Indian Corporate Governance

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59807
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Indian Corporate Governance

Post by ramana »

I am spurred to start this thread due to recent disclosures of Tata enterprises business Issues.
I am x-posting a post by Yagnasri that starts the discussion.
Yagnasri wrote:A lot depends on who the major corporates govern themselves. The recent developments in Tata do not give any confidence. In fact, since Radia tapes, Tatas were under the cloud, but their considerable "good name" and media influence ensured that they do not get examined seriously at that point. But this time it will be a bit difficult. RT's statement on intolerance coming just before kicking out of CM may be part of the plan to ensure that a C system supports Tata Sons in the case of any serious problems with CM.

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 143_1.html

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 058979.cms

I must confess that I never had any great view about Tatas and most of their thing is to do with "image building" that was done for decades. Now I think I am right all along.

Essentially there are business aspects, mixed with political and corporate governance issues.

Swarajya Magazine had an open letter from Cyrus Mistry that should come her.
There was an Economist article in September that detailed woes at Tata Enterprises which gives global understanding.

Later I will develop a model on corporate fiascos based on biological systems processes that I am learning.

I hope to add a post from a forum stalwart on why we should care about Tata enterprises versus rest of the chor business houses.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59807
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by ramana »

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59807
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by ramana »

. @ramana_brf @NewsX
"Jamsetji initially made his fortune on the back of the opium trade to China,..."
https://t.co/znboCC4VfL
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10395
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by Yagnasri »

Almost in any company in India, there will be almost no criticism of the big boss. Big boss will have few people around him who will be his chamchas and most of the times those people will be good for nothing. As the corporates in India are headed by businessmen or their kids who most of the time do not listen to reason by their staff and in the case of the kids even do not behave properly with people working with them. Most of the Indian corporate houses are created in licence permit quota raj era. They still think in those terms even today. Ten years of UPA and lack of effort to dismantle the remains of the same quota raj since 1996 also helped the behaviour to continue. Many ideas like given better returns to the shareholders and maintaining highest levels of corporate governance are just words in the case of most of the Indian corporates. I came across many cases wherein the companies are just personal properties of the promoters even at the cost of the companies. This is true in the case of all kinds of companies be it banking or be it infra.

Another problem often seen is the manner in which the management other than promoters behave particularly if it is the IIM MBA types. They simply do not understand any rule or law or process. There is no effort to work within the system but always effort to find an easy way to bypass the system. All the outside service providers, be it law firms, auditors or the technical people play their part by passing the system. The quota raj helped to create this situation to a great extent. Now the same people like Ratan Tata (some 78 years old) still hold real power. The super CEO myth created to ensure that CEO is all powerful also ensures that these people and their ideas and influence will never go away? When you have a lot of your chamchas coming to you and telling you things about your successor who is not thinking like you and may to your horror trying to undo your programs it if very difficult to control yourself.

Take Tata Motors. Its commercial vehicle business allows it to have a personal vehicle business which is in an awful shape. Earlier this was used to be in the third place among Indian car makers. Now its share is some 3%. Had it been a separate company it would have been closed long back. To continue the marker share they were selling commercial vehicles with loans and now facing difficulty in recovery of the loans. Nano is a business failure. One funny thing many people do not know is Nano front wheels, and back wheels are of different size. One of the methods said to be used as a story which may or may not is true, it that such car shall allow 6 feet RT to sit comfortable in any of the four seats.The latest model car which is a big hit is sold at a loss as per the information I have. This is just one company.

Coming back to corporate governance, I was invited to a meeting on good governance and how it helps growth or something like that a few months back. Tarun Vijay was there, and so was RT. The so-called moderator was just behaving like a Burka interviewing Mushariff. He hardly asked any question to Tarun Vijay who is considered a major person in BJP and hardly discussed anything the NDA government did or was doing at that time. Entire discussing later went to Startups and how RT shall mentor start-ups. My understanding of start-ups is that they typically created by younger people with path breaking and disruptive ideas. How a 77-year relic of a licence raj era can help in this as a mentor? Most of the attendees ( as normal Mumbaikers) are super happy to see RT and hear him. If this is not drama baji then what else is drama baji. This is how super CEO myths are made and perpetuated.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10395
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by Yagnasri »

http://www.oneindia.com/india/cyrus-mis ... 45521.html

How far this is true is not known. But the report is too specific with details. No one from MSM reported the resignation of an Independent director at that time? We all know the reasons.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59807
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by ramana »

yagnasri, Thanks for the 'in the trenches' report.

I think there is a big fight going on.

