Businessman of the year award goes to…

By now, probably every politically sensitive Indian has heard or read about Jay Shah and his remarkable business. The Wire, the website that broke the story of the BJP president’s son’s windfall gains, has been threatened with legal action by entrepreneur Shah’s lawyer. The lawyer has argued, as per a story in The Wire, that “Jay Shah is a private citizen doing his legitimate business. His business transactions are honest, legal and bona fide.” 

The Wire is not backing down and has announced its intention to contest the criminal defamation slapped against it by the Shah legal team. 

In due course, the law will take its own course, as the familiar cliché goes. 

My beef is with my own biradari, especially with those who devise yardsticks and evaluation criteria for judging success (or failure) in the risky field of business. Almost every pink paper and business magazine has this annual ritual of declaring this or that businessman as the most successful entrepreneur of the year. This circus has been going on for more than two decades; everybody stands to gain in this charade.  

How is it that none of these respectable publications and news channels could spot the business acumen and genius of Jay Shah! Surely, a young man whose company goes from a mere Rs 50,000 to Rs 80 crore in just one year ought to have been singled out for prescience and judgment to have read correctly the business and commodity trade winds. Surely, the man ought to have been honoured at least with the best young entrepreneur of the year award. 

Selecting the “best” of this or that in this or that field or category is becoming a complicated arrangement. Often, there is a jury, an evaluation process, and a bunch of impresarios; everybody is happy to pretend that an honest selection has been made and a deserving candidate has been recognised. 

Yet, all these elaborate precautions sometimes fail to do justice. None recognised the genius of Jay Shah. It is the media’s collective failure. 

Last week, the National Green Tribunal in its considerable wisdom decreed that Jantar Mantar would no longer be allowed to be a site for protests and demonstrations. The tribunal handed down this royal firman in response to a petition from local residents, who understandably find themselves often inconvenienced. This decision has to be a singularly ill-advised and ill-thought-out pronouncement. 

As long as India is a democratic arrangement, there will be protests, demonstrations, hunger strikes, processions and other expressions of dissent. And we owe it to ourselves and our democratic pretensions that those who want to protest do not feel shut out. Democratic protests invariably — but unavoidably — cause minor disruptions. The Delhi citizens often find themselves inconvenienced on account of these democratic protests, but this is a price they need to occasionally pay for living in the capital of India. It is in the capital that our rulers live and work; and, every wise ruler in turn has a duty to hear — if possible, heed — the citizens’ grievances and demands. 

The Jantar Mantar area is not exactly a residential locality — except for one or two highly priced apartment complexes. It is inconceivable that the National Green Tribunal should have allowed itself to be persuaded to prioritise the privileges of a handful of super-affluent residents over the rites of democratic protest. It is an elitist ruling, to say the least.

As it is, the big rallies any way take place at the Ram Lila Ground. Those groups and political parties that are able to mobilise huge numbers necessarily prefer to pitch their tent at the sprawling Ram Lila Ground. It is the smaller groups, with fewer resources and a few supporters that park themselves at Jantar Mantar. As a site of political protest, Jantar Mantar is closest to Parliament House, the highest seat of our representative democracy. It has evolved as a hallowed spot because individual and small groups get a sense of being heard — the ancient obligation on the ruler to be available for listening the citizens’ grievance.

The NGT has unwisely interfered with this vital rite of a mature democracy. As it were, our rulers are any way only too happy to barricade themselves behind a “security” cover. The NGT ruling has symbolically further removed the citizens away from the authority. It can only be hoped that sooner than later our judicial forums will be able to summon the wisdom to roll back the NGT’s thoughtless and entirely unhelpful decree. 

Many readers were unhappy at my disapproving words (in this space two weeks ago) about junior minister Jayant Sinha publicly disagreeing with his father Yashwant Sinha over the state of economy, its achievements and failures in the last three years of the Modi sarkar. Professor Chaman Lal has written to cite many instances when it was morally and ethically incumbent upon the son to dispute the father. He writes: 

“Recently, Supreme Court judge DY Chandrachud almost castigated his father Justice YV Chandrachud for supporting the Emergency, even indirectly, when he was Judge in the Supreme Court and the son overturned his father's judgment!

“More seriously, Bhagat Singh wrote a historical letter to his father on 4th October 1930 and insisted on its publication immediately as the pronouncement of judgment in the Lahore Conspiracy case was due on 7th October. He castigated his father for trying to save his life by cooking up an excuse of Bhagat Singh not being present in Lahore on the day of Saunders’ murder. I am attaching copy of the letter, which was carried in media (perhaps The Tribune as well) on 5th October, two days prior to the pronouncement of judgement. Had that letter of Bhagat Singh not been published, his image as a fearless revolutionary would have been seriously compromised and he would not have attained the iconic status that he enjoys today!

“One can see that Bhagat Singh maintained the dignity of the father-son relationship, yet expressed his views most clearly and sharply and his father Kishan Singh showed the same grace by getting the letter published as per the wish of his son.

“In fact, there is a lesson for present day leaders of the country from this exchange of views between father and son. If Rahul Gandhi could gather courage and criticise the 1975 Emergency imposed by his grandmother and also express clear regrets on the 1984 Delhi riots under his father's government, his image as a political leader could soar to such heights that he could look like the true inheritor of his great grandfather Jawaharlal Nehru’s legacy, which was sadly betrayed by his own daughter and grandson!” 

I can only say that I have no reason to quarrel or disagree with Professor Chaman Lal’s views.  

Last week, I was in Nepal for a spot of trekking and hiking, around that charming town, Nagarkot. It is just under two hours of drive from the Kathmandu airport. I was there last May and liked the place and decided to revisit Nagarkot. Both the mood and the weather were less disagreeable this time.

In May, there was an air of distinct unfriendliness towards India, a lingering soreness over New Delhi’s presumed economic blockade and the disruption after demonetisation. This time, one could feel that the unfriendliness has given way to indifference. Some kind of a mental separation has seeped in the Nepali psyche. Not a single word about India in the local newspapers. Of course, this was also the time when Nepal is totally preoccupied internally, with its factionalist politicians waging their factional feuds with conventional brazenness. The overall feel one gets is of a lack of warmth towards India and Indians. 

On the other hand, the weather this time was reasonable, permitting outdoor adventure, a fabulous sunrise and an equally spectacular sunset. On the last day, it cleared up for about half an hour to afford a glimpse of majestic snow-clad peaks. 

Nothing is more aesthetically pleasing than to have a cup of coffee and a breathtaking view of the mountains to admire. Join me.   

[email protected]