Oracle Bows to Age: ‘Adapt to what you can’t’

 

On May 3, 2025, 94-year-old Warren Buffett announced his retirement as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway at its annual shareholder meeting, surprising many.

**

Warren Buffett, the legendary investor known for his preternatural value investing, who previously said that he had no intention of retiring, realized that the time had come “to act fast” and announced that he would step down as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway at the end of 2025 and pass on the baton to Greg Abel, Vice Chairman, who is currently overseeing Berkshire’s non-insurance business.

In 1965, Buffett acquired Berkshire Hathaway, a struggling textile manufacturer, and transformed it into a global conglomerate holding company that manages a diverse range of businesses and investments. Its main business is insurance—both direct and reinsurance. He turned it into the world’s biggest reinsurer. It also manages freight rail transportation and utility and energy distribution. Besides these core businesses, the company also owns dozens of well-known consumer-oriented companies in various sectors. It also has significant stakes in other publicly traded companies. 

Buffett’s entrepreneurial journey started quite early in life. As a school-going boy, Buffett started investing in stocks with the money earned by delivering newspapers. It is at Columbia University that he mastered the art and science of valuing stocks under the mentorship of the legendary Benjamin Graham—“father of value investing”. Since then, he has spent his lifetime in search of businesses that offer scope for growth and stability. 

Buffett said that all through his investment career, he has practiced a cardinal principle: Never invest in a business that you don’t understand its business model. He is known for being wary of investing in technology firms, simply because he claims not to understand the tech business. Intriguingly, he doesn’t own any stake even in Microsoft, although he has partnered with Bill Gates on the bridge circuit. 

As is well known, insurance businesses generate large volumes of cheap cash in the form of premiums collected. While the insurance business is in itself a very profitable one, it is the wise deployment of that cash by Buffett in the stock market that has made Berkshire consistently generate high returns from the investments. Today, the company enjoys a market value of $1.08 tn plus. Berkshire Hathaway is now the world’s eighth most valuable company. Buffett’s personal stake in the company stood at around $168 bn, making him the world’s fifth-wealthiest man.  

Buffett’s investment philosophy is pretty transparent. As a well-known value investing strategist, he did not participate in the dotcom boom of the late 1990s, for he thought that those companies were overvalued based on speculation rather than financial performance. Thus, he was able to avoid the kind of heavy losses that many other investors suffered when the dotcom bubble imploded in the early 2000s. 

Buffett claims that the secret of his investment strategy is: Patience. He patiently waits until he thinks the price is right to buy a stock. As and when the price is considered right by Berkshire, it will buy a big stake and allow the incumbent management to carry on the business with little or no oversight from it. 

Buffett’s sharpness in understanding complex financial business models is well reflected in the portfolio that he builds up, mostly driven by his own financial valuations. Berkshire’s investment portfolio predominantly includes consumer-centric businesses such as Coca-Cola, Bank of America, and Apple, besides a substantial stake in the financial sector. 

Eugene Fama, a Nobel Laureate in economics from the United States, proposed the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), which suggests that stock prices fully reflect all available information, making it impossible to consistently outperform the market. The theory posits that if all information is instantly and accurately incorporated into stock prices, there is no way to find undervalued stocks or consistently beat the market through expert stock selection or market timing, except perhaps by buying riskier investments. It essentially means that one can earn only market-average returns unless one has access to non-public information. But Buffett has challenged the EMH through his value investing approach, which focuses on identifying undervalued stocks and holding onto them for a long time. His Berkshire Hathaway’s annualized return on investment during 1965-2024 is estimated to be around 19.9% as against 10.4% of S&P 500 annualized return for the same period. 

Buffett used to share his deep insights and the sharpness of his stock-picking strategy in the form of aphorisms couched with humor through his letters to shareholders, as also in his address at the annual general body meetings. He once cautioned investors, saying, “If you are trying to trade on headlines or time the market, you are not investing—you’re gambling”. 

In 2003, Buffett shared his opinion against derivatives through Berkshire’s annual report: “In my view, derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal”. He also highlighted the potential of these complex instruments to cause systemic risk, particularly due to opaque pricing and accounting practices. He even said: “... the parties to derivatives also have enormous incentives to cheat in accounting for them”. And come 2008, the collapse of AIG, a major issuer of Credit Default Swaps (CDS), and the global economic crisis proved how prophetic Buffett was. 

Once Buffett saying, “the risk-averse investor is the poor investor”, encouraged retail investors to take calculated risks, but only in areas where one has a good understanding of the business. One of his famous pieces of advice is: “It’s far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price”. 

Backed by long years of experience gained from Wall Street, he once gave a sagely advice to the retail investors: “Volatility is a feature of stock markets, not a bug”. He summarizes that in the next 20 years, there may come a phase that will be a “hair curler” compared to anything we have seen before. Such events keep recurring, and these typically unfold in dramatic ways. But that is just the way of the stock market. This unpredictability makes the stock market a great place to invest in, but only if one has the temperament for it. On the other hand, it is not a good space for those who get frightened by markets that decline and get excited when stock markets go up.

On Donald Trump winning the elections, most of the stock market participants turned euphoric and the US equities, bonds and currency markets rallied strongly immediately after the results. But the Oracle of Omaha, turning more oracular, and guessing that once Trump starts fulfilling campaign promises, markets may face turmoil, Berkshire Hathaway sold its profitable positions. Strategically, it sold more shares than it bought in 2024, and as a result, it is sitting on cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments of $333.3 bn in December 2024, which is almost double the cash reserves—$167.5 bn—held in December 2023. 

As perhaps wary of market uncertainties stemming from Trump’s tariff war, Buffett appeared to prefer investing in low-yielding US Treasury bills rather than stocks. In uncertain times, cash can serve as a handy cushion—and times have rarely been as uncertain as during the ongoing tariff-mayhem. However, some analysts argue that clinging to such a large cash reserve carries a significant opportunity cost, leading them to question the legendary investor’s decision to stay away from Wall Street. 