We will see more business houses similarly exposed.
we need to see what turns up.
panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3781
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by panduranghari »

Yagnasri ji,
Very illuminating post.

One perspective, please comment if you can.

Indian mindset is not geared towards mega corporation. Attempting to create mega corporation; means stepping on many toes, spending enough on chai-paani, etc.

Tata seems like relic of yesteryears. Breaking it up won't be easy but perhaps a necessity.
panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3781
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by panduranghari »

A CT:

CM pulls plug on Tata steel UK which RT acquired over a bitter battle with Arcelor Mittal by paying 5 times more than he should have. Add pension funding, it was a unsustainable business from the word go.

CM dumped unceremoniously by RT is a play by UK deep state. Rothschilds backs Tata while Rockefeller backs Ambani(h/t Ramana Saar)

Is this a way for west to attack Modi's 'Make in India' project?
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10395
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by Yagnasri »

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 983_1.html

As usual, we have seen this well before the allegations are made. This drama of top level India business people holding gora nation passports ( Mistry has Irish one) and having significant business interests abroad which are not even known to any Indian agency is going to be problematic on. At the end who is working for what become a question.

Just observe the speed with which Tatas could get rid of Cyrus Mistry from various boards etc. I agree with this statement.
http://www.thehindu.com/business/Instit ... 798213.ece

See Wadia statement
" It is not the role of your Company to save jobs in the UK nor to support its pension funds. The role of your Board is to apply your funds to the most profitable growth opportunities which are quite obviously better served by investing in India where the returns are better and the Company contributes to the industrial growth and development of India."

I sat as an invitee in many board meeting and rarely came across any independent director raising any serious governance related issue. Many times they have even allowed non-board members to attend meetings and dictate things to board.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10395
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by Yagnasri »

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/busi ... 077210.cms

Awarding contracts to "apne amdmi" is quite commonly done by Indian corporates. No one including the so-called independent directors will raise their voice and no one will know also. This has come out because of internal fights in TATA.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10395
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by Yagnasri »

http://www.firstpost.com/business/tata- ... 69488.html

This is the real position. The so-called Independent Directors can not take on the majority shareholder even if they want to. If they do they will be kicked out.
habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6919
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by habal »

panduranghari wrote:A CT:

CM pulls plug on Tata steel UK which RT acquired over a bitter battle with Arcelor Mittal by paying 5 times more than he should have. Add pension funding, it was a unsustainable business from the word go.

CM dumped unceremoniously by RT is a play by UK deep state. Rothschilds backs Tata while Rockefeller backs Ambani(h/t Ramana Saar)

Is this a way for west to attack Modi's 'Make in India' project?
NM Rothschild is hired as advisor by many corporates if they cannot fund takeovers all by themselves. There is a group of pro-Israel yahudi busines interests in USA who group together for a takeover and if they are not able to fund the takeover by themselves still go to NM Rothschild for advise? My hunch is NM Rothschild is like a cash chest and can raise cash on demand if it is convinced of purchase and they are close enough to the prospective benamis.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10395
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by Yagnasri »

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 359_1.html

The problem with so-called founders or promoters is that they have no real sense of the limitations they have under law. Since people defer to them out of respect most of the time, they think they own the companies as their personal property. This fight in Infy is one of that example.

Fortunately, the CEO of Infy seems to be made of stronger stuff than Mistry at least. The fact that so-called founders may not have great number or % of shares also may be a motivating factor.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10395
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by Yagnasri »

Now the press is full of Moorti weeping about Infy values. Mohan Das Pai asking Sikka to have a debate with Moorti. What kind of professional set up we have had with Moorti.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by vina »

Yagnasri wrote:
The problem with so-called founders or promoters is that they have no real sense of the limitations they have under law. Since people defer to them out of respect most of the time, they think they own the companies as their personal property. This fight in Infy is one of that example.

Fortunately, the CEO of Infy seems to be made of stronger stuff than Mistry at least. The fact that so-called founders may not have great number or % of shares also may be a motivating factor.

Now the press is full of Moorti weeping about Infy values. Mohan Das Pai asking Sikka to have a debate with Moorti. What kind of professional set up we have had with Moorti.
Very interesting points. I assume that the your comments are based on the following.

