime like rape-cum-murder, he won’t think twice before indulging in severe third degree. Gradually, he’d earn a reputation as an encounter specialist or something so that violation of human rights and acting as judge-jury-executioner would be his default option even for petty thefts. He’d go further and further down that “slippery slope” until he’d lose his ability to distinguish between right and wrong. 

Look at what’d happen to the organisation. The cop who cracks the terrorist case becomes a hero. The other officers would emulate him. They may or may not be as successful but the entire ethos of the organisation would get vitiated. Policing would be associated with brutality and lawlessness. 

So, what’s the way out? Given that the cop would have to get his hands dirty whatever option he chooses, how does he avoid the “slippery slope?” There is actually a way out. 

First of all, he should examine whether he is actually faced with a “dirty hands” situation or there are other alternatives available to him. For example, he could arrange speedy evacuation of the area. Or, he could summon helicopters, etc. and arrange for water spraying the area which would diffuse the bombs. And, so on. 

If, even after careful examination and consideration of the circumstances, he comes to the conclusion that it is in fact a dirty hands situation, he should realise that it’s a once-off and he is perforce exploiting a “moral opportunism” because he just doesn’t have any other option and that this is not to be replicated. After having taken the decision and got his hands dirty, he must feel guilty, i.e., he must have the “moral residue” because an unethical thing is an unethical thing, regardless of the circumstances. If he doesn’t jump to defending his action, if he takes it as a once-off and if he feels guilty, there’s a good chance that he wouldn’t fall into the slippery slope, wouldn’t be taken in by all that adulation and would retain his moral bearings. 

Following are the questions to ask in a situation of dirty hands: 

1.     Are the conflicting reasons for action so compelling, so morally urgent? Or can priorities be set? Can some less urgent acts be undertaken at a later time, while other more urgent acts are engaged?

2.     Is the good to be achieved by wrongdoing sufficiently clear not just to me but to others? Is the good outcome I have in view sufficiently certain to occur by the act of wrongdoing, or is the causal connection unclear and the outcome somewhat speculative?

3.     Is violation of moral principles really necessary? Have I thought with sufficient care and sufficient imagination about alternative courses of action?

4.     How great is the danger of the slippery slope? Will my act serve as a precedent, whether I like it or not, for the less good and perhaps even malevolent act of others?

5.     Will my action undermine the conditions of accountability?

6.     Did I get into this situation because I failed to anticipate it properly? Would dirty hands serve, primarily, to save me from my own blunders?

7.     Is my judgement of the above considerations self – serving, tainted by self – interest?

8.     Am I prepared to take responsibility for consequences, even unintended ones? 

Not easy, but then, navigating ethical dilemmas is never easy. Nor is a cop’s life. 

[Earlier published in “Saviours” on February 24, 2026: 

https://savioursmagazine.in/the-cop-has-dirty-hands/]

Golgappa University and the Chinese kutta

 

The biggest contribution of India AI Impact Summit 2026 has been to the English language. So many new words and phrases. “Galgotian blunder,” which is just like Himalayan blunder, but bigger. “Galgotian presentation," "Galgotian exaggeration,” “Galgotiafication of media, education, etc.,” “Galgotia kutta,” “Chinese kutta with Indian Aadhaar card.” “Are you studying at a University or at Galgotia?;” “Are you normal or Galgotian?;” “From make in India to pack in India.” “Galgotias syndrome,” “Galgotiyapa,” “Galgoat” and “Golgappa University.” 

When India lost to South Africa in the t20 super 8 yesterday, someone said, “Looks like, Gautam Gambhir did his Cricket coaching course at Galgaotias.”

Time was when Galgotia was a revered name. It was a regular must-visit for all of us students in Delhi - as a bookstore (E.D. Galgotia & Sons, set up in 1933) in Connaught Place in Delhi which had possibly the largest and most extensive collection of books in the country. The bookshop resembled more of a large library. Then, reading methods changed; Galgotias closed shop and reinvented themselves, first as Publishers and then as a University. 