However, in his annual letter to shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett addressed this dilemma: “We are impartial in our choice of equity vehicles, investing in either variety based upon where we can best deploy your (and my family’s) savings. Often, nothing looks compelling; very infrequently, we find ourselves knee-deep in opportunities”. This candid approach is one of the admirable traits of Berkshire Hathaway and its Chairman, who openly discusses the company’s challenges and decisions in his annual letters to shareholders. 

Enriched by decades of experience in the investment world, Buffett sounds very forthright when he says, “The problem with the investment business is that things don’t come along in an orderly fashion, and they never will”. He goes on to say that “Berkshire holding large amounts of cash isn’t out of fear but out of discipline and patience, waiting for good opportunities. When those come, having the cash to pounce on the opportunity matters”. 

This legendary investor’s philosophy of philanthropy is “grounded in his belief that those with great wealth have a responsibility to give back to society”. His philanthropy is characterized by unprecedented scale and a focus on effectiveness. He preferred to give donations to existing foundations rather than starting new ones. He has been the largest individual donor to the Gates Foundation, contributing over $43 bn as of 2024. With a lifetime charitable giving that exceeds $56 bn, Buffett stands as one of the top philanthropists. He pledged to give away 99% of his remaining wealth to a charitable trust managed by his three children after his death. 

That is Buffett and his investment philosophy. This philanthropist’s impending retirement will mark the end of an era. His philanthropy, however, blooms forever.

**

Prof Jayant Narlikar: The Man Who Challenged Big Bang Theory

 

Prof Jayant Vishnu Narlikar, a towering figure in Indian science, a visionary astrophysicist and an immensely popular science communicator, died on 20 May 2025 in Pune.

Born on July 19, 1938, in Kolhapur, Maharashtra, Prof Narlikar, graduating from Banaras Hindu University, went to Cambridge to study mathematics. There, he secured the Wrangler and Tyson Medal in the Mathematical Tripos.   Specialising in astronomy and astrophysics, he obtained several degrees from Cambridge in mathematics: B.A. (1960), Ph.D. (1963), M.A. (1964) and Sc.D. (1976).

He remained in Cambridge as a Fellow of King’s College between 1963-72 and a Founder Staff Member of the Institute of Theoretical Astronomy (1966-72).  It is during this period that his research interests in cosmology and astrophysics took a solid shape under the mentorship of Dr Fred Hoyle.

The collaboration between Fred Hoyle and Narlikar led to the proposal of an alternate model to the Big Bang theory of the universe’s origin. Together, they developed and refined the steady-state theory, which posits that the universe has no beginning or end in time and maintains a constant density through the continuous creation of new matter, even as it expands. This stands in contrast to the Big Bang theory, which suggests that the universe began from a singular event and has been evolving ever since.

Prof Narlikar’s main contribution to this theory was in the form of a rigorous mathematical framework, which modified Einstein’s equations to allow for the creation of new matter in the universe. This collaboration led to the Hoyle-Narlikar theory, which, by incorporating Mach’s principle, proposed a conformal theory of gravity as an alternative to the standard cosmological model.     

However, both the steady-state and quasi-steady-state models have lost favour due to observational evidence— particularly the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), the abundance of light elements, and the observed evolution of galaxies, and quasars over time— which supports the Big Bang theory. Nevertheless, the Hoyle-Narlikar partnership remains a significant chapter in the history of cosmology, having rigorously challenged mainstream ideas and sparked scientific debate.

In 1972, Dr. Narlikar returned to India and joined the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), where he spent 17 years building up the Theoretical Astrophysics Group to international prominence.

In 1988, he established the Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics (IUCAA) in Pune and was its founder Director until 2003. Under his visionary leadership, IUCAA gained worldwide recognition as a center of excellence in teaching and research in astronomy and astrophysics.

Prof Narliker remained a tenacious challenger of orthodoxy for over six decades. He firmly believed that even the most controversial scientific ideas need to be investigated. They should not be summarily rejected simply because they do not fit in the conventional framework. This philosophy strikingly reflects in his keen interest in panspermia:  the theory that suggests life exists throughout the universe and is spread through space dust, meteoroids, asteroids, comets and planetoids.  

Indeed, between 1999-2003, he led an international team in an experiment that involved sampling air at altitudes up to 41 km to study the presence of microorganisms. Biological analysis of the collected samples revealed the presence of live cells and bacteria, pointing to a fascinating possibility of Earth being continually bombarded by microorganisms, some of which might have seeded life here.

Besides being an active researcher, Prof Narlikar was also a popular science communicator. He kindled young minds of India with his popular science books, television programmes, and science fiction stories. His ability to explain complex scientific ideas in simple terms with clarity and wit earned him UNESCO Kalinga Award in 1966 for popularising science. 

Interestingly, at a meeting held in 1995 to celebrate the 80^th birth day of Fred Hoyle at the Cambridge University’s Institute of Astronomy (IoA)—which Hoyle himself had founded in 1972—he started his speech that was meant to trace his main contributions to astronomy, by saying: “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of a Jayant”. This highlights the profound impact of Prof Jayant Narlikar on the field of Astronomy. 

In the passing of Prof Narlikar, India has lost a visionary scientist and a passionate communicator of science to the common man.   

**

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr Manmohan Singh: An Economist Turned Prime Minister of India

 

Dr Manmohan Singh, an economist who practiced politics to steer India to a two-trillion-dollar economy, died on December 26, aged 92.