1. You ACTUALLY know what the issues are, know the full facts and not "factoids" and noise that are aired in the media
2. Aware that the group that wrote to the board holds 12.5% of the shares, while the largest "institutional investor" supportive of the management holds just 2% (in a full fight, believe me a massive overwhelming majority of votes, institutional and otherwise, will be with the founder group, the facts will be fully public by that time)
3. You know (even in passing) what the ethics and governance issues they are raising (no the media articles don't talk about them yet, but they will in due course, believe me)

Suffice to say, hold your horses, and don't shoot off some random opinions based on incomplete facts and stuff which you know very little about (I can see that you know little in this particular matter beyond headlines/articles). I have no info on the Tata/Mistry stuff and have no opinion, but on this, I know pretty well, and can at this point just say that I can see that you know very little on this.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by vina »

Very Interesting. When there was a pantomime going on in INFY, this place was full of sound and fury. When the REAL issues are becoming public (the Panaya deal for e.g.), it is all quiet!

Would LOVE to hear comments now when you have the real enchilada getting aired. :rotfl: :rotfl:
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10395
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by Yagnasri »

Vinaji, from the date of your last post, I am waiting for all the misdeeds you indicated to come out. If there are some serious and real ethical issues are there would have been some serious investigation till now. The people making allegations should have insisted for that. What happened? If the largest shareholders do not like the CEO and they have serious issues with the way things are run they can ask him to go in a direct manner and Institute investigation on the allegations they made. Instead, they repeatedly made alligations without making any serious efforts to prove wrong doing and made him resign. This is the fate of the first professional CEO of the Infy. This is how Khejri does things.

You said you are aware of the issues and I do not. One of my own cousin holds a senior position in Infy and More than few of my close friends work there. Sufficient to say I had some idea about what was happening.

The entire effort is to discredit the CEO and force him to either act as per the wishes of a set of share holders or force him to get out in disgrace. The second happened though it not clear who is disgraced in the entire affair. Are these the proper comments one makes on any CEO??

“All that I hear from at least three independent directors, including Mr Ravi Venkatesan (co-chairman), are complaints about Dr Sikka. They have told me umpteen times that Dr Sikka is not CEO material but CTO material. This is the view of at least three members of the board, and not my view since I have not seen him operate from the vantage point of an Infosys board member.”

and leak them to press.

This report puts it clearly.

https://swarajyamag.com/business/nrn-di ... y-he-built

This is the press statemen from infy itself:

Company Statement
Bangalore – August 18, 2017: It has come to the attention of the Board that a letter authored by Mr. Murthy, the Founder of Infosys has been released to various media houses attacking the integrity of the Board and Management of the Company alleging falling corporate governance standards in the Company. The Board takes great umbrage to the contents of the letter and places on record the following:

Mr. Murthy's continuous assault, including this latest letter, is the primary reason that the CEO, Dr. Vishal Sikka, has resigned despite strong Board support.
Mr. Murthy’s letter contains factual inaccuracies, already-disproved rumours, and statements extracted out of context from his conversations with Board members.
The Board assures its shareholders, employees, customers and communities that it is committed not to be distracted by this misguided campaign by Mr. Murthy and will continue to adhere to the highest international standards of corporate governance as it executes its strategy of profitable growth for the benefit of all Infosys stakeholders.
Mr. Murthy’s campaign against the Board and the Company has had the unfortunate effect to undermine the Company’s efforts to transform itself.
The Board has been engaged in a dialogue with the Founder to resolve his concerns over the course of a year, trying earnestly to find feasible solutions within the boundaries of law and without compromising its independence. These dialogues have unfortunately not been successful.
The Board declines to speculate about Mr. Murthy’s motive for carrying out this campaign, including the latest letter. The Board believes it must set the record straight on the false and misleading charges made by Mr. Murthy because his actions and demands are damaging the Company and misrepresent its commitment to good corporate governance.
FACT: Since Dr. Vishal Sikka was appointed as MD and CEO in August 2014, Infosys has delivered competitive financial performance through profitable revenue growth.

Infosys has, under the leadership of Vishal, developed and articulated a strategy to transform itself to meet the rapidly changing needs of the marketplace in the 21st century. The Company was lagging significantly behind industry in growth rates when Vishal took over and now we are in top quartile from a performance perspective.
Infosys has grown in revenues, from $2.13B in Q1FY15 to $2.65B this past Q1. This was done while keeping a strong focus on margins, closing this past quarter at 24.1% operating margin, beating some competitors for the first time in many years, and improving against nearly everyone in the industry.
The revenue per employee of the Company has grown for six quarters in a row. Attrition has fallen, from 23.4% in Q1FY15 to 16.9% this past Q1, and high performer attrition is much lower than the overall Company attrition.
The Company grew its $100M+ clients from 12 in Q1FY15, to 18 this past Q1, and increased its large deal wins from ~$1.9B in FY15 to ~$3.5B this past year. This has all been done while improving overall utilization (excluding trainees), to a 15-yr high this past quarter, and an all-time high including trainees, while improving our cash reserves, rewarding Infoscions with a new equity plan, and returning Rs. 19,000 Crores as dividend (including dividend distribution tax) over the last three years. This has all been done while improving standing with clients, to the highest ever in the 12 years with a jump of 22 points in CXO satisfaction.
FACT: Infosys has continued to maintain the highest standards of corporate governance that the Company is known for.

