There was chief guest from our CC(and he was also past president of ICSI). he openly said in that meet his heart always beats for ICSI even now (after becoming ICAI-CMA CC member), then how we expect our CC would take care of CMAs interest when we rarely find real cost accountant on the board.
I think as long as any CMA member is committed totally to the profession, his additional qualification or membership of CA or CS or any other Institute shall not be a deterrence. I do not know who the CC is referred to but if he had said his heart beats only for ICSI then he shall be shown the door in the next election. I can see CMA Raman & CMA Gopalakrishnan though CA were also PCMA and have been totally committed to CMA profession and contributed immensely. Nobody is restricting CMAs to confine to one qualification and it is up to the individual and at the end of the day, which profession you chose and your committment to contribute shall be more important. Personally I would chose a CMA as CC even if he is holding additional qualification of CA/CS if he is totally committed to CMA profession. It would be unfair to attribute unwarranted motives to the persons holding multiple qualifications unless it is apparent as in the above quoted instance of ICSI CC.
Apparently, there has been lot of confusion on which direction the Institute should take. Someone says that CMA profesion is not accounting profession and shall not claim Statutory avenues. Some one says Cost Management is more important than cost accounting. cost audit etc etc. There should be a honest & healthy debate among members on this. Personally, I feel that being ours being a statutory accounting body, Government should provide exclusive mandatory avenues for members to sustain especially when other two Institutes enjoy such privileges. And I would not restrict this only to cost audit but it should be as much as possible - it could be excise audit/VAT audit/stock audit/internal audit/tax audit. Already new company law has provided some certifications & valuation venues to CMAs. The moment we say that CMAs should also be given tax audit, and other additional practice areas, someone jumps and says we are deviating from our core area. What is the problem in having additional practice areas? Now company law authorizes CMAs to certify the company formation documents. Is company law our core area? Shall we ask GOI to withdraw those certifications areas since they do fall in our core area ambit? Ultimately, as we hold on to our core area, any additional practice areas should be welcome.