It was July 24, 1991. Venue: Parliament House, New Delhi. Occasion: Presentation of Union Budget for the year 1991-92. As Dr Manmohan Singh started appraising members of Parliament about India’s economy which was “in deep crisis” owing to large and persistent macroeconomic imbalances, low productivity of investment, unsustainable increase in government expenditure, budgetary subsidies grown to an alarming level, excessive and often indiscriminate protection provided to the industry that has weakened the incentive to develop a vibrant export sector, alarming current account deficit, depleted foreign currency reserves, etc., no one had any inkling that India is about to tread a new path in search of prosperity.

Stressing that “there is no time to lose” and “there can be no adjustment without pain”, and solely guided by the principle “that ultimately all economic processes are meant to serve the interests of our people”, Dr Singh gently nudged India away from the out-lived Nehruvian economics to a path of liberalization. This shift at once freed India from the shackles of a socialist-ideology-driven, ‘inward-looking’ growth path by launching far-reaching economic reforms.

Foreign trade, foreign direct investment and exchange rate regimes were all redefined. A two-stage devaluation of the rupee against the US dollar and a shift in the exchange rate regime that permitted current account convertibility of Indian rupee were among the fundamental changes introduced. The financial sector was overhauled: foreign capital was allowed into the banking and insurance sectors; ad-hoc treasury bills were abolished; and the government was no longer permitted to monetize its deficits by accessing the Reserve Bank of India’s resources. Instead, the government was made to borrow funds from the market to bridge the gap between revenue and expenditure; stock market operations were made transparent, which led to active participation of FIIs.  Taxes were lowered, the ‘License Raj’ was dismantled, and restrictions on the growth and diversification of large industrial houses were removed by scraping the MRTP Act. Simultaneously, the public sector’s monopoly was limited to a select few areas. 

Dr Singh could face irate Congress MPs, who could not digest his wide-ranging reforms, which included a steep cut in fertilizer subsidies, hikes in petrol and LPG prices, etc., with elan. By scaling back the proposed 40% increase in fertilizer prices to 30%, while standing firm on petrol prices, he could create a win-win outcome for both the party and government—a fine display of political economics. Thus, in a very subdued way, Dr Singh could reform India’s economic policies radically reconfiguring the country’s previously much-heckled “Hindu growth rate” of around 3 to 3.5% to an impressive 8% plus per annum. 

Born on September 26, 1992, in a village called Gah in West Punjab, now in Pakistan, migrating to India during Partition, this economist obtained his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Economics from Panjab University in 1952 and 1954 respectively. He went to Cambridge University and obtained an Economic Tripos in 1957. Throughout his student career, he consistently achieved top honors in every educational institute and received scholarships, including for PhD—a rare achievement. In 1962, he received his DPhil in Economics for his research on “India’s Export Trends and the Prospect for Self-Sustained Growth” from Oxford University. 

Dr Singh’s academic excellence was such that jobs began chasing him as soon as he completed the Economic Tripos. His career spanned academia—Panjab University and Delhi School of Economics— and public service. During 1966-69 he worked for the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. It is at UNCTAD that he is said to have learned how to reconcile differences, achieve compromises and negotiate in the international economic system, which appears to have come in handy for him while navigating through the maze of the political system as Finance Minister and later as Prime Minister.    

In 1971, he was appointed as Economic Advisor at the commerce ministry and in 1972, promoted as Chief Economic Advisor in the finance ministry. During 1980-82, he made valuable contributions as a member of the Planning Commission. In 1982 he became the youngest Governor of the Reserve Bank of India. As governor of RBI, he objected to the finance ministry’s willingness to grant permission to BCCI to open a branch in India by offering to resign on the issue. In 1985 he became the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission. During 1987-90, Dr Singh served as the secretary-general of the South Commission, an independent economic policy think tank based in Switzerland. Returning to India, he chaired the University Grants Commission in March 1991. Thus, he had a brilliant career enjoying the scope to work both nationally and internationally with the best of minds.  

It was with such a rich and varied experience that Dr Singh started his political career by accepting the call of the then Prime Minister, PV Narasimha Rao to be his finance minister in 1991 and the rest was history. After serving as leader of the opposition in Rajya Sabha from 1998 to 2004, Dr Singh took oath as the 14th Prime Minister of India on May 22, 2004, and again on May 22, 2009, for the second term. 

As Prime Minister, his notable achievement during his first term was the Indo-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement that opened up a new opportunity for our nuclear scientists by plucking them out of nuclear quarantine, to integrate themselves with the major global players and gain scope to push forward their technical competence in ensuring energy security for the country.  Dr Singh, a man of conviction and a leader willing to take political risks even if they were potential enough to jeopardize the very survival of his government, once again proved his ability to launch India on a new trajectory of strategic relationship with the United States. 

It was during his tenure as PM that India emerged on the global stage as a humanitarian assistance and disaster relief first responder, deploying its naval and air force missions with a total of 32 ships and 5,500 troops to provide relief to tsunami-affected Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Maldives. His engagement with the US, Japan and Australia in various meetings led to the formation of the Quad. This engagement with the Quad resulted in a breakthrough in India’s relations with Japan, which ended the country’s following the 1998 nuclear tests. It also helped India secure waivers from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, enabling access to nuclear fuel without signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Indeed, much can be said about his foreign policy successes as Prime Minister, and as he often said, all of this was made possible only because he was ready to sacrifice power if the cause was right. 

During his tenure as Prime Minister, several rights-based laws were passed. These include the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Right to Information Act, Right to Education Act, National Food Security Act and Forest Rights Act. However, the sanctity of the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme was seriously questioned by many economists. That aside, his second term as PM was marred by corruption charges in spectrum auctions, coal block allocations, etc., though none of them implied any personal involvement. In general, his second term was mostly accused of policy paralysis. Dr Singh, the pioneering reformist, was to pay a heavy price as PM by allowing his finance minister to go ahead with the infamous retrospective tax amendment.

