For me, it all started with a WhatsApp message in wide circulation late last month. Ripples were created in the silent waters of the financial lives of many by Atanu Chakraborty with his resignation as Chairman of HDFC Bank. Chakraborty and the bank were all over the media. The air was filled with agonizing concerns over ethics and values of an otherwise conservative bank. Shares of the bank took a severe beating. Fortunately, there was no run
on the bank by depositors. As I am heavily banked with the bank, I wanted to know if everything was hunky dory. I spoke to my Relationship Manager who was as clueless. I turned to the television to get some dope on the issue. That’s where I chanced upon an interview of Chakraborty by Shereen Bhan of CNBC-TV18. Disregarding the inscrutable, Monalisa-ic responses by Chakraborty to most of Bhan’s questions, let’s put the issue in perspective.
I have interacted with quite a few of them in course of work when I was helming the Financial Inclusion Insurance vertical of a large financial services group. They all are, by and large, intelligent, reasonably enlightened, make no bones of the limitations of Weber’s topology of bureaucracy and are quite adept at extracting the maximum possible out of the system they are a part of. I am talking about bureaucrats, also called IAS officers. But there are some of
them who defy the discerption. And then there are some who fail to scratch the surface to find out that omnipotence, a capability commonly attached to bureaucrats, is a bubble which is sure to burst if taken too seriously. Atanu Chakraborty, a retired IAS officer, appears to be heavily hung up on the maai–baap trappings of the bureaucracy.
I am reminded of an incident which, I believe, will help us peep into Chakraborty’s psyche. I joined a large financial services group way back in the year 2002 at Kolkata. We had just started our operations in the East. The work was chaotic, taxing but fulfilling. The team was a motley group of youngsters with diverse backgrounds. The average age was about twenty-six. I was the one who spoiled the average. The youngsters were irreverential (not
disrespectful) of protocols and corporate-bureaucracy. One day, a Johnny from the Corporate-HR visited us. When he entered the office, late evening, we all were having samosa (shingara as it is called in the East) and muri (puffed rice). It was a ritual which I started to get informal downloads from the team members every evening. He did what he had come for and left. But I couldn’t help notice that he was a tad too grumpy all through the time he spent in the office. The next day I got a call from the Head-HR to joke about the Johnny having a grouse against the team for not insisting that he too joined samosa and muri session. Moral of the story; the Johnny felt slighted. He didn’t want to concede his own inability to ease himself into the samosa-muri ritual. He, to his utter discomfort, couldn’t take his grouse to the conclusion he wanted to as he was reminded of the juvenility thereof by the Head-HR. Drawing a parallel, one of the major prompts for Chakraborty’s resignation, my take-away from Bhan’s interview, could probably be him not being invited to samosas by the HDFC natives. Little did one know that otherwise harmless samosas could cost almost Rs.56,000 crores.
I recommend all should watch Bhan’s 45-minutes interview with Chakraborty on a program titled “On the record”. Not because the issue is topical. Watch it to get to know more about a new ilk of people (saddled in responsible positions) who can put big public money to great risks by casting (publicly) unsubstantiated aspersions on financial institutions. Of course, sans any accountability. What separates the actions of such people from those of the original slayers like Mallyas, Modis and Choksis is the underlying intent.
Chakraborty joined the bank’s Board in July-2021 as an independent Director. Later, he chaired the Board since May-2024 until he abruptly resigned in March-2026 citing differences with the management over “values and ethics”. What followed during the week after was a massive erosion in the market cap of the bank by Rs.56,000 crores owing to, inter alia, Chakraborty’s insinuations in his resignation letter. To give the devil its due, not entire erosion can be laid at the doorstep of Chakraborty. There were other market-related reasons too.
Let’s look at Chakraborty’s resignation letter of 18 th March,2026. The damaging paragraph reads “Certain happenings and practices within the bank, that I have observed over last two years, are not in congruence with my personal Values and Ethics. This is the basis of my aforementioned decision”. This makes one curious about his own credentials whilst he was
an independent Director / Chairman of the Board and his intentions underlying the aspersions he subtly cast on the management through his letter. He does owe us answers to a few questions.
- Were there similar or other “happenings” in the bank in the past which he may have raised red-flags on. Or was this his proverbial first time. If latter be the case, one would be keen to know the prompt this time.
- He speaks of incongruity between his “personal values and Ethics” and “certain happenings” over the “last two years”. Ironically, it was Chakraborty himself who chaired the Board during these two years. Did he bring these “happenings” to the attention of the Board during this period. If not, why. Assuming he did raise his concerns earlier too and that the Board or the management was unresponsive, why did he choose to stay put and not resign earlier.
- As an independent Director or later as the Chairman, did he ever report these “happenings” to the regulator i.e., RBI. Or to the SEBI as HDFC Bank is a listed entity. If not, why. If otherwise, what prevents him to state unequivocally that these two forums too ignored the “happenings”, displaying their lack of concern for ethics and values.
- As a retired, senior bureaucrat (who superannuated from the Finance Ministry) and Chairman of the bank didn’t he realize that the cryptic remarks he made in his letter were sure to create a mayhem in the stock market. Was he cerebrally too challenged to understand that the content of his letter carried a distinct possibility of creating a run on the bank by depositors, rendering a too-big-to-fail bank (known as D-SIB) unstable. Lest these observations are misunderstood, no one is questioning his privilege to red-flag the “happenings” and seek course-correction. It’s the platform he chose to ventilate himself that makes him the Ceaser’s wife.
- All through the interview with Bhan, he tried sounding like someone just out of a crash course on the Art of Living. Trying to be philosophical about the controversy he himself had created. His demeanour was unapologetically maai-baapish. On being asked if his resignation was an outcome of the personality clash between him and the management, he turned pedagogical and spoke at length as to why diversity of opinions was desirable. But he unwittingly gave out that there were differences which were “blown out of proportion”. All should see the smirk on his face. Like a cat who had just licked the cream. One was reminded of Rahul Gandhi’s juvenile remark, “kar diya na” (we did it) whilst reacting to the incident where his political associates shamed India by doing an almost full monty whilst protesting at the AI Impact Summit, a global event, in February-2026. Both Rahul and Chakraborty think that they are being clever by half through their observations / comments. But they are flat persons who are evidently ignorant of the implications of their statements.
One wonders if India can ever hold people in responsible positions accountable for their irresponsible utterances. Especially those who try to undermine public confidence in institutions for personal aggrandizement. Bhan had the right questions for Chakraborty which he was hard pressed to answer convincingly. He repeatedly took refuge under either the
need to maintain confidentiality or displayed his moral grandstanding in not letting others in on his private conversations with others. Too civilized a journalist, Bhan chose not to pursue answers to her questions beyond a point.