The recent controversy surrounding the bulk purchase of the book India@100, authored by former Chief Economic Adviser K.V. Subramanian, has put Union Bank of India squarely in the spotlight—and not for the right reasons.
According to reports, one of the reasons Subramanian’s tenure as India’s Executive Director at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was cut short was the alleged impropriety involving the promotion of this book. Now, new questions are surfacing: Why did a public sector bank spend crores of rupees on this book? Who authorised it? What was the business rationale?
These are not rhetorical queries. They are questions of public accountability. The money in question comes from the coffers of a government-owned bank—ultimately, from Indian taxpayers and depositors. The bank’s employees, under the banner of the All India Union Bank Employees Association (AIUBEA), have rightly demanded a formal investigation into this matter. Their letter to Union Bank MD & CEO A. Manimekhalai lays out a troubling narrative.
The union alleges that it had raised red flags about this very expenditure last year, during a period of labour unrest and formal discussions with the management. It wasn’t just the books. The union questioned other so-called “wasteful expenses” too—frequent renovations, redundant equipment, and excessive surveillance systems. The bank, in its response—now part of a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)—claimed that all expenditures were made with the approval of competent authorities and were “necessary to promote business.”
Let’s pause here. Promoting business through a book written by a former CEA? Was the book tied to a specific financial literacy campaign or branding strategy? Was there a measurable outcome expected—client acquisition, public engagement, or thought leadership? If so, where is the impact analysis?
The absence of transparency is concerning. If the purchase was above a certain financial threshold—and in this case, we’re talking about crores—was due process followed? Were CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) guidelines adhered to? Was competitive bidding or vendor selection done? These are basic questions of governance in any public institution.
Equally troubling is the silence from the bank’s top leadership. As of this writing, Union Bank has not made a public statement clarifying its position or explaining the rationale behind the purchase. This silence only deepens suspicion.
Let’s also be clear: this is not merely a union-versus-management issue. It’s a matter of institutional integrity. Public sector banks are not private fiefdoms. Decisions involving large financial outflows must stand up to scrutiny—not just internally, but also in the eyes of the public and oversight bodies. That’s especially true when the bank in question has faced capital stress in the past and is expected to be judicious with its resources.
This episode also points to a wider malaise in how PSUs sometimes function. There’s often a thin line between strategic spending and patronage, between brand-building and indulgence. That line must be clearly drawn—and publicly defensible.
To restore credibility, Union Bank must do three things immediately: First, disclose the total expenditure incurred on the purchase and distribution of India@100. Second, explain the internal process followed—who approved it, what rationale was recorded, and whether it complied with public procurement norms. Third, make public any benefits or impact the bank believes it gained from the exercise.
In a banking ecosystem already struggling with trust deficits—from bad loans to governance lapses—Union Bank cannot afford to let this issue fester. If this was an error of judgement, admit it. If it was deliberate, accountability must follow.
The integrity of public institutions rests not only on how they operate but also on how they respond when questioned. This is a test for Union Bank. It must answer, and it must act.