Nevertheless, Dr Singh’s reputation of incorruptibility always kept him in good stead. His willingness to listen to views and opinions from advisory bodies, parliamentary committees, etc., and to take them into consideration for policy formulation is quite laudable. For instance, in 2012, while launching the revised edition of the book, India’s Economic Reforms and Development – Essays for Manmohan Singh in his august presence, Ishar J Ahluwalia arranged a panel discussion. Inviting the first panelist to speak, she announced, “We have an agreement with Prime Minister that ‘he is here to listen and not to speak’”, which is a testimony to Dr Singh’s passion for hearing fellow economists’ frank opinions and benefiting from them while framing and implementing policy changes. 

Dr Singh’s dedication to inclusive growth and the welfare of the common man was phenomenal. Dr Subba Rao, former Governor of the RBI, beautifully highlighted this commitment of Dr Singh by quoting one of his conversations with Dr Singh. It seems while going to take charge as the RBI governor, he sought Dr Singh’s advice. Smiling, Dr Singh responded, “What advice can I give you? You know the country well and you have worked at different levels…” However, as Dr Rao was about to leave, Dr Singh, with his characteristic grace, escorted him to the door and said, “Dr Rao, so far you have been in government, but the RBI is a different institution. Once you are there, there will be a risk of you getting immersed in numbers ... money supply, credit growth, repo rates, interest rates, inflation rates. There is a risk of you forgetting that real people are behind that … please keep your ear close to the ground and never lose sight of the fact that your decisions affect real lives”. 

Dr Singh’s defining legacy lies in pursuing the ‘politics of purpose’ in a duplicitous and virtueless arena, all without sacrificing his integrity, sincerity, loyalty, and humility. At an election rally, he once said: “We should criticize opposition parties and their policies with which we do not agree”, but not by using words that are “insulting” nor belittling the “dignity” of the party. While conceding that power-seeking is the legitimate goal of political parties, he emphasized that “to achieve the goal, no party should follow the route of cheap publicity...” A statesman alone can make such a statement at a political rally! In a similar vein, in an interview to The Hindu when former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee died, Dr Singh, quiet in a non-partisan style said: “In relations with the United States, and ties with Pakistan, I took more or less the same line as Mr Vajpayee had taken”—a rare feature in Indian politics.  

As CPI General Secretary D Raja observed, Dr Singh “had deep respect for democratic values. Despite ideological and policy disagreements, he maintained a spirit of decency, civility and fairness. His ability to engage with diverse views, his willingness to listen, and his unwavering commitment to the principles of democracy made him a statesman who earned the respect of all, regardless of political affiliation”. 

Dr Singh, who practiced the political philosophy of “Be detached to power and attached to purpose”, will always be remembered by India for his intellect, diligence, academic approach to work, accessibility, humility, and steadfast commitment to the country’s economic progress and welfare of the marginalized.

**

Yamini Krishnamurthy : A once-in-a-generation artist

Yamini Krishnamurthy, one of the foremost Bharatanatyam dancers of India who put Kuchipudi dance on a global pedestal, died on 3 August at the age of 83, bringing an era to an end.

Yamini Krishnamurthy was born on 20^th December 1940 in a Telugu-speaking family of artistic intellectuals at Madanapalli. Her father, Krishnamurthy was a Sanskrit scholar. As she was born on a full moon night, her grandfather named her ‘Yamini Poornatilaka’— a bright spot on the brow of night, nay light!  

She began her schooling in Bharatanatyam at the very tender age of five under the tutelage of that great Guru, Rukmini Devi Arundale in Kalakshetra, Madras.  Later she had her training under the great Nattuvanaras — Guru Elappa Pillai, Guru Kittappa Pillai, Guru Meenakshi Sundaram Pillai, Guru Dandayuthapani Pillai, and Mylapore Gouri Amma.

She gave her first performance in 1957 in Madras. Her father, Krishnamurthy, a great scholar of Natyashastra, used to introduce her programme in his impeccable English. Her sister, Jyotishmati, wielding cymbals, used to conduct Nattuvangam. She had a very melodious voice. Duly supported by these two, Yamini, with her expressive eyes, deep knowledge of art form that reflected in her powerful and graceful abhinaya which was adorned with emotional depth, and commanding stage presence, not only transfixed her audience but also made herself the most admired dancer by 1960.

Yamini, for many, is a celestial nymph who descended from the Gandharva world to captivate everyone with her graceful dance. Her flashing arms and vivacious abhinaya made Rasikas gasp in wonder. Her every movement on stage was poetry in motion. Every Bhangimaa static posture was a sculptural masterpiece— indeed appeared as though plucked out of a temple and placed on the stage.  

This reminds me of what she said about her childhood visits to Nataraja temple in Chidambaram: “I was in the temple town of Chidambaram … I would visit the temple of Nataraja, the god of dance. It was entertainment for me to see the sculptures till the age of five years. I learnt the movements by observing sculptures. I was inspired by these sculptures. They settled in my mind and they would come alive in my body”.

The initiation of this already well-established Bharatanatyam artist in Madras into Kuchipudi dance style was the result of a dance teacher, Sri Vedantam Lakshminarayana Sastry’s encouragement. One day, he visited her house in Madras and asked her, “Being a Telugu girl why are you veering more towards Bharatnatyam and not imbibing the Telugu art form of Kuchipudi”. Her “father brought him to stay with them permanently”. It is thus under his tutelage that her ‘Tapasya’ for Kuchipudi dance started with the item, Dasavatara Sabdam. In one of her interviews, she said: “Kuchipudi’s vivacious Abhinaya, the scope for spontaneity, the fast-paced nritta, all suited my own nature”.  Thus she got “hooked” to it and indeed felt “fortunate to have trained in Kuchipudi under the trinity who shaped modern Kuchipudi: Vedantam Laxminarayana Sastry, Chinta Krishnamurthy, and Pasumarthy Venu Gopala Sarma”.

