The recent allegations made by the short seller Hindenburg against the SEBI chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch, and the sanction given to prosecute the Karnataka Chief Minister, has reopened, for the umpteenth time, a centuries old moral dilemma: fight or flee?
That is, if a person is accused of some wrongdoing or professional impropriety, how should he or she respond?
The story of Ram asking Sita to undergo trial by fire to prove her purity after a dhobi had said intemperate things about her is one instance. Another is from the writings of the Greek philosopher Plutarch who quotes Julius Caesar as saying that his wife, Pompeia, must be above suspicion. After saying that Caesar had divorced her.
However, as an aside, it must be noted that in the old days a similarly high moral standard wasn’t applied to men who made the rules. They exempted themselves.
But since 1950 or thereabouts this kind of equivalence has been applied, or sought to be applied, equally. There are therefore a large number of males in public office who have had to give up their positions after some doubt was cast on their integrity.
There are very compelling and several precedents to indicate what Ms Puri should have been asked to do, namely, if not quit, at least go on leave, till she was fully in the clear. That is, neither fight nor flee, just live to fight another day.
There is, however, another aspect to these incidents. Such high moral stances can leave a permanent impression in the public mind that the person is actually guilty and that the sacrifice is only a smokescreen. This is a real risk that everyone would like to avoid.
This is the ‘admission of guilt’ problem that all public servants have to face. They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. This kind of situation makes no distinction between criminal acts, indiscretion and impropriety.
The last two are really tough because both involve judgment, not evidence. There are no fixed yardsticks for them like what we have for criminality.
The credibility issue
In the end, it all boils down to the available evidence in the case of criminality, and the degree of credibility in the case of propriety and/or indiscretion.
The other difference is that while adducing evidence has a clearly laid out process and procedure, impropriety is entirely a matter of credibility. Who is more likely to be believed: the accused or the accuser?
That’s where circumstantial evidence plays a critical role, that is, the ‘smoking gun’ problem. This is that if the gun still has smoke coming out of the barrel, it’s certain that it was fired recently.
But was it fired by the person who is holding it? That’s only a presumption. It’s very likely to be true but not a hundred percent certain. Hence the question of benefit of doubt: should the person be given it or not? This is a matter of judgment.
That is why the need for an unbiased inquiry becomes important. There simply has to be one. It mustn’t ever be avoided when high public office is involved.
The usual demand for a joint parliamentary committee is intended to fulfil that need. However, as the committee has only politicians, it can’t be unbiased.
Plus in the case of Ms Buch, it’s probably overkill. A retired Supreme Court judge of impeccable reputation would probably be quite enough.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
One of the commonest mistakes made in social discourse, especially on social media, is the ‘post hoc, ergo propter hoc’ fallacy. It means “After this, therefore because of this”.
The fallacy arises from establishing a false causality. It’s different from ‘cum hoc, ergo propter hoc’ or ‘along with this, therefore because of this’ where if two things happen simultaneously, it is assumed that one caused the other.
The problem in both cases is that causality is established by assumption rather than proof. The operative word in such cases is ‘must’. ‘This’ must be the case because of ‘that’.
The accusation against Rajiv Gandhi in the Bofors case by two prominent newspapers, that he had taken a bribe, was just that. Eventually, it was found that there was no evidence of this. The Congress, at least, should remember this.
But public servants can also often act against their self-interest. Ms Buch needed to have disclosed to the Supreme Court what Hindenburg has now revealed. She didn’t. This was an error of judgment that can easily be construed as mala fide in some sense.
Such episodes tend to be judged by the principles of justice. Actually, however, when it’s not evidence but credibility that’s to be weighed, the principles of fairness are more important.
Though these are fully established now, they are rarely employed in public discourse because embedded anchoring biases are ever present. It’s the ‘If it’s Tuesday it must be Belgium’ problem.