The Story of Two Indias
In one India, a farmer misses a tractor installment of ₹20,000. Within days, the banks are at his door. The tractor—his lifeline, his livelihood—is seized. His family's future hangs in the balance over a sum that, in the grand scheme of things, is pocket change for the financial institutions pursuing him .
In the other India, a media baron with a personal guarantee of ₹22,000 crore walks away by paying just ₹6.25 crore. That's a 99.97% haircut on admitted creditor claims .
Welcome to the dual reality of India's lending system, where the rules are written in invisible ink—one set for the powerful, and one for the powerless.
The Subhash Chandra Affair: A Case Study in Corporate Privilege
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) recently approved a repayment plan for Essel Group founder Subhash Chandra that has left the nation's conscience shaken. The numbers are staggering:
Admitted creditor claims: ₹22,006.57 crore
Personal repayment by Chandra: ₹6.25 crore
Haircut to lenders: 99.97%
To put that in perspective, imagine owing a friend a million rupees and paying them just three hundred. That is the scale of write-off we are talking about.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) recently approved a repayment plan for Essel Group founder Subhash Chandra that has left the nation's conscience shaken. The numbers are staggering:
Admitted creditor claims: ₹22,006.57 crore
Personal repayment by Chandra: ₹6.25 crore
Haircut to lenders: 99.97%
To put that in perspective, imagine owing a friend a million rupees and paying them just three hundred. That is the scale of write-off we are talking about.
The Defence and the Reality
Chandra's defence? He claims his personal borrowing is "₹0" and that the ₹22,000 crore figure refers to personal guarantees he signed for loans taken by other Essel Group entities . In his own words:
"In 2016, when I became a member of the Rajya Sabha, I had to give a declaration and declared that my net worth was ₹39 crore. So, in 2017, how did it become ₹45,000 crore?"
He has even mentioned plans to borrow from family and invest in startups with a friend in Switzerland, adding, "I will earn again. I am a pioneer."
But here's the uncomfortable question: If a regular citizen signs a personal guarantee for a friend's loan, are they held accountable? Absolutely. The bank doesn't care whether the borrower or the guarantor pays—as long as someone does. The guarantee is a promise. And promises, for the common man, are legally binding.
Creditors like Canara Bank, LIC Housing Finance, and HDFC Bank have opposed the plan and are considering appeals before the NCLAT . They have pointed out that only 3.2% of the claim would be settled in some cases . Yet, the plan was approved with 80.8% of the voting share .
Chandra's defence? He claims his personal borrowing is "₹0" and that the ₹22,000 crore figure refers to personal guarantees he signed for loans taken by other Essel Group entities . In his own words:
"In 2016, when I became a member of the Rajya Sabha, I had to give a declaration and declared that my net worth was ₹39 crore. So, in 2017, how did it become ₹45,000 crore?"
He has even mentioned plans to borrow from family and invest in startups with a friend in Switzerland, adding, "I will earn again. I am a pioneer."
But here's the uncomfortable question: If a regular citizen signs a personal guarantee for a friend's loan, are they held accountable? Absolutely. The bank doesn't care whether the borrower or the guarantor pays—as long as someone does. The guarantee is a promise. And promises, for the common man, are legally binding.
Creditors like Canara Bank, LIC Housing Finance, and HDFC Bank have opposed the plan and are considering appeals before the NCLAT . They have pointed out that only 3.2% of the claim would be settled in some cases . Yet, the plan was approved with 80.8% of the voting share .
The Math of Injustice
Chandra's office says borrowers have promised to settle ₹4,262 crore, subject to reconciliation . But even if that happens, the disparity is jarring. According to his own statement, of the total ₹4,808 crore disbursed, ₹3,803 crore had been repaid, leaving a balance of about ₹998 crore. Yet, the claims filed were ₹5,311 crore .
This game of accounting gymnastics is precisely what angers the common taxpayer. Because whether it's a "personal guarantee" or a "corporate loan," at the end of the day, it is public money that banks are lending. And when that money doesn't come back, it's the public that bears the cost.
Chandra's office says borrowers have promised to settle ₹4,262 crore, subject to reconciliation . But even if that happens, the disparity is jarring. According to his own statement, of the total ₹4,808 crore disbursed, ₹3,803 crore had been repaid, leaving a balance of about ₹998 crore. Yet, the claims filed were ₹5,311 crore .
This game of accounting gymnastics is precisely what angers the common taxpayer. Because whether it's a "personal guarantee" or a "corporate loan," at the end of the day, it is public money that banks are lending. And when that money doesn't come back, it's the public that bears the cost.
The Farmer's Burden: A Contrast in Compassion
While Chandra contemplates his next business venture in Switzerland, the farmer in Punjab or Maharashtra is fighting to keep his land. The data laid bare in Parliament paints a devastating picture
Corporate loan write-offs (2014-2025): ₹9.87 lakh crore
Agricultural loan write-offs: ₹1.67 lakh crore
In percentage terms, corporates account for nearly 85.5% of total loan write-offs, while farmers—who feed the nation—receive barely 14.5% .