Having thus mastered the Kuchipudi style, she, with her alluring expressions, swift looks and fleeting emotions, not only evoked Rasa in her audience but by giving performances all over India, she won public adoration for her Kuchipudi performances. She was the first to present Kuchipudi in London at a Commonwealth conference. She performed Kuchipudi across Europe, Russia, America and many other countries.

She indeed enjoyed a long and stellar career in Kuchipudi art form that was dotted with many unforgettable moments. The most favourite and popular item of her Kuchipudi repertoire to the audience was: Krishna Sabdam. Obviously, when her sister Jyotishmati’s sweet singing of Krishna Sabdam in raga Mohana flowed in her mellifluous voice: Narijana manasa chora / Satakoti manmadha kara / Ratnakara Saama gambhira / Mahaameru samaana dheera / Kavijana poshaka mandara / para raja shatru samhaara … followed by the matching seductive but elegant and royal images of Lord Krishna portrayed in succession by Yamini Krishnamutrhy, audience were simply swayed into a trance. The highlight of this performance was: as the exquisite poetic images flowing out in chaste Sanskrit and Telugu through her sister’s melodious voice: Ra, ra, Yadhuvamsa sudhambudhi Chandra / Swami ra ra, (come Lord, come), Yamini, sitting on the floor, enacted matching hand movements duly supported by seductive fleeting glares, followed by mischievous pouts, all of which cumulatively made her abhinaya so powerful that the resulting Sringara rasa simply lulled the spectators into a distant world. No wonder if an infatuated one from the audience—as she told in one of her interviews—thinking she was calling him, walked onto the stage!

The other most sought-after item from her was Kshera Sagara Madhanam ballet choreographed by none other than Vempati China Satyam in which she played Mohini. After watching her performance in Kshera Sagara Madhanam, Dr S Radhakrishnan gifted her a “Bhama Veni”. Apart from audiences' preferences, Yamini Krishnamurthy had her own pick: Sringara Lahari shrtajana Sukhakari, a composition in Sanskrit by Lingaraj Urs in raag Neelaambari displaying the aesthetic grace of Goddess Saraswathi, the benevolent patron of all art forms, was said to be her favourite. As her first student Smt Rama Vaidynathan observed, Yamini Krishnamurthy was the personification of Sringara Lahari for rasikas of over three decades.

She even learnt Odissi from Pankaj Charan Das. He taught her Pancha Kanya repertoire. Later she learnt from Guru Kelucharan Mahapatra the last Astapadhi, Kuru Yadunandana candana sisiratarena karena payodhare from the Gita Govinda. At one point of time, she used to perform all these three types of dance forms in one evening's programme. Her sister, Jyotishmita used to conduct Nattuvangam besides extending vocal support for all these three styles of her dance. Her father gave the introductions to each of the items being performed. Coming together, the three of them making a terrific combination, enthralled the audience.

Yamini Krishnamurthy played a stellar role in popularizing Kuchipudi art form of dance that was then emerging as a solo dance form across the globe. She remained dedicated to dance. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that she offered her body and mind to the art of dance. That is what could have enabled her to cultivate an uncanny ability to own the stage and move all over with the grace of a gazelle. As those movements transformed into a swift and articulated swirls with a piercing gaze, audience were just left groping to "know the dancer from the dance". Thus, her performances, dotted by grace, precision, and emotional depth, not only electrified audiences but also won her many laurels both from national and international audiences.

The death of Yamini Krishnamurthy, as her contemporary Padma Vibhushan Sonal Mansingh said, “Marks the end of a glorious phase in Indian classical dance”.

**

Bharat Ratna for PV : The PM Who ‘Empowered’ His Colleagues to Dissent

A leader’s strength reflects more in his ability to absorb the critics and march forward than in silencing them under the threat of power.

A great leader … and one who showed the courage of conviction in leading the nation through the right path of reforms against the heaviest odds” is what Pamulaparti Venkata Narasimha Rao (PV) was in the words of the former President of India, Pranab Mukherjee. 

Lee Hsien Loong, former Prime Minister of Singapore (2004-2020), described him as “A courageous and wise statesman who put India on the path of reform”. For Goh Chok Tong, former Prime Minister of Singapore (1990-2004), Rao was “an international statesman, a quiet but visionary leader of India” and “India is blooming today because of the foundation he laid”. 

In the words of Rao himself, as stated in his book, The Insider, he “climbed ladders and more ladders… feeling all the while that he was on level ground… from patvari to Prime Minister: A long journey from a small Indian village to the capital with no celebration at any stage”. And thus remained PV as “a modest man”, maybe consciously believing that he “has much to be modest about.”

It is destiny that he, a semi-retired politician, was all of a sudden catapulted to the PM’s seat as well as made the president of the Congress Party by the power centers led by Sonia Gandhi, of course not without a reason: His sobriety and the perceived “no threat” from him to the people who were already in commanding positions. 

Once in the saddle, he proved to be a great commander having a sound grip on the task of steering the country through turbulent times, despite inheriting a nation that was facing great threats from insurgents in Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir and economically it was on the brink of bankruptcy—“large and persistent macroeconomic imbalances, low productivity of investment, unsustainable increase in government expenditure, budgetary subsidies grown to an alarming level, excessive and often indiscriminate protection provided to the industry that has weakened the incentive to develop a vibrant export sector, growing current account deficits in the balance of payments, depleted foreign currency reserves to around $1 bn that was barely sufficient to finance two weeks of imports”, etc. 

Faced with a financial crisis of that magnitude, PV—“a courageous and wise statesman” but often dubbed as a consummate backroom politician—in an unprecedented and courageous move, appointed Manmohan Singh as Finance Minister with the responsibility of nursing and strengthening the ailing Indian economy. Through him, like Deng Xiaoping who steered China away from the Maoist policies to market economy during the early 1980s, Rao mustered the courage to gently push India away from Nehruvian economics to a path of liberalization that freed India from the shackles of socialist ideology-driven ‘inward-looking’ growth path. 

