The sentencing of Sri Lankan born hedge fund billionaire, Raj Rajaratnam to a lengthy jail term on charges of insider trading is big news in the financial world. The news has also proved to be of special interest to South Asian Americans who are used to seeing the conspicuous success of members of their community but not so much their downfall. I for one, cringed when I read the widely cited interview of Rajaratnam by Suketu Mehta in Newsweek and its sister web site The Daily Beast. The reason for my discomfort was not so much that I belong to the same community as most of the culprits of this gang. I once pointed out here that I rarely ever personalize the success or failure of people who share my ethnicity. What I found jarring in Mehta's otherwise very readable interview was the emphasis on the desi angle to Rajaratnam's crimes and subsequent arrest and conviction.
Rajaratnam is an immigrant, not American-born. He had grown up, as he tells it, in fear: of the Sinhalese majority in his homeland; of the skinheads in Britain where he’d studied; and of the established elites of Wall Street where he did business. At just about every stage of his life, there were people out to get him. “I saw myself as an underdog.”...
...Part of Rajaratnam’s narrative is that of a man from a smaller South Asian country seduced and betrayed by people from the Big Brother country. Kumar had introduced him to Rajat Gupta. The two of them wanted to start an Indian School of Business in Hyderabad. “I gave them [the school] a million dollars. I later found out they never contributed any of their money, and are listed as the school’s founders. And I’m not even a fucking Indian.”
The betrayal by the Indian associates hurts the most—he barely mentions the white government witnesses. He regrets doing a joint venture with the Indians.
The South Asian connection makes less sinister some of the allegations in the trial. For example, the prosecution noted that Rajaratnam would visit Goel’s house in Silicon Valley, presumably to talk about Intel. But the real explanation is more human. “His wife makes really good chaat[a savory snack]!” Rajaratnam and Goel were very good friends, so his betrayal hurts him personally.
“There are two types of plea bargains. One is, you cooperate with the government. You finger 10 other people. The other is a plea bargain without cooperation.” The white defendants all pleaded without cooperating; they did not wear a wire. “The South Asians all did the plea bargain with fingering,” he notes sourly. “The Americans stood their ground. Every bloody Indian cooperated—Goel, Khan, Kumar.” He puts it down to “the insecurity of being an immigrant, lawyers bullying them into that position.”
Rajaratnam has very deep pockets, lived in a Penthouse in Manhattan and stole like many other high rollers of Wall Street. That his network consisted mostly of Indians is not terribly germaine to the legal troubles he is in. After all, the prosecutor who went after him is also of Indian origin and one of the two FBI agents who arrested him is Asian. Do people feel more comfortable in committing crimes when they are among "friends" or cohorts who "understand" them? (Think of the Italian/Jewish/Irish Mafias of the mid 20th century) Perhaps. But it still makes them criminals. The fact that Rajaratnam and his partners are relatively new immigrants is relevant only if they were operating under the misguided notion that a) they would not be caught and b) that if caught, they could buy their way out as they may well have in the countries of their birth. Both Preet Bharara, the prosecutor and Rajaratnam himself hint that indeed the underlying mentality may have been a bit like that, even when it was clear that things don't quite work that way in the US for the most part and the American law can not accommodate a culprit's cultural background.
The whole story speaks to the South Asian–American community: its pursuit of success and money at any cost; the differences between immigrants and the first generation; and the immigrants’ incomplete understanding of the rigor of the law in the U.S.
“There are rules and there are laws, and they apply to everyone, no matter who you are or how much money you have,” says [Preet] Bharara. This is what was not easily understood by the South Asians named in the conspiracy. There are laws and rules in India and Sri Lanka, too, but they can be tested, ignored by those who have money or friends"...
As late as two weeks before the sentencing, Rajaratnam was still being asked by the government to turn on Gupta. But he wouldn’t wear a wire, he says, so he could sleep at night. “Anil Kumar’s son worked at Galleon one summer. I used to vacation with Rajiv Goel’s family. Their families knew my family. You don’t think this is going to haunt these guys? They wanted me to plea-bargain. They want to get Rajat. I am not going to do what people did to me. Rajat has four daughters.”
The Rajaratnam case can be seen as a metaphor of the difference between immigrants from South Asia, who have a more elastic view of rules and a more keenly developed art of networking, and their children, the first generation, schooled to play by American rules. Preet Bharara came to the U.S. when he was an infant. Yet for all his complaints about unfairness, Rajaratnam, surprisingly, still believes in American justice. “In Sri Lanka I would have given the judge 50,000 rupees and he’d be sitting having dinner at my house. Here, I got my shot. The American justice system is by and large fair.”
In your case too?” I ask. “I said by and large.”
