I found this interesting passage in the midst of a piece on Raghuram Rajan’s exit (Emphasis mine):
It is not just that it is beyond the remit of a central bank governor to speak outside the narrow topic of monetary and financial economics, and that too only as it concerns RBI business—it is that Rajan more or less directly criticized the government for which he was working. No democratically elected government will stand for such criticism from a technocrat within the bastion, as it were, beyond a certain point.
The piece says that Rajan’s stewardship of the RBI has been able, and he therefore deserved an extension of tenure — thus reducing the entire argument to this one central fact: Rajan spoke up for his beliefs, and therefore he had to go.
I’ll leave you to ponder this question: How do you reconcile the notion of democracy with intolerance to criticism?