The reform process that was launched under him made far-reaching changes: Foreign trade, foreign investment and exchange rate regimes were all redefined. The financial sector was totally overhauled. Of all these reforms, the devaluation of the rupee and the shift in the very exchange rate regime were the fundamental ones, which the RBI could not have achieved but for the wholehearted support from Rao. 

In the words of C Rangarajan, the then Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, Rao stood solidly behind the finance minister extending all political support needed to put India on the right economic course. As the ex-governor observed, he was not a reluctant reformer although he did not sound that enthusiastic while these path-breaking reforms were successfully executed. 

He did just what he was supposed to do—watching their implementation from a distance without poking his nose, simply as an elderly statesman. Unlike the common ilk of politicians, he did not make too much noise in implementing these reforms attracting the otherwise avoidable resentment from the staunch followers of the erstwhile regime. 

He had thrown open the door to foreign institutional investors to invest in Indian capital markets and foreign direct investments in many sectors despite strong opposition from powerful industrial houses to such initiatives. The Colas and the likes of IBM who had been banished from India earlier were welcomed back. Being fully convinced about the need for fundamental economic changes, he stood like a rock behind the various reforms that were launched and executed. However, being a wily politician, “He couched his views in such a way that it appealed to the old guard of his party.” To quote the former Governor of RBI, he “always talked of ‘continuation’ when there was really a ‘break’”. 

Rao reformed the country in such a way that he could finally reconfigure the “Hindu growth rate” and, to the surprise of everybody, it leapfrogged to 8% plus. At the same time, he never lost his concern for the poor and the vulnerable as the following lines written by him in a document reveal: “There is, however, one danger which we must recognize and guard against in the ‘opening up’ process. This could lead to wider disparities within the society. To meet this situation, we have to enable the underprivileged sections also to derive the benefit of the new opportunities. This process would naturally need some time to fructify. Until that happens, there has to be a by-pass arrangement whereby benefits reach the lowest rungs of the social pyramid directly from the State. We are doing this”.

 

He accomplished all this in a pretty subdued way, and yet, lost his job. To quote him: “I lost one job trying to implement a socialistic program” (Chief Ministership of Andhra Pradesh while implementing land reforms in the early 1970s) and “as if to balance it, I have also lost another job trying to liberalize what had tended to become insensitive somehow after the socialist process, though not because of it,” and that was the irony which even statesmen of his calibre could not escape from. 

This side of PV’s personality is of course, well-known to everyone for that was what often prized in public or private. But what our younger generation, which is attempting to whisk out of the colonial moorings, should know about PV is the “other side” of him which is unfortunately spoken of less, be it in public or private. 

To appreciate it better, let us first take a look at what the Congress Party is known as, or for that matter, the predominant tilt we as Indians have towards “mai-baap” culture, where everyone is afraid to air his feelings freely. While intervening in the debate on the resolution moved by Morarji Desai on purity and strengthening the organization at the Congress Subjects Committee meeting at Satyamurty Nagar, Avadi on January 20, 1955, and the suggestion made by Algurai Shastri that the resolution should not publicize the malpractices that had crept into the Congress since self-criticism in public simply would put the noose round the necks of Congressmen which other people might use to drag them with, Jawaharlal Nehru said: “I have been president of the Congress and I know from personal experience that there is a lot of impurity in the Congress and even some of the biggest Congressmen are a party to it. Why should we hide these things? Are we to live behind purdah and wear a veil? Algurai Shastri has himself talked to me several times about these impure trends in the Congress and expressed his regret about them. If any member wants to suggest an amendment to the resolution, by all means he can do it, but we must face our weaknesses and drawbacks and the impure trends that have crept in, truthfully and honestly.” 

No one would perhaps disagree if I said that Nehru’s lamentation remained all along a distant dream, till at least PV landed on the Prime Ministerial gaddi. It is not known if it was to compensate for his act of nudging India away from Nehruvian economic policies that Rao wanted to push the Congressmen gently towards what Nehru desired to happen: He did grant allowances to his detractors to air their feelings, views even contrary to the party’s stance and, for that matter, even criticize the leadership without fear and hang-ups. Else, the Tiwaris, Singhs, et al., would not have had the courage to openly question the wisdom of Rao or criticize his acts from public platforms. 

PV’s grace simply radiates from the fact of his maintaining silence over such criticisms. We, however, do not know if this empowering of his colleagues to freely air their opinions which could be quite embarrassing to the power centers and maintaining stoic silence over them was by design, believing in Machiavelli’s principles: “Scorn and abuse arouse hatred against those who indulge in them without bringing them any advantage” and “Prudent Princes and Republics should be content with victory, for, when they are not content with it, they usually lose”, or by default. 

Nevertheless, he did reform the mindset of Indians. He simply emboldened the people to question the “authority” and seek answers. Whether this reform has taken roots as firmly as the economic reforms or not is a different question. What matters here is, a beginning had been made and Rao walked away with that credit. We must salute Rao for watering Nehru’s longings to germinate at least after 40 years. And that is what metamorphosed PV, a politician, into a “wise statesman”. 

PV, the “true father” of India’s nuclear program, besides the much talked about economic reforms, thus richly deserves the Bharat Ratna.

**

Fali S Nariman (1929-2024)

Fearless lawyer and an outspoken advocate for secularism and civil liberties, Fali Nariman, who was awarded Padma Bhushan and Padma Vibhushan during his illustrious career, passed away in the wee hours of February 21, at the age of 95.

His principled commitment to democracy and the rule of law reflected the sentiments of the founding fathers of the Constitution—liberty, equality and fraternity—all through the course of his glittering legal career. He came into prominence nationwide with his tendering resignation as the Additional Solicitor General of India—one of the senior-most law officers of the Union government who was supposed to defend its actions in court—in June 1975 as a protest against the emergency proclamation order issued by the then Indira Gandhi government. This was an act of great courage, for at that time government was all out for imprisoning people who did not fall in line with its thinking.

