As funny as it may appear but the Sahara Sebi issue
strangely reminds me of
Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice”. For those who did not
comprehend the
context, I’ll draw the parallel for you. SEBI disguised
as the vindictive,
devious Shylock, drags Antonio (in this case Sahara) to
reinforce his absurd
claim to Antonio’s 1 pound of flesh (interestingly the
pound of flesh here
refers to the approximately 20,000 crores). As readers,
we all knew that
Shylock was nothing short of killing Antonio in the court
of law. A
befitting analogy to the Sahara Sebi dispute.
As preposterous as the title may sound, the witch hunt
against the Sahara
supremo, Subrata Roy Sahara, is inches away of
being an ill intentioned
corporate honour killing in progress by the highest
authorities perched in
position of power and clout in India. A vicious attempt
to execute an entire
corporate just to see it go on its knees bleeding, only
to entertain the
prejudicial whims of a few.
Before this takes any form of further elaboration, an
immediate look at the
economic quicksand we as an economy are in may add some
perspective to what
you all will feed your minds with further down this
piece. On one hand,
unemployment, fiscal deficits, an all time low in entrepreneurship
and
inflation are some of the fiends we hope to fight off in
the ongoing
elections. The gap between the haves and the have nots
only deepens. On the
other hand, we have a senseless, irrational litigation
running in the courts
against Sahara at the behest of SEBI, which until now has
served absolutely
no purpose, lacks any grain of logic or fiscal
sensibility and appears to be
making a mockery of our judicial system.
The Supreme Court epitomizes the judicial soul
of the country. An extremely
powerful entity that has the privilege and the clout of
imparting judicial
discourse and lending sensibility in much senseless
times we live in. What
does not make sense is when these minds of logic and
intellect facilitate in
pronouncing judgement and infer, rather impose, guilt
upon Sahara without
any grain of proof and assist an absurd claim of a
regulator to a pound of
flesh that a) only reveals the regulator’s prejudicial
& draconian approach
towards fiscal regulation in a free democratic country
and b) severely
impairs the business sensibilities and economics of
growth and development.
Subrata Roy, perhaps is the only corporate leader who
comes from the region
of UP, Bihar, Rajasthan or MP. He can be attributed to
have brought UP onto
the map of corporate leadership apart from its
pre-existing electoral might
that UP is already known for. He has infact spawned
employment for thousands
of people, catalyzed entrepreneurs, contributed massively
to state revenues
and GDP and heavily fuelled CSR initiatives not just at a
state but at a
national level too. He has gifted the poor with economic
empowerment and
generated a fiscal device of investment and savings for
these have nots.
SEBI’s claims about Sahara’s business practices hold no
metal & more
dangerously are premised on an assumption. Having failed
to verify the
thousands of documents and the veracity of the Sahara
investors, SEBI has
assumed to put the blame of its malfunction on an
assumption that these
investors are “fictitious”. This coming from the national
regulator is an
extremely hazardous premise. How can a regulator be so
negligent and
irrational in hurling such grave allegations when they
themselves have not
fulfilled the obligations of due diligence that is
pending at their end.
Having failed to do so, they have not only declared a war
against a
corporate whose business, in the absence of any proof,
stands absolutely
legitimate but have also cloaked their incompetency by
pronouncing Sahara
guilty. Again, no proof of that too!
Assumptions are dangerous toys in the hands of a mindless
child here. It is
the knife with which SEBI intends of extract its pound of
flesh. For moment
here, let’s walk into the dangerous premise of that
assumption and assume
that SEBI is granted its wish. It takes its pound of
flesh of Sahara. Sahara
compromises and pays the disputed amount to SEBI. Now,
having done that what
I would really like to know is how does SEBI plans to
distribute this money
amongst the investors, who it in the first place,
according to SEBI, were
fictitious? More so, if even we assume that by some work
of miracle they do
locate these investors, shoves the money down their
throats which, to begin
with, these depositors intended to keep invested, where
do these depositors
take this money? This question is important because
these investors are
daily rickshaw pullers, small roadside vendors and daily
wage earners who
probably do not hold a 7 vault safe in their houses. If
they have permanent
houses in the first place is also dubious. They are not
account holders and
definitely lurking around the poverty line. Has SEBI
worked on an alternate
investment plan for these investors if they wish to
continue investing their
money? How does SEBI plans to ensure the financial
health, whatever little
they may have? For future where do these small
depositors go for their
savings because the only avenue they had as Sahara is
already standing with
more than its pound of flesh missing
and hemorrhaging to death?
A regulator and especially the courts cannot drop the
burden of substantial
proof, moral & social obligations of their
assessments and most certainly
cannot entertain prejudicial whims and eccentricities.
Their roles have been
carved and evolved in a democratic society only to
protect, serve and
nurture. Witch hunts and executions have no room where
“Where words come out
from the depth of truth, Where tireless striving
stretches its arms towards
perfection, Where the clear stream of reason has not lost
its way, Into the
dreary desert sand of dead habit...”. Sent on my
BlackBerry® from Vodafone
