Born with a silver spoon !!!!!

The recent discussion around N. R. Narayana Murthy purchasing company shares worth nearly ₹240 crore in the name of his newborn grandson sparked widespread debate. Many observers contrasted this move with his earlier remarks encouraging the Indian workforce to work longer hours to stay competitive with countries like China. The irony, they argued, lies in the fact that while millions are urged to work harder, a child can enter the world already possessing immense wealth.

This situation raises an interesting question: how does the Indian legal and administrative system handle assets, records, and rights when they involve minors?

In India, a minor—typically anyone under the age of 18—is not considered legally competent to act independently. Instead, the law views children as individuals who require protection and supervision. As a result, any formal or financial activity involving a minor must be carried out through a parent or a legally appointed guardian.

This principle applies consistently across various domains. For example, when applying for a passport, opening a bank account, or even purchasing property in a minor’s name, the process is never truly “independent.” A guardian must initiate, authorize, and manage the transaction on behalf of the child. The minor may be the legal beneficiary or owner, but they are not the decision-maker.

Take banking as an example: accounts opened in a minor’s name are operated by a parent or guardian until the child reaches majority. Similarly, property purchased for a minor is held in their name, but all legal documentation and decisions are executed by the guardian. Even in something as straightforward as a passport application, parental consent and involvement are mandatory.

This framework reflects a broader legal philosophy: minors are protected participants, not autonomous actors. Their rights exist, but their ability to exercise those rights is mediated through responsible adults.

However, this protective approach comes with trade-offs. It introduces additional layers of documentation, oversight, and dependency. In a way, minors navigate the legal system like a child in a park who must hold a parent’s hand at all times—if they let go, their actions simply don’t carry legal weight.

The case of wealth transfers to minors—especially at such a large scale—highlights an interesting paradox. While the law ensures that children cannot misuse or mismanage assets, it places virtually no restriction on how much wealth can be assigned to them. The system focuses more on who controls the asset rather than how much is owned.

Ultimately, this reflects a fundamental design choice: the law prioritizes safeguarding the minor’s interests over regulating inequality or wealth concentration. Whether that balance is appropriate is a broader societal question—one that goes beyond legal frameworks and into the realm of ethics and public policy.

Benefits of working on a weekly off

For most working professionals, Sunday is a sacred weekly break—a day reserved for rest, family, and personal plans. In many industries like IT, even Saturday joins Sunday as part of the weekend. So, being asked to report to work on a weekly off can feel frustrating and intrusive.

After all, that time is meant to be yours. You’ve likely made plans, big or small, to recharge or take care of personal commitments. Being called in unexpectedly can easily feel like an inconvenience, even unfair at times.

That said, there are moments when work demands just can’t be avoided. I remember one such instance from my time in a production department. I was asked to come in on a Sunday due to an exceptional requirement. Initially, I was reluctant—who wouldn’t be? But understanding the urgency of the situation, I decided to step in and support the team.

Interestingly, the experience turned out to be more positive than I had expected.

Working on a Sunday had its own set of advantages. Often, the workload was lighter—sometimes just a half-day—but the compensation was for a full day, depending on the nature of the task. Only a small group of employees would be present, and the company operated at reduced capacity. This created a unique, almost relaxed atmosphere that was very different from the usual busy workdays.

There was also a sense of camaraderie among those who showed up. Everyone knew they were there for a special reason, and that created a subtle bond. To top it off, the company would usually arrange a special lunch—often featuring a non-vegetarian spread—which added a small but enjoyable perk to the day.

While working on a weekly off may never be ideal, it can sometimes offer unexpected positives. It becomes less about losing a day off and more about contributing when it truly matters—and occasionally enjoying a different pace of work.

Have you ever had to work on your weekly off? What was your experience like?

Exchange or not to exchange

From childhood, we are gently introduced to the idea of exchange. We swap toys, share lunches, trade books or bicycles—not out of obligation, but out of willingness. These small acts teach us something deeper: the value of reciprocity. When we exchange something meaningful to us for something meaningful to someone else, we acknowledge a sense of equality and mutual appreciation.

This spirit of exchange often becomes a foundation for human connection. It can create bonds, strengthen friendships, and foster trust. Yet, not everyone is naturally drawn to this way of relating. Some people prefer independence over interdependence, choosing not to participate in this informal “exchange mela” of emotions and belongings—and that’s equally valid.

As we grow older and step into professional environments, this culture of exchange evolves. In corporate settings, it appears in the form of collaboration, teamwork, and shared goals. Colleagues exchange ideas, feedback, and support, often forming relationships that resemble friendships and alliances. In its healthiest form, this exchange fuels innovation and builds strong, cohesive teams.

But like any human practice, the spirit of exchange has its limits.

There comes a point where exchange can cross ethical boundaries—especially when it involves power, secrecy, and personal gain. At higher levels of authority, the exchange of sensitive information or trade secrets can cause significant harm. What may be framed as a “mutual benefit” can, in reality, weaken systems, erode trust, and compromise integrity.

This is particularly evident in areas like corporate competition, politics, and national defense. The exchange of confidential or strategic information—often driven by money, influence, or favors—can hollow out institutions from within. In such cases, the noble idea of exchange is no longer about equality or connection, but about exploitation and imbalance.

So where does the spirit of exchange stop?

Perhaps it doesn’t stop entirely, but it demands awareness. The same principle that builds relationships can also break them when misused. The key lies in understanding intent, context, and consequence. Exchange, at its best, is about mutual growth and respect. At its worst, it becomes a transaction that undermines trust and stability.

In the end, the challenge is not whether to exchange, but how—and at what cost.