Intriguingly, recalling the failure of the constitutional functionaries, including Supreme Court judges in protecting the Constitution and fundamental rights, he commented in his autobiography, Before Memory Fades, that “It was judicial pusillanimity at its worst”.

Appreciating the fact that a free press is highly critical for the survival of democracy, he appeared for the Indian Express when the government in the heydays of emergency (1975-77) threatened to forfeit the lease of its headquarters in Delhi for a minor violation of municipal bylaws— indeed threatened to demolish the building. He could convince the Supreme Court with his arguments that the threat of forfeiting the lease was a mere pretext to silence the press from airing its critical coverage of the government’s wrongdoings. His greatness as an advocate lies in his craft of not only arguing his case from the high pedestal of his mastery over constitutional theory but also in drawing the Court’s attention to the nitty gritty of Municipal laws that have a bearing on the case and thus could succeed in getting the notice quashed. 

In his long legal journey, he was a party to landmark cases such as Sankari Prasad Singh Deo, Kesavananda Bharati, IC Golaknath, Minerva Mills, TMA Pai in which the Supreme Court defined constitutional norms and the very course of jurisprudence.

There is however an exception to his illustrious legal journey: He appeared in the Bhopal gas tragedy case on behalf of Union Carbide for which he was severely attacked. Of course, he countered it with an argument that such an approach puts a tremendous burden of “pre-judging guilt” on lawyers.

He was a distinguished constitutional law advocate. This lawyer, aged 86 years, argued the case, National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), standing in the Court right from 10.30 am to 1 pm and again from 2 pm to 4 pm every day for a week driving home the foremost need for maintaining judicial independency in his penetrating voice—“vesting the power of appointing judges on the executive is inappropriate and arbitrary” —paved the way for the establishment of the Supreme Court Collegium.

His concern for secularism defined his legal journey. He was once representing the Gujarat government on the Narmada rehabilitation case. While the PIL filed on behalf of tribals was pending in court, Nariman, learning about the burning of churches in many parts of Gujarat, returned the brief in protest in December 1998 saying, “I would not appear for the State of Gujarat in this or any other matter”.

In a profession where pettiness, jealousy and excessive rivalry are ruling the roost making the profession of lawyers less ‘noble’, Fali Nariman’s qualities of clean, open and magnanimous large-heartedness stand out as a beacon of hope, observed Abhishek Singhvi, the senior lawyer and member, Rajya Sabha. 

Twice he was offered the post of attorney general by two Prime Ministers—once by Deve Gowda in 1996 and Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1998—and both times he refused it politely. Recalling it later in his autobiography, he wrote that “apart from not wanting to be a part of BJP-led government, the trauma of resigning in protest as a law officer for the second time dissuaded me from saying yes”.

He signed off his autobiography stating: “My greatest regret in a long, happy, interesting life is the intolerance that has crept into our society. For centuries, Hinduism had been the most tolerant of all religions …  This great orchestra of different languages and praying of different Gods—that we profoundly call India— is now seen and heard playing out of tune … I have lived and flourished in a secular India. In the fullness of time if God wills, I would like to die in a secular India”.

In the death of Fali S Nariman, the legal fraternity lost its foremost voice of conscience.  

 

 

 

Dr MS Swaminathan: Father of India’s Green Revolution

Dr Mankombu Sambasivan Swaminathan, the visionary geneticist who transformed India’s agricultural landscape passed away on September 28 in Chennai at the age of 98.

**

Dr Swaminathan was born in Kumbakonam, Tamilnadu, on August 7, 1925 to Smt Parvati Thangammalhe and Dr MK Sambasivan. After completing his schooling in Kumbakonam he did his graduation from the University College, Thiruvananthapuram, and later Agricultural College, Coimbatore. He then joined IARI, New Delhi and obtained Associateship in Genetics.

In 1949 he went to Wageningen University, Netherlands, to study genetics on a UNESCO scholarship. In 1950 he joined the Plant Breeding Institute of the University of Cambridge and earned PhD in 1952 for his thesis “Species Differentiation, and the Nature of Polyploidy in certain species of the genus Solanum – section Tuberarium”.

It is with cytogenetic studies in potato—speciation: species interrelationships -- induced polyploids in Solanum species— that he started his brilliant research career in 1949 at Wageningen and continued it at Cambridge as a research scholar and later in Wisconsin, USA as a postdoctoral fellow. Noticing the genomic affinity of the cultivated tetraploid potato with wild diploid species, he undertook the transfer of genes from wild species to cultivated potato to make it resistant to abiotic and biotic stresses. Later this hybrid material was used to develop a frost-resistant potato variety called ‘Alaska Frostless’.

In a span of about five years, he published research papers of significance on “Induced Polyploids in Non-tuberous Solanums and their crossability with potato” in reputed journals such as Genetics, Nature, Journal of Heredity, Genetica, etc. His exhaustive review ‘The Cytology and Genetics of the Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) and related Species’, published along with Dr H.W. Howard in 1953 is still quoted by researchers engaged in the genetics of potato.

Turning down the faculty position offered by Wisconsin University, he returned in 1954, perhaps to make a difference in agriculture back home in India. He then joined CRRI, Cuttack and carried out indica-japanica rice hybridization programme, which resulted in varieties like ADT27 and RASI. This he later commented as the early harbinger of the Green Revolution movement in India.

After six months he joined IARI, Delhi as an Assistant Cytogeneticist in the division of Botany. It is at IARI that he did his most outstanding basic research spreading across the elucidation of the structure of the chromatid, mitosis in yeast, mechanisms of ionizing radiation and chemical mutagenesis, radio-sensitivity as a function of ploidy level, actions of low and high LET ionizing radiations on diploid and polyploid wheats, etc.