Now it has come to this. It didn’t happen overnight. It took years of assiduous efforts to achieve the “Galgotian” fiasco. Right from the beginning, the founders were vocal about their alignment with a particular dispensation. In 2014, the current Prime Minister (then Chief Minister, Gujarat) attended DQ CyberMedia ICT Awards function at Delhi and handed over the award for being the top Indian university for excellence in academics and global linkages (whatever that means) to Mr. Suneel Galgotia, Chancellor, Galgotias University. In 2015, Galgotias University was awarded for Excellence in Academics by then Union Home Minister Shri Rajnath Singh at the National Make in India Conclave. Galgotias’ convocations and other events are regularly graced by various ministers at the Centre and the state (Uttar Pradesh) and Sambit Patra.

In 2020, there was a paper from the same university, “Corona Virus Killed by Sound Vibrations Produced by Thali or Ghanti: A Potential Hypothesis” (Journal of Molecular Pharmaceuticals and Regulatory Affairs). The same has now been retracted, most probably after the Chinese kutta controversy.

Going by all their full-page ads all over the place, I presumed it must have taken off as a posh, expensive university. It was expensive all right but my first inkling of not-everything-being-kosher came during the lead up to the 2024 Parliamentary elections. While there were assertions of “aapke bhains chura lenge,” “aapke tonti nikal lenge,” “aapke magalsutra chheen lenge” aur kya kya in political speeches, there was a demonstration by some students in front of the Congress offices against the Congress manifesto and the wealth redistribution and inheritance tax it espoused. The students were carrying placards with “Down with Urban Naxals,” “No Inheritance Tax,” and so on written on them. Some reporters asked them about these things. Turned out, they didn’t have the slightest clue as to what was an Urban Naxal, what was inheritance tax or what wealth redistribution meant. The only question which elicited a clear answer was which institution they were from and it was the same Galgotias University. Here’s a video on this: 

youtube.com/watch?si=-v599egJJ3ZzpfOX&v=0vd4rMruHeE&feature=youtu.be

Galgotias highlights the fact that between 2017 and 2024, it filed for 2,430 patents. (Compare this to the most research-intensive IIT - IIT, Madras - filing for 2,550 patents since 1975!) What Galgotias doesn’t say is, it has managed to receive exactly zero patent rights against these applications.   

For the AI enclave, Galgotias bagged a booth bigger than what 4 IITs combined got. Doordarshan ignored the other stalls and laser-focused on the Galgotias stall highlighting its robot, its 3-D printer and so on. The Minister of Electronics and IT tweeted a picture of the robo-dog. Then, in that Doordarshan PR package thinly disguised as news, appeared Prof. Neha Singh who proudly showed the robo-dog called Orion as “developed” by a Galgotias centre. When it turned out that it was actually a Chinese product called Unitree Go2 readily available in the market for Rs. 3 lacs or so, she doubled down, saying, “Your 6 can be my 9.” All that carefully choreographed event aimed at wowing the world even at the cost of complete chaos for actual participants and visitors and forcibly grabbing the hand of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman to his acute awkwardness got overshadowed by the Chinese kutta. The Minister hastily removed his tweet. Then Galgotias were asked to remove themselves. Looks like, they resisted, so the power supply to their stall had to be cut off. In their ignominious departure, they left behind a thermocol aeroplane which also became fodder for further memes with reporters demonstrating how it can be deployed to obliterate Pakistan from the face of the earth.

 

It has been widely apprehended that AI will take away human jobs. Well, it seems to have taken away at least one. Neha Singh’s LinkedIn profile now reads:

IMHO, the problem is not with Galgotias or Neha Singh. The actual problem is AI, i.e., the Artificial Image-making that has been normalised over the last decade or so. All these choreographed events, obsession with curated imaging, emasculation of the media to the point of converting them into PR agencies, outrageously exaggerated claims of achievements when there is none, replacement of any inconvenient data by complete fictions, words like Vishwaguru and so on. The hollowness of all these is now breaking surface. 

