In fact, he added, the people from business often provided inputs on various issues necessary for taking a balanced view. Narasimham further stressed that given the choice "I would wish to have Rahul Bajaj on my board."

However, he hesitantly added, "not every industrialist is qualified to be represented on the boards of financial institutions." Narasimham was of the view that the debate should not be whether industrialists should be on the boards of financial institutions or not, but the quality of persons who should be made the non-executive members and their ability and capacity to contribute meaningfully in the board room discussions and provide necessary checks and balances in the larger interests ofinstitutions and the shareholders. The IFCI chief recalled occasions when certain industrialist members have refused to attend the board meeting during which the proposals of their companies or of their competitors were on the agenda.

The IFCI chief added that it all depends from person to person and felt that it would not be appropriate to bar entry of all industrialists on the boards of the institutions. The debate of industrialists becoming members of the boards of the institutions have assumed significance in view of the cut throat competition and the need to prevent sensitive information from reaching the rivals.

Furthermore, it is felt that industrialist member, because of its peculiar position of influence, can also pressurise the boards in acceptance even an unsound proposal of his own particular company or of a firm in which he has some interest/stake. Also at the same, it is feared that the industrialist board member can stall the proposal of his rivals or act in a manner so as to militateagainst the interest of his competitors. The financial institutions can have two industrialist members on their boards.