The Board of Infosys is carrying out its shareholder mandate to be an independent board, working towards the best interest of the stakeholders.
The Board has sought the counsel of some of the most respected governance experts and legal advisors in the world, which have thoroughly investigated all anonymous allegations and concluded that no wrongdoing occurred. For Mr. Murthy to imply – with no evidence whatsoever – that three well-respected international law firms, members of the Infosys Board and certain employees are engaged in some grand global conspiracy to conceal information is not tenable on its face. It is important to mention here that Mr. Murthy was interviewed as part of the investigation by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP in pursuance of the investigation in the Panaya acquisition, and was invited and welcomed to provide any information or evidence he believed would support the allegations being investigated. He did not provide any evidence since none exists. However, he has not mentioned this is his media communication against the investigation.
As previously announced by the Company on June 23, 2017, the Board thoroughly investigated each anonymous allegation with the assistance of highly respected external counsel and experts and determined that the allegations were entirely without merit. The Board will make no additional disclosure of the investigation report because further disclosure would be inconsistent with best corporate audit practices and would compromise the confidence of employees that they could report honestly, openly, and candidly to the company in any future investigation or legal matter.
The Board also believes that any further use of resources and time on these matters would be a distraction for the Company and would enable those wishing unfairly to attack Company personnel to continue this harmful conduct. Therefore, the Board has formally closed the investigations of the anonymous allegations so that the Company can focus on strategy, performance, and the creation of shareholder value. The Board remains focused to continuing to support Infosys’s strategy, which it believes is in the best interests of the Company’s shareholders, employees, clients and communities.
FACT: Mr. Murthy has made repeatedly inappropriate demands which are inconsistent with his stated desire for stronger governance.

Illustratively:

Mr. Murthy has demanded that the Board adopt certain changes in policy, else he will attack board members in the public, which threat was carried out when the Board did not acquiesce;
He has demanded that the Board appoint specific individuals onto the Board under similar threat, without appropriate disclosure and without regard to basic determinants of appropriateness or fit of the candidate for the role as a Board member;
He has demanded operational and management changes under the threat of media attacks;
Notwithstanding that the remuneration package of senior management was approved overwhelmingly by shareholders (including members of the promoter group), Mr. Murthy preferred his dictat to prevail with no place or tolerance for the outcomes of shareholder democracy.
Mr. Murthy wanted the demands to be adhered to without attribution to him.
The Board has, in its fiduciary role to consider all shareholder inputs, treated each demand from Mr. Murthy as a suggestion and only acted on suggestions which we believed was in the best interest of the company and declined to act on others. Over time the demands have intensified, which when declined by the Board resulted in the threats of media attacks being carried out.

FACT: Mr. Murthy may be in the process of engaging in discussions with certain key stakeholders of the Company to further his criticisms of the Board and Management.

We are concerned that this type of campaign runs the risk of confusing investors and undermining the Company’s management efforts.

FACT: The Board is a fully independent Board, with professionals as its members who have been appointed by a clear majority of the shareholders.

Given the commitment of the Board to remain independent and pursue a chosen strategy, the Board currently has no intention of asking Mr. Murthy to play a formal role in the governance of the organization.
Co- Chair of the Board, Ravi Venkatesan has repeatedly over the past few weeks publicly stated his and the Boards support for Dr. Sikka. The Company categorically rejects any speculation or allegation of discord between the Infosys Board and Dr. Sikka.

About Infosys Ltd.
Infosys is a global leader in technology services and consulting. We enable clients in 45 countries to create and execute strategies for their digital transformation. From engineering to application development, knowledge management and business process management, we help our clients find the right problems to solve, and to solve these effectively. Our team of 198,000+ innovators, across the globe, is differentiated by the imagination, knowledge and experience, across industries and technologies that we bring to every project we undertake.

Visit http://www.infosys.com to see how Infosys (NYSE: INFY) can help your enterprise thrive in the digital age.