I think, any media report should now carry the statutory declaration, “No Galgotians were harmed during the process.” Galgotia, yeh tune kya kiya?!

Apex pettiness

 

Till very late in the IPS career, I didn’t know about the most important reason or purpose, the raison d'être for a civil servant’s existence, which is attaining the apex scale. This particular hallowed endowment is allowed only at the very top when one hits the level of Secretary to government of India, Chief Secretary in states and a few select DGPs in my service. 

When I was holding the post of a mere joint secretary in government of India and, by a set of fortuitous circumstances, managed to be assigned to hold the post of a DGP, I saw a file when previously another Joint Secretary level officer in the IAS had been similarly assigned (for a short while); he had moved the file to be given the same salary as that of the DGP whose post he was temporarily holding, and was granted the same. Lo and behold, the post carried that apex scale! So I moved the same file, with the same reasoning. 

The file went to my Ministry, then DoPT, then MHA and I was granted the coveted Apex scale. Then the file moved down to me through all those channels and I felt good. The Secretary retired. I was seeking to build a good, working relation with the new Secretary. Things were going well until I had to visit a foreign country on official work. For the political clearance, I had to fill up a form. It was a routine thing. However, when this Secretary saw the pay column and “Apex scale” written there, he saw red. 

He asked his colleagues how come a mere joint secretary level officer was getting the same scale which he had attained after long toil, asked my office for the file, went through the contents and went ballistic. His colleagues tried to inform him that it was all examined at various levels and in three different departments and was as per the rules. Despite this, the discomfort of the Secretary was so much that while allowing me to visit abroad, he erroneously ordered that all my perks would be as per my original scale. It didn’t make any difference but I thought that would make him happy. However, he continued to be agitated. I was told that he wrote a Demi Official letter to various authorities to cancel the “abominable” grant. Apparently, it took him 10 full days to draft that letter, crossing out a comma here, making a word bold there, and so on. Despite all this, the replies came back upholding the earlier decision. 

The Secretary called up many of his counterparts to annihilate this “anomaly” but didn’t get anywhere. It became so much the talk of the town that whenever I attended any party of civil servants and was introduced to anyone, the first response was, “Oh, B.B. Dash, you’re getting the apex scale?!” 

Probably, the Secretary felt “thwarted” or something but, try as I might, our relations never recovered after that. In all my Performance Appraisal Reports, I always used to fill in only quantified targets and achievements. I had exceeded all the various targets. The Secretary had to agree because they were hard facts. However, he wrote, “these were achieved because of close supervision by the ministry.” With that, he justified a sub-Outstanding grade, knowing fully well that that would kill my chances of promotion. However, the Minister saw this and overruled him and put me at the highest of the outstanding points. 

An Apex scale can create quite a heartburn. 

Guess what, that apex scale as of today is a basic pay of Rs. 2,25,000 and those days, it was just Rs. 80,000. That’s all. Considering the pay and perks I’d walked out on by quitting the corporate sector for the civil services, I was really amused by it all. The amount involved was paltry. The Secretary was petty. On an epic apex scale.

Budget, bakwaas and a wish list

 

Another budget has just been announced. The budget speech was one hour and 25 minutes long. This was the one thing I liked. The only thing. It’s still not ideal. What’s the point of these long speeches? Longest budget speech ever in the Indian Parliament has been over 2 hours and 42 minutes, by Nirmala Sitharaman herself, in 2020. In fact, some of the Godi media anchors were sounding a little apologetic that she didn’t catch up with or exceed her own record in terms of the length of the speech. 

Does anyone really listen to it? No. Is there any meaningful discussion to be had, based on the long, tedious ramble? Again, no. The treasury benches dutifully thump the desks from time to time. Opposition dutifully cries, “Shame, shame.” Then the finance minister does the rounds of TV studios saying what a great budget she’s produced and how it’ll solve every single problem in India. The opposition guys do the rounds decrying how it is anti-poor, anti-this state or this region, and so on. 