Follow up in the New York Times and a rebuttal in the San Francisco Chronicle .
@ Ruchira:
When I first read of Raj Rajaratnam's indictment and arrest, several days ago, my first and spontaneous reaction was cynical. Why am I reading headlines of investment crimes about a brown-skinned, heavily mustachioed, immigrant billionaire from the other side of the world? What's the matter? Do we have a shortage of native-born, light-skinned, clean shaved, super rich criminals in this country?
Posted by: Norman Costa | October 27, 2011 at 04:57 PM
Norman,
You are right. We need to see some of those behind bars also. But remember that some of them get caught too. Bernie Madoff comes to mind. But he is Jewish. How about those "boys" of Enron? Many of them were brought down from their high horse. There was even a suicide, right here in my neighborhood, albeit in a subdivision where the home prices are in seven figures.
Posted by: Ruchira | October 27, 2011 at 05:55 PM
Rajaratnam is pathetic. He gorges a lust for money, and for trivia like panoramic views of Manhattan (this echoes a fluff piece I read a couple days ago about Larry Ellison's multiple residences, one of which has a view of San Francisco Bay he sued to retain), yet he has the gall to bemoan a former friend's disloyalty. He has no idea what loyalty means. He thinks it a species of "connection," a material support, rather than an emotional one, for reliance. Much of the story's efforts to explain his behavior as being consistent with some original ethnic/cultural background are weak. He deserves no cultural defense. Sri Lankan law enforcement is malleable. And so it is in the US, contrary to Raj's respect for its fairness, "by and large."
Apropos of all this, Glenn Greenwald has been peddling his book today on several street corners. Here's a good interview that captures the gist: http://www.truth-out.org/why-elite-class-protected-under-americas-justice-system/1319566022, but there are plenty more linked at today's Salon post. I suppose it's telling that Raj is one of the few elite who wasn't spared, and that this is due to his ethnic identity. Similarly, many claim Martha Stewart was nailed because she's a woman. White establishment power can afford to sacrifice these outliers, the argument goes. I buy it, but frankly I wouldn't care much if America's peculiar institution were merely arbitrary exclusion of certain "sorts" of people from country clubs. Golf, like a view of the Manhattan skyline, is insignificant. The problem with finance and wealth accumulation in America isn't that there aren't enough women and Sri Lankans participating. It's that it exists in the form it has at all.
Posted by: Dean C. Rowan | October 27, 2011 at 06:11 PM
I doubt that it was pure 'lust for money' that drives the likes of Rajaratnam. Some of it is also the thrill of flouting the laws and making piles of money as a side effect. He may try to rationalize his ill-gotten gains by donating generously to various charities, but it does not excuse his activities. Now, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by having a sympathetic portrayal of his plight, and Suketu Mehta has done a fine job of portraying him as larger-than-life, in rather 'Nayakan'-ish terms, minus the gore (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093603/plotsummary).
I see that Bernie Madoff is trying that route of redemption by confessional biography, as well, with Barbara Walters' assistance.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/bernie-madoff-interview-inside-barbara-walters-exclusive/story?id=14826360
Entertaining stories, even if they aren't edifying.
Posted by: Sujatha | October 27, 2011 at 06:46 PM
Re: Bernie Madoff:
I was reading excerpts from an interview with Madoff. His 'confession' and seeming resignation to his fate are typical of a sociopath. His commentary is completely self-referential. His acknowledgement that he should be in jail is only a tip of the hat to the legal system that he is forced to deal with. He acknowledges the legitimacy of his conviction only in terms of abstract consequences. If everyone got away with stealing, then our society would cease to function. Also, he tries to mitigate his wrong doing so that he is not viewed as the personification of pure evil. He said, "I made a lot of money for wealthy people." Finally, he shows a complete lack of empathy for those who have been impoverished, and their retirement devastated.
I taught college in a maximum security prison for one semester. My mentor, who taught as well, and I made the same observation. The most animated, fun, and pleasurable conversations the prisoners had with each other, involved relating how successful and clever they were in committing their crimes or getting over on a victim. In this regard, I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that Madoff is no different from the other sociopaths with whom he shares a cell block.
Posted by: Norman Costa | October 27, 2011 at 08:14 PM
Still, his attempt to buy Brown victimhood is not irrational. Everyone, even prisoners, need sympathy and he will get some. His family and friends will have a narrative that helps them keep their head up. When he gets out, he will walk with pride as yet another victim of White privilege. In his situation, its the smart move…
Posted by: omar | October 28, 2011 at 09:53 AM
Re Bernie Madoff - 2:
Why are people interviewing this sociopath?
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/10/27/behar-bernie-madoff.hln
Posted by: Norman Costa | October 28, 2011 at 02:31 PM