There are moments in life when one wonders how a single decision changes everything.
In 1973, the eminent journalist Nikhil Chakravartty, founder of Mainstream weekly and the India Press Agency, gave me my first break in journalism. My monthly salary was Rs 150. It was hardly a fortune, but it altered the course of my life.
Until then, I had planned to become a lawyer. I wanted to join a law college in Kerala, but my parents could not afford the expense. So, when Nikhilda, as everyone affectionately called him, offered me a job, I accepted it.
Once I entered journalism, I fell in love with the profession. The dream of becoming a lawyer quietly disappeared.
Now let me indulge in a little imagination.
Had I become a lawyer, I would probably have risen to become the Chief Justice of India. After retirement, I would have taken up international arbitration and earned crores of rupees. By now, I might have been worth hundreds of crores.
Please do not laugh. I know equally well that I might have ended up as a briefless lawyer with no clients. But why should facts spoil a good story?
The enormous wealth I did not earn is what economists may call my “presumptive loss”. And who is responsible for that loss? None other than Nikhilda. By introducing me to journalism, he deprived me of my imaginary fortune!
This humorous thought came to my mind while reflecting on one expression that dominated Indian politics for years — “presumptive loss.”
Many younger readers may not remember how that phrase entered our political vocabulary.
India’s 11th Comptroller and Auditor General, Vinod Rai, a Kerala cadre IAS officer, had earlier served as the District Collector of Thrissur. Because of his energetic administration, many people nicknamed him the “second Sakhthan Thampuran”, recalling the legendary ruler admired for firm governance.
Rai shot into national prominence when his audit report on the allocation of 2G spectrum estimated a presumptive loss of Rs 1.74 lakh crore to the exchequer.
Soon afterwards came another report. This time it concerned the allocation of coal blocks. Rai estimated a presumptive loss of Rs 1.86 lakh crore.
The figures were staggering. Television studios discussed them endlessly. Newspapers splashed them across their front pages. Political speeches repeated them until they acquired the status of unquestioned truth.
The Opposition, especially the BJP, used these figures to portray the Manmohan Singh-led UPA government as hopelessly corrupt. Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption movement also drew considerable strength from these audit reports.
Few expressions have influenced Indian politics as much as “presumptive loss.”
Ironically, the legal story took a very different turn.
The special court hearing the 2G spectrum case acquitted all the accused after finding no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
The coal allocation case travelled an even longer road.
Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, industrialist Kumar Mangalam Birla, former Coal Secretary P.C. Parekh and others were accused in connection with the allocation of a coal block in Odisha.
The Central Bureau of Investigation even contemplated questioning and possibly arresting Manmohan Singh. He obtained relief from the Supreme Court, but the stigma remained.
When the CBI later filed a closure report, the trial court rejected it and decided that the former Prime Minister and the others should face trial.
After Manmohan Singh passed away in December 2024, the CBI approached the Supreme Court with another closure report.
The Court could easily have accepted it quietly and closed the matter because the principal accused was no more.
Instead, the three-member Bench carefully examined the entire record.
It concluded that the trial court had erred in rejecting the closure report. In effect, the Supreme Court completely exonerated Manmohan Singh, seventeen months after his death.
That judgment carried an important message. Criminal prosecution requires evidence, not suspicion.
One fact deserves special mention. When Vinod Rai estimated a presumptive loss of Rs 1.86 lakh crore in the coal allocation case, not even one quintal of coal had been extracted from any of the allotted mines. The estimate was based entirely on assumptions about what might have happened in future.
That is why the expression “presumptive loss” deserves careful examination.
Estimates have their place in economics and auditing. But estimates should not become criminal convictions in the public mind before courts examine the evidence.
It is difficult to deny that the CAG reports had a major political impact. They contributed significantly to the public perception that the UPA government was steeped in corruption. That perception played an important role in the BJP’s sweeping victory in the 2014 general election.
Curiously, Vinod Rai, whose reports indirectly benefited the BJP politically, received several prestigious assignments after retirement, including an important United Nations assignment.
Life has its own ironies.
Another irony is that Rai had once been a student of Manmohan Singh at the Delhi School of Economics.
Rai himself was not free from controversy. He publicly alleged that Congress leader Sanjay Nirupam had pressured him not to name Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in one of his reports. Nirupam filed a defamation suit. Eventually Rai apologised, and the case was settled.
As for Manmohan Singh, the Supreme Court’s judgment merely confirmed what many who knew him personally had long believed.
I had the privilege of accompanying him on three overseas visits as Prime Minister. He never avoided journalists. Once the aircraft reached cruising altitude, he would come out of his cabin, make a brief statement and answer every question, pleasant or unpleasant.
His honesty was visible not merely in public policy but in his daily habits. His daughter, Daman Singh, records in her biography Strictly Personal that when he was Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, he kept a notebook beside the official telephone. Every personal call made by any member of the family was entered in it so that the government could be reimbursed. He used an ordinary Reynolds pen costing about Rs 10. Public office never became a means of personal enrichment. His wife, Gursharan Kaur, and his daughters maintained a dignified distance from governmental affairs. There were no allegations of family members exercising influence behind the scenes. Simplicity was not an image carefully cultivated for publicity. It was the natural expression of his character.
Looking back, I sometimes smile at my own imaginary “presumptive loss.”
If Nikhilda had not offered me that Rs 150-a-month job, perhaps I would have become a lawyer. Perhaps I would have become Chief Justice. Or perhaps I would have struggled to find even one client.
Who knows?
Fortunately, life is not audited on presumptions alone.
My real gain was journalism. It gave me the opportunity to meet extraordinary people, witness history from close quarters and write freely for more than five decades.
No international arbitration could have compensated me for that. Once, Manmohan Singh said history would be kinder to him than politics. The Supreme Court’s verdict proves that his presumption was indeed correct!