Here’s my wish list for making things a little more meaningful. 

The budget speech should start sharp at 11 AM. Not because Parliamentarians shouldn’t start work at 9.30 like the rest of Delhi but because there’s a lot of briefing and mock question-answer, etc. that need to be gone through by the ministers. The officials also need to be prepared. Having spent a lot of time in the official gallery in the Parliament, I know how hectic these preparations can be. 

After laying the budget speech and the details on the floor of the house, the Finance Minister should make the budget speech for exactly half an hour and not a second more. If she exceeds the time, the microphones should be switched off. 

This half an hour should be divided into three broad parts of 10 minutes each. The first 10 minutes should be devoted to a maximum of 10 schemes announced in the previous budget and the achievements against that. The second 10 minutes should detail at least five and not more than 10 thrust areas for the new budgetary year. The last 10 minutes should give the new taxes introduced and old taxes scrapped and a broad overview of how each rupee would be earned and how it’d be spent. Also, what would be likely to be cheaper and what would be costlier. No shero shayari, no grandstanding – those could come on subsequent days. 

After this, rather than having any knee-jerk reactions to the budget, the Parliament should adjourn till 3 PM so that the members and their minders can study the budget proposals. There should be meaningful discussion thereafter only till 5 PM, with at least five questions allotted to the LoP or the leader of the largest party. 

That’s it for budget day. All the major discussion should take place on subsequent dates. 

The stock market should be closed on budget day to avoid rigging/ spot-fixing, influencing the sentiments, etc.. 

The budget speech should serve merely as an introduction to the budget statement. Frankly speaking, even if the FM takes three hours over it, she can’t do more. The Devil and the God lie in the details. As soon as the speech starts, the entire budget statement and the tables should be made available on the Finance Ministry website – the tables should be in both PDF and machine-readable form so that the data can be analysed quickly. [There can be a disclaimer that if there’s a conflict between the PDF and the machine-readable format, the former would prevail.] 

The idea of the budgets should be make the budget progressively irrelevant. 

One last thing – all that drama about halwa making and feeding the FM dahi-chini, etc. should stop. If we want to be a mature nation, we should behave like one. According the budget less importance and symbolism would truly be getting away from the colonial yoke, not banning bandhgalas.

Thank you, Gita

 

This year, the annual World Economic Forum at Davos was running to script for India. Several ministers and Chief Ministers from India were strutting around in colonial hangover bandhgalas and suit-ties including one minister who has banned them; their wives were frolicking around in snow and getting massive coverage by godi media back home; some of the dignitaries had ostensibly gone all the way there to sign MoUs with business leaders from India, that too from their own state; and so on. Until suddenly, out of the blue, in a panel discussion, a reputed Indian-American Harvard professor and former Deputy Managing Director of IMF proclaimed that pollution was a far bigger economic problem for India than any tariffs. This got the hackles up for the "digital swarm." 

“Gita Gopinath is working to halt India’s rise and shaming it at WEF, as if in the cause of Pollution. A hard-working country of your own origins, with no shame." "Gita Gopinath is WEF shill. They want to impose arbitrary emission norms on developing economy like India. Relating tariffs to civic issue like air pollution is most dishonest trick." "She’s a Pakistani agent disguised as the IMF Chief." 

Just a few comments from the swarmy army. I’m not quoting the filthy personal ones here. 

I fail to understand how Gita’s was a statement against India. On the contrary, India (and the world) should be grateful to her for highlighting something which has a huge adverse impact and which has stayed quite under the radar for a while. If anything, it was cocking a snook at Trump who is obsessed with tariffs which are actually a lesser problem for India. 

Gita was probably referring only to air pollution. However, all the three types of pollution, air, water and noise are a serious problem for India and its economic growth. 