Rajya Sabha MP Balbir Singh Seechewal raised a crucial point: "When large corporate entities fail to repay thousands of crores in loans, those loans are written off in the name of banking policy. However, when farmers are burdened by debt due to adverse weather, crop losses and inadequate minimum support prices, they are forced to wait endlessly for loan waivers."
While Chandra contemplates his next business venture in Switzerland, the farmer in Punjab or Maharashtra is fighting to keep his land. The data laid bare in Parliament paints a devastating picture
Corporate loan write-offs (2014-2025): ₹9.87 lakh crore
Agricultural loan write-offs: ₹1.67 lakh crore
In percentage terms, corporates account for nearly 85.5% of total loan write-offs, while farmers—who feed the nation—receive barely 14.5% .
Rajya Sabha MP Balbir Singh Seechewal raised a crucial point: "When large corporate entities fail to repay thousands of crores in loans, those loans are written off in the name of banking policy. However, when farmers are burdened by debt due to adverse weather, crop losses and inadequate minimum support prices, they are forced to wait endlessly for loan waivers."
The "Write-off" vs "Waiver" Illusion
The government maintains that a "write-off" is merely an accounting exercise and does not extinguish the borrower's liability . Banks continue recovery proceedings.
But for the farmer, the distinction is meaningless. If a bank writes off a corporate loan, that corporation is effectively relieved of the immediate pressure to pay. It can continue business as usual. Meanwhile, the farmer is hounded by recovery agents, his land is at risk, and his access to future credit is destroyed.
As Seechewal noted, "The distinction being drawn between a loan write-off and a loan waiver is being used to mislead the public."
The government maintains that a "write-off" is merely an accounting exercise and does not extinguish the borrower's liability . Banks continue recovery proceedings.
But for the farmer, the distinction is meaningless. If a bank writes off a corporate loan, that corporation is effectively relieved of the immediate pressure to pay. It can continue business as usual. Meanwhile, the farmer is hounded by recovery agents, his land is at risk, and his access to future credit is destroyed.
As Seechewal noted, "The distinction being drawn between a loan write-off and a loan waiver is being used to mislead the public."
Ease of Doing Business or Ease of Getting Away?
The Modi government has championed "Ease of Doing Business" as a cornerstone of its economic policy. The idea is to make it easier for businesses to operate, to reduce red tape, and to foster a conducive environment for investment .
But somewhere along the way, "ease of doing business" has morphed into "ease of getting away with not paying."
When a middle-class person misses an EMI, they face notices of home confiscation . When a small business defaults, their assets are seized. But when a billionaire defaults, a repayment plan is approved that recovers essentially nothing.
The Karnataka Congress protestors articulated this frustration, accusing the Centre of favouring Subhash Chandra and allowing public money to be lost for the benefit of a private business group .
The Modi government has championed "Ease of Doing Business" as a cornerstone of its economic policy. The idea is to make it easier for businesses to operate, to reduce red tape, and to foster a conducive environment for investment .
But somewhere along the way, "ease of doing business" has morphed into "ease of getting away with not paying."
When a middle-class person misses an EMI, they face notices of home confiscation . When a small business defaults, their assets are seized. But when a billionaire defaults, a repayment plan is approved that recovers essentially nothing.
The Karnataka Congress protestors articulated this frustration, accusing the Centre of favouring Subhash Chandra and allowing public money to be lost for the benefit of a private business group .
The SEBI Connection
It's worth noting that SEBI recently barred Subhash Chandra and his son Punit Goenka from the securities market for a year, finding that ZEEL's Hyderabad land was mortgaged against loans availed by Essel Group entities without necessary corporate approvals . A penalty of ₹60 lakh was imposed on Chandra.
This raises a troubling question: How does an individual facing regulatory action and insolvency proceedings manage to settle a ₹22,000 crore guarantee for ₹6.25 crore? Where is the deterrent?
It's worth noting that SEBI recently barred Subhash Chandra and his son Punit Goenka from the securities market for a year, finding that ZEEL's Hyderabad land was mortgaged against loans availed by Essel Group entities without necessary corporate approvals . A penalty of ₹60 lakh was imposed on Chandra.
This raises a troubling question: How does an individual facing regulatory action and insolvency proceedings manage to settle a ₹22,000 crore guarantee for ₹6.25 crore? Where is the deterrent?
The True Cost of Double Standards
The systematic leniency shown towards large corporate borrowers has far-reaching consequences for the Indian economy:
The systematic leniency shown towards large corporate borrowers has far-reaching consequences for the Indian economy:
1. Moral Hazard
When lenders and borrowers know that large defaults will be settled at a fraction of the cost, it encourages reckless lending and borrowing. Banks become less diligent in assessing credit risk, and borrowers feel emboldened to take on debt they have no intention of repaying.
