Indrani’s great dilemma - If she cracked, it could be because of Nash theory

Samyabrata Ray Goswami, TT, Mumbai, Sept. 3: Police sources today said Indrani Mukerjea had "cracked" under interrogation and admitted to murdering her daughter Sheena Bora - a claim that needs to pass judicial muster before it can attain any validity.

"' Maine kiya hai (I have done it),' she said, and started crying," a source said.

The source declined to discuss whether it was an utterance in exasperation by an accused who has been undergoing intense rounds of interrogation in a police station for several days.

This newspaper's attempts to contact Indrani's lawyer were unsuccessful this evening.

It is not unusual for suspects to say what the investigators would like to hear just to get the interrogators off their back.

The way questioning is carried out in cases with multiple interviewees also plays on the nerves of the suspects. The suspects, persons of interest and potential witnesses are mostly questioned in separate rooms, keeping them in the dark about what the others may have revealed.

They are given separate sets of questions and asked, in some cases, to write the answers down. The different sets of answers are matched and, in case of discrepancies, they are questioned again. Occasionally, they are brought together to drive home the unnerving message that their replies are being matched then and there.

In such a scenario, "the Prisoner's Dilemma", an example used to illustrate the equilibrium associated with the late Nobel laureate John Nash, could come into play. (See chart)

Today, Peter Mukerjea, Indrani's husband and the former CEO of STAR India, was in Khar police station and left after 11.30pm, clocking over 12 hours. Yesterday, too, he had been there for over 12 hours.

"Indrani and Peter have been given two sets of questions with the common questions numbering around 25. They have to write the answers down. They will be interrogated on the answers repeatedly to check for information gaps and discrepancies, if any," said a police source.

"Indrani was very stiff during her interrogation - she asked her interrogator whether Peter would support her legally in this case. When another interrogator relayed the question to Peter, he was silent," said a police source.

Peter, who has supported Indrani so far, has apparently indicated to family and friends that he would legally support her till the chargesheet is filed.

The police had earlier said that Indrani had been holding out in spite of several rounds of questioning.

The sources said Indrani had been deeply worried about the future of her surviving daughter, Vidhie. Nor has Indrani got any categorical assurance from Peter that he would stand by her, they said.

Whether these two factors had any bearing on her alleged admission is not known.

"How is Vidhie holding up? Is she okay? Is all this affecting her studies? Has she left for Bristol?" an officer quoted Indrani as asking not just her lawyers but also the policemen interrogating her.

Vidhie, who is training to be a pianist, studies at a music school in Bristol. "She was supposed to leave for the UK to get back to her life on Thursday. But the plan changed after Peter, Vidhie's adoptive father, was taken in for questioning. She will now leave for Bristol on Saturday," said a source close to the family.

In the evening, Khar police station became an unlikely locale for a "family" reunion of sorts. Three men associated with Indrani at various stages of her life - her current husband Peter, her former husband Sanjeev Khanna and her former partner/husband Siddhartha Das - were apparently at the police station around 8pm.

Sanjeev is in custody while Peter and Siddhartha, who has been called over from Calcutta, were there to face questioning.

Unconfirmed reports had said the person at the police station was not Siddhartha but a "central Calcutta" businessman. A senior police officer in Mumbai said Siddhartha was inside Khar police station around 8pm and the formalities for collecting samples for a DNA test were being taken care of.

In Calcutta, a person who has been linked to an accused, said: "The businessman was initially questioned at his SN Banerjee Road office and later told to go to Mumbai for further questioning. He is a former employee of Indrani and Peter Mukerjea and is now a successful businessman in the city."

It was not clear whether the person was trying to deflect attention from himself or whether a businessman had indeed been questioned.

There was no sign of activity at the Dum Dum home of Siddhartha since this morning.

Siddhartha spoke to The Telegraph around 7.30 this morning and mentioned some of the questions the Mumbai police team had asked him last night. The following are excerpts from his account:

Police: How do you claim that you are the father of Sheena Bora?

Siddhartha: I had signed on the register at the private nursing home where Indrani gave birth to Sheena. I am ready to undergo a DNA test.

Police: Why did you remain silent all these days?

Siddhartha: I was worried about the possible effect on my son. My son hasn't spoken to me since he learnt about it (his relationship with Indrani). But now that he knows, I want to co-operate with the police....

Police: Will you come to Mumbai if we call you?

Siddhartha: I am a poor man. If you buy my tickets I will go.

Police: Did you know that Indrani had become rich after she left you?

Siddhartha: I didn't. I never wanted to find out. Her father once called me a "creep" and said, "Indrani can buy you 1,000 times over." I felt offended and never tried to contact her after 1989.

THE PRISONER’S DILEMMA

The Prisoner’s Dilemma illustrates the Nash equilibrium in game theory.

For instance, police arrest two suspects and question them separately. Each is told: if only one of them confesses, he gets a lighter sentence — say, one year — while the other gets a heavier one — say, 10 years. If both confess, both get five years. If neither confesses, both escape punishment.

The best strategy is for both to deny. But neither knows what the other will do.

The dilemma for each is whether to deny guilt in the hope of getting off free, if the other holds out too, while risking 10 years in jail if the other gives in and confesses; or whether to confess and hope for just one year and at worst, 

five years.

The most favourable outcome is for both to deny. But without the knowledge of the other’s decision, both may opt for the next best — confess and receive five years.

The Nash equilibrium suggests how participants can optimise their outcomes in such cases, which can be far more complex than the example cited.

Additional reporting by Tamaghna Banerjee in Calcutta