Air pollution causes 1.7 million deaths in India annually, i.e., 18 % of total deaths and 4,658 deaths per day. Gita mentioned these figures, quoting a World Bank study. The annual cost to the economy is USD 150 billion, i.e., 9.5 % of GDP, due to pollution related disease and premature death. The cost to Indian businesses is estimated at USD 95 billion. Due to smog, especially in the north, India loses substantial tourism. Air pollution is associated with heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes and lung cancer. Air pollution reduces crop yield by hindering photosynthesis. It also contributes to corrosion and degradation of infrastructure and machinery. 

Water pollution is linked to 38 million cases of water-borne diseases annually in India, killing 1.5 million children. The diseases include Typhoid, Cholera and Hepatitis. In Delhi, water pollution reduces life expectancy by up to 12 years. Water pollution leads to eutrophication, a process where excessive nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, promote the overgrowth of algae in water bodies. This algal bloom depletes oxygen levels, leading to the untimely death of fish and the creation of "dead zones" where aquatic life cannot survive. The cost of water pollution in India exceeds USD 80 billion annually. In the affected areas, agricultural revenue gets reduced by around 9 % and crop yields by around 16 %. The fisheries industry loses USD 2.2 billion annually. Water pollution costs India 3 % of its GDP annually. 

Noise pollution is an almost invisible hazard/ killer which also has far-reaching consequences for health, productivity and economy. Long-term exposure to high noise which most urban population in India is subjected to leads to permanent hearing loss (currently at 6 % of the population) – people between 12-35 years are particularly vulnerable. It also leads to cardiovascular diseases, mental health issues and sleep disruption with attendant fatigue and reduced productivity. A 5-decibel increase in noise is associated with a 34 % increase in the illnesses. In India, transportation noise alone costs the GDP a 2 % reduction. 

An important aspect of the cost of pollution is its asymmetric impact – while the rich reap the benefits of things like air conditioners, climate, water and noise control mechanisms at their disposal and the industrial growth, the poor bear the brunt of it in reduced livelihood and habitat, lack of paid sick leave or healthcare privilege and exposure to unconscionable levels of pollution. As such, costs of pollution are compared to a “regressive tax.” 

Look at the cost in terms of investment inflows. Many big investors are very conscious of social responsibilities and do not like to invest in India. India has only 10 ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) funds compared to U.S. or U.K. which have over 500 such funds each. Even a small country like Taiwan has more ESG funds. Plus, as Gita pointed out, international investors don’t like to live or commit manpower in a place like India. This statement seems to have riled the "digital swarm" no end. But, look at the reality. World no. 2 badminton player, Anders Antonsen refused to participate in India Open championship (held on January 13-18, 2026) due to “extreme pollution” in Delhi and opted to pay the fine instead. He was complaining at AQI of 348 while Delhi regularly breaches the 1,000 AQI mark. That is the real shame. 

What we should do is applaud Gita Gopinath for pointing out that pollution is not merely an activist issue; it’s an economic issue. It’s also a health issue. It’s actually an existential issue. We should stop ourselves and our own children from being exposed to it. By demanding - and forcing - strict accountability from the government. 

Thank you, Gita.

A Monkey baat, an Affi-dammit and a Choker in the pack

 

It’s very, very difficult to get into the civil services in India. The exams and procedures are so excruciatingly tough that after making it, we relax for about 30-35 years just to recover and then it’s time to collect the pension and gratuity. The syllabus is really vast and practically unlimited. It requires rigorous study of many subjects for at least a year. With just 200-300 making it to the coveted services like IAS, IPS, IFS, etc. out of about 15 lakh candidates, anyone who makes it has to be pretty well educated through the process. What happens to these guys when they join politics? Do they regress or attain some second childhood of illiteracy? 

First, the Monkey baat. 