Establishing a ‘Gamma-Garden’ with 200 Curie cobalt 60 source at IARI, he carried out chronic irradiation of crops to overcome ‘diplontic selection’ in vegetatively propagated material exposed to ionizing radiation.

He also set up laboratories to carry out basic research in cytogenetics using Drosophila melanogaster and human peripheral blood leucocytes in vitro. He was among the first and foremost to use the method of human chromosome preparation recommended by Moorhead (1960) to study the indirect effects of radiation on human chromosomes.

His intellectual curiosity opened up new avenues for basic and applied research in the areas of cytogenetics of wheat, monosomic - nullisomic analysis—useful to identify the chromosomes carrying desirable genes for biotic and abiotic stresses— in hexaploid wheat, radiation and chemical mutagenesis, ‘Oxygen effect’ in low and high LET radiobiology, etc. Dr Swaminathan’s School of Cytogenetics, IARI attracted global attention for its excellence in basic research in cytogenetics and radiation biology as revealed by papers published in journals such as Nature, Current Science, Genetics, Radiation Research, Radiation Botany, Environmental and Experimental Botany, Experientia, Die Naturwissenschaften, Experimental Cell Research, etc.

It is commented that Dr Swaminathan’s early basic research on the effects of ionizing radiation on cells and organisms—correcting the fallacy under ‘target theory’— partly formed the base for today’s ‘Redox Biology’. Rudy Rabbinge, Professor Emeritus, Wageningen University, Netherlands commented on Swaminathan’s paper on neutron radiation in agriculture in 1966 presented at an International Atomic Energy Agency conference as “epoch-making”. Incidentally, as I am keying in these paras, the late-night discussions I used to have with my roommate on radiation genetics, Prof AK Sharma's style of work in his Lab and particularly about my pet creature, Drosophila in Lake Hall in 1966-68 flashed in my mind.

It was in recognition of his original and theoretical and experimental basic research in cytogenetics, radiation and chemical mutagens-induced clastogenesis and mutagenesis that Dr Swaminathan was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1973.

Unlike many other scientists who remained contended with carrying out basic research and publishing the results in high-impact journals and moving to newer areas, Dr Swaminathan’s sense of social responsibility drove him towards applied research to achieve freedom for the country from dependence on food imports. This led him to strive to reduce the height of wheat plants without reducing the length of grain-bearing panicles through interspecific hybridization, induced radiation and chemical mutagenesis, and use of plant growth regulators to improve their response to fertilization and thereby improve productivity. This path, though added to the basic knowledge of biological processes induced by physical and chemical agents, could not fulfill his objective of evolving dwarf/semi-dwarf wheat plants with normal spikes.

However, his trait of keeping himself abreast of major innovations in the world had finally led him to trace the Norin-10 dwarfing genes from Japan in wheat and Deejee-woo-jen dwarfing genes from China in rice. His contact with Prof. Orville Vogel of Washington University for dwarf wheat seeds ultimately led him to Norman E. Borlaug. It is this partnership of Swaminathan-Borlaug that ultimately introduced Mexican semi-dwarf wheat varieties to Indian farmers and thus paved the way for India’s Green Revolution in 1968. 

This fact is vindicated by Borlaug himself in a letter stating that “To you, Dr Swaminathan, a great deal of credit must go for first recognizing the value of the Mexican dwarfs (wheat seedlings). Had this not occurred, it is quite possible that there would not have been a green revolution in Asia”. 

His incisive vision on the role of science for serving societal aims is described as more than impressive. He authored/edited 18 books and published 254 papers in various journals of which he was the single or first author of 155 papers. They spread across crop improvement (95), Cytogenetics and genetics (87) and phylogenetics (72). He was also a passionate teacher known for elegantly simplifying the complex structural and functional aspects such as formation of asynapsis’ and ‘desynapsis’, etc., of course, without losing the science thereof. He taught cytogenetics, radiation genetics, and mutation breeding during late 1950s through 60s.

He became Director of IARI in 1966 and steered it to newer heights. In 1972 he became the Director General of ICAR and in 1979 joined the Government of India as principal secretary of Agriculture and Irrigation. Finally, in 1980 he retired from government service and joined the Planning Commission as a member for agriculture and rural development.

During 1982-88 he steered the International Rice Research Institute, Philippines with new scientific initiatives while adhering to ecological and social dimensions of sustainable development. Under his direction, efforts were initiated to create rice with better carbon fixation capabilities so that better photosynthesis and water usage leading to higher production can be accomplished.

He was an ardent builder of institutions. He established the Nuclear Research Laboratory at the IARI. He played an active role in the establishment of ICRISAT in India, International Board for Plant and Genetic Resources in Italy and International Council for Research in Agro-Forestry in Kenya. He also helped to build and develop institutions for research in China, Vietnam, Myanmar, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Iran and Cambodia.

The role played by Dr Swaminathan in science and public policy for the last 70 years is commended by fellow scientists as “unapproachable”. It is obvious that he had received 84 honorary doctorates. Dr MS won many awards both in India and abroad, notable among them is: the first World Food Prize. With the prize money, he established the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation in 1988 in Chennai to harness science and technology for ‘sustainable agriculture’ and ‘sustainable rural development’. Under his guidance, the Foundation is also researching the impact of climate change on crop productivity and the conservation of coastal biodiversity with a focus on the mangrove ecosystem. With his ‘Antyodaya’ approach Dr MS wanted India to bridge the digital, genetic, technological, nutritional, and gender divides to a great extent and solve the problem of food and income security. He and his Research Foundation did work to achieve this goal. No wonder, the Hungarian writer, Erdelyi Andreas called him “a modern Gandhi”. 

As AK Singh, Director, IARI, observed this “modern Gandhi”, deserves to be “worshiped by every citizen [Indian] while taking daily meals”.

**