Safe Harbor
Certain statements mentioned in this release concerning our future growth prospects are forward-looking statements regarding our future business expectations intended to qualify for the 'safe harbor' under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which involve a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in such forward-looking statements. The risks and uncertainties relating to these statements include, but are not limited to, risks and uncertainties regarding fluctuations in earnings, fluctuations in foreign exchange rates, our ability to manage growth, intense competition in IT services including those factors which may affect our cost advantage, wage increases in India, our ability to attract and retain highly skilled professionals, time and cost overruns on fixed-price, fixed-time frame contracts, client concentration, restrictions on immigration, industry segment concentration, our ability to manage our international operations, reduced demand for technology in our key focus areas, disruptions in telecommunication networks or system failures, our ability to successfully complete and integrate potential acquisitions, liability for damages on our service contracts, the success of the companies in which Infosys has made strategic investments, withdrawal or expiration of governmental fiscal incentives, political instability and regional conflicts, legal restrictions on raising capital or acquiring companies outside India, and unauthorized use of our intellectual property and general economic conditions affecting our industry. Additional risks that could affect our future operating results are more fully described in our United States Securities and Exchange Commission filings including our Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017. These filings are available at http://www.sec.gov. Infosys may, from time to time, make additional written and oral forward-looking statements, including statements contained in the company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and our reports to shareholders. The company does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements that may be made from time to time by or on behalf of the company unless it is required by law.
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by deejay »

Bravo, Yagnasri ji. You really called this one accurately, way back in February.
Would LOVE to hear comments now when you have the real enchilada getting aired.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by Singha »

to me murthys validish points are
- some possibility of cronyism in purchase of that israeli co
- excessive CxO comp and a huge 20cr golden parachute given to the departing CFO. infy is not a cash rich googley co or goldman sachs - they have fairly modest /employee revenue in dollar so wall street / SV type comp pkgs are not appropriate imo unless they transform and raise /employee revenue by 5x.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10395
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by Yagnasri »

But those things are to be taken up in a proper manner and in a proper forum. I am sure he has his people on the Board and Board can discuss those matters and do some investigation when required.He is with in his rights to ask for an investigation on any wrong doing and press for it in a shareholder meeting etc. I am sure he will be heard in any share holder meeting. But attacking CEO personally in a regular manner in this way? Calling him a CTO material and not a CEO material? That is not done by a professional. BY the way, who made him a CEO? You people only. So what does that speak about your capability to chose and select critical personal?

In the end, it is typical of any major or minor Indian corporates. They do not want professional managers or staff. They want yes men and women. Sikka may be right or wrong. But this is not the way to treat him.
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by Arjun »

http://www.fortuneindia.com/enterprise/ ... tch/101361

This article was before Sikka's resignation...
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10395
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by Yagnasri »

There were allegations made by a set of people. Some investigation was done and found no wrong doing. Some people are not satisfied. All are true things. How all the people concerned acted is the question.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10395
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by Yagnasri »

wig
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2163
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Indian Corporate Governance

Post by wig »

a lack of corporate governance led to GSPC ( Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation) make no money after discovering huge natural gas reserves. The reserves seem to have been handed over to private operators and the corporation incurred losses regularly until finally it was sold to ONGC
excerpts
On June 26, 2005, Chief Minister Modi announced that GSPC had made “the biggest discovery of its kind in the country’s history, with estimated natural gas reserves of 20 trillion cubic feet worth $50 billion in the Krishna-Godavari basin”.
This is a typical Modi hype. The truth, as the books puts it, is despite this history-making discovery, GSPC has never made any money and it has rather bled the exchequer. This projected symbol of “economic resurgence” has turned out to be a big scandal.
Eleven years after the historic Modi announcement, the CAG’s 2016 report, tabled in the Gujarat Assembly, raised objections which, in simple terms, said: “Why was the corporation running up debts and where was the company blowing these all up?”
With its assets gifted away to questionable private enterprises and individuals and debts mounting, GSPC stood as a basket case in 2016. By then fully in control of Central institutions and PSUs through appointments of loyalists, the Narendra Modi government then forced a cash-rich ONGC to buy a majority stake in GSPC.
This kicked up a row in media and opposition leaders, including Jairam Ramesh, too, joined in. They made valid arguments but BJP media managers succeeded in spreading confusion. A former Economic Affairs Secretary, EAS Sarma, wrote to the Enforcement Directorate that “valuable oil blocks belonging to the people of India were bartered to foreign nationals of questionable credentials”. He sought an urgent inquiry “as the value of the hydrocarbons involved runs into thousands of crores of rupees and very influential persons are apparently involved”.
Urjit Patel, now Governor of the RBI, was an independent Director and Chairman of the audit committee of GSPC from 2006 to 2013. GSPC’s borrowings were squandered away on his watch. He did not raise the issue of GSPC entering into a joint venture with a private company in which the Gujarat minister in charge of GSPC was an investor. The minister, Saurabh Patel, was a Modi confidant.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/books- ... 38181.html
Post Reply