Dr. Satya Pal Singh is a Post-Graduate in Chemistry, has an M. Phil. in Chemistry from Delhi University and also holds a PhD from Nagpur University. He joined IPS in 1980 and during the Police career also obtained an MBA from Australia and an MA in Public Administration. He rose to become the Police Commissioner of Mumbai, as prestigious a post as they come. He took voluntary retirement from the Police service, won a Parliamentary seat and became a Minister. It is reported that before joining the Police, he wanted to become a scientist. Thus spake he on 19.1.2018 when he was Minister of State for Human Resource Development (Higher Education): 

“Darwin’s theory is scientifically wrong. It needs to change in the school and college curriculum. Since man is seen on Earth, he has always been a man. Nobody, including our ancestors, in written or oral, said they ever saw an ape turning into a human being.” 

When he was severely criticised, he doubled down, saying he was speaking “as a man of science.” When he went on to plan an international conference where scientists could come and debate his great wisdom, finally it was too much and his Cabinet Minister reprimanded him by publicly stating, “I have asked him to refrain from making such comments. We are not going to fund any event or don’t have any plan for a national seminar to prove Darwin wrong. It is the domain of scientists and we should let them free to continue their efforts for progress of the country.” 

Another day, another ex-civil servant – Ms Aparajita Sarangi, from the IAS. She was in the service for 24 long years and was obviously conversant with laws, procedures, proofs, legal requirements and natural justice. Did she forget all that when she joined politics? 

She was part of the “Ethics Committee” which found Mahua Moitra guilty of unethical conduct. I saw the panel discussion on TV where she was asked where was the proof. She kept hemming and hawing and when persistently asked, came out with “There was an affidavit.” The logic is crazy, (affi)dammit! Now if I sign an affidavit tomorrow saying Ms Sarangi has committed murder, would she be hanged? No Sir, I shall be cross-examined, asked to show proof beyond any reasonable doubt, and so on. Well, she was asked whether the committee examined the person who had made the affidavit, that too not in a court of law but before a High Commissioner abroad. She kept evading the question and kept on repeating, “Well … there WAS an affidavit …" 

The latest is a (choker) pearl from Mr. Ashwini Vaishnaw, the honourable Railways Minister, ex-IAS. He has banned bandhgala as a formal dress in the railways, saying: 

“We have to get rid of all colonial mindset. We need to find each of them and remove them, whether it’s in our working style or dressing style. Today I am making the first announcement. Humare jo bandgale ka kala suit angrezon ne chalu kiya tha, aaj se yeh railway mein formal dress nehin rahegi.” 

There are a few questions around that extraordinary statement. 

I can’t find a single reference of any of the “angrezon” either wearing a bandhgala or mandating one. On the other hand, I find well documented history and evolution of bandhgala from the erstwhile “royal” families of Rajasthan, to the Mughal court before the British. Raghavendra Rathore, Indian menswear designer has called the garment “India’s most refined expression of royal tailoring.” He said, “I think it’s unfair to say this jacket is not part of our own history or it’s the costume of another culture. It has developed and evolved over four centuries, going back to the Mughal courts and the Rajasthan princely states. This jacket was here before the British arrived in Calcutta and it’s gone through a very fluid evolution since then.” Mr. Vaishnaw is literally and figuratively ripping apart the fabric of our own society. 

Secondly, the railways itself is a colonial legacy. Should we then go back to bullock carts and Mr. Vaishnaw be divested of that portfolio quickly? There have been claims by an erstwhile Chief Minister that India already had internet, satellite communication, etc. during the Mahabaharat days so his other jobs of IT, etc. are safe for the time being. 

Our Parliament system itself has a lot of borrowings from the Westminster system. Should the Parliament be closed down then? It may not be a bad idea, given the way it functions now, almost as a redundancy. 

IMHO, there’s a false labelling of quintessentially Indian things as alien, mythology as science and everyday obscurantism as gospel truth. Sure, certain colonial-era relics need to be discarded. E.g., the haughty mindset of the Ministers and MPs, an imperious executive completely disconnected from the grassroots, appalling unaccountability of the high and mighty, and so on. Pseudoscience is regressive. Silly schoolboy excuses of affidavits won’t do. And, banning bandhgalas has zero basis and even less meaning.