1. This is not financial terrorism. 2. Satyam, like any big company in India (reliance or sahara or sheila dikshit's son's malls and blueline buses or any other) is close to the powers, be it Naidu or the present CM Reddy. That is the practice in India. It may not be wrong unless undue advantage is taken from the relationship.
3. Rajeev Srinivasan's article had simply pointed out that Satyam is not a one-off case (as many other people have concurred). He had also given the justification on the basis that the father's and son's company are dealing with each other. Using common understanding, this is nothing special. However, since satyam was a board-ruled company, things change a bit. Rajeev S had clearly stated that he was not an expert in this matter and the article was his own opinion. And he was partly right because the same WB that is now bent on barring Satyam had not barred the several companies that have taken the world economy down with their subprime foolishness.