When lenders and borrowers know that large defaults will be settled at a fraction of the cost, it encourages reckless lending and borrowing. Banks become less diligent in assessing credit risk, and borrowers feel emboldened to take on debt they have no intention of repaying.
2. Burden on the Common Taxpayer
The write-offs don't happen in a vacuum. They are ultimately borne by the public. When banks don't recover loans, their balance sheets suffer. To compensate, they may tighten lending standards for small borrowers or increase interest rates.
The write-offs don't happen in a vacuum. They are ultimately borne by the public. When banks don't recover loans, their balance sheets suffer. To compensate, they may tighten lending standards for small borrowers or increase interest rates.
3. Distortion of Credit Flow
As the PHDCCI has pointed out, MSMEs face significant constraints in accessing credit . The cap of ₹20 lakh per borrower for priority sector lending through NBFCs is inadequate. Yet, while small businesses struggle, large corporate borrowers are given a free pass.
4. Erosion of Trust in Institutions
The most damaging consequence is the erosion of public trust. When citizens see one rule for the powerful and another for the powerless, faith in the banking system, the judiciary, and the government itself is severely undermined.
As the PHDCCI has pointed out, MSMEs face significant constraints in accessing credit . The cap of ₹20 lakh per borrower for priority sector lending through NBFCs is inadequate. Yet, while small businesses struggle, large corporate borrowers are given a free pass.
4. Erosion of Trust in Institutions
The most damaging consequence is the erosion of public trust. When citizens see one rule for the powerful and another for the powerless, faith in the banking system, the judiciary, and the government itself is severely undermined.
What Needs to Change?
The Subhash Chandra case is not an isolated incident. It is a symptom of a deeper malaise in India's lending system. To restore faith in the system, several steps are imperative:
The Subhash Chandra case is not an isolated incident. It is a symptom of a deeper malaise in India's lending system. To restore faith in the system, several steps are imperative:
1. Equal Treatment Under the IBC
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was designed to ensure timely resolution of stressed assets. It should apply uniformly, whether the borrower is a small farmer or a corporate tycoon. The NCLT's decision to approve a 99.97% haircut sends the wrong signal.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was designed to ensure timely resolution of stressed assets. It should apply uniformly, whether the borrower is a small farmer or a corporate tycoon. The NCLT's decision to approve a 99.97% haircut sends the wrong signal.
2. Strengthening Personal Guarantees
A personal guarantee should mean something. If banks are to take these guarantees seriously in lending decisions, they must be enforceable. Allowing a guarantor to walk away with a symbolic payment undermines the entire concept.
A personal guarantee should mean something. If banks are to take these guarantees seriously in lending decisions, they must be enforceable. Allowing a guarantor to walk away with a symbolic payment undermines the entire concept.
3. Transparency in Loan Write-Offs
The public deserves to know when and why loans are written off. While the government provided data on write-offs in Parliament, the opacity around individual cases like Chandra's fuels conspiracy theories and public anger.
The public deserves to know when and why loans are written off. While the government provided data on write-offs in Parliament, the opacity around individual cases like Chandra's fuels conspiracy theories and public anger.
4. Protection for Farmers
If corporates can get massive write-offs, farmers should not be left to suffer. The government must provide genuine debt relief to farmers, not just in the form of piecemeal waivers but through systemic reforms like the implementation of the Swaminathan Commission's recommendations.
If corporates can get massive write-offs, farmers should not be left to suffer. The government must provide genuine debt relief to farmers, not just in the form of piecemeal waivers but through systemic reforms like the implementation of the Swaminathan Commission's recommendations.
5. Ending the "Friend" Culture
The slogan "I'll feed my friends, I'll sink the banks" resonates because it reflects a perception of favouritism. The government must ensure that economic policies are not designed to benefit a select few.
The slogan "I'll feed my friends, I'll sink the banks" resonates because it reflects a perception of favouritism. The government must ensure that economic policies are not designed to benefit a select few.
Conclusion: A Call for Justice
The contrast between a farmer losing his tractor and a billionaire settling a ₹22,000 crore debt for ₹6.25 crore is not just an economic issue; it is a moral one. It reveals the deep inequality that pervades India's financial system.
The public is not fooled by the distinction between a "loan write-off" and a "loan waiver." When a corporate borrower walks away from thousands of crores of debt, it is a waiver in every practical sense. And when a farmer is hounded for a fraction of that amount, it is a clear sign of a system that serves the powerful at the expense of the powerless.
As Sant Seechewal rightly asked: "Does the country's economy survive only on the corporates and not on the farmers who feed the nation?"
The time has come for a fundamental re-evaluation of India's lending policies—policies that treat every borrower equally, regardless of their wealth or influence. Until then, the double standard will continue to erode the very foundation of economic justice in the country.
Because in the end, it's not just about money. It's about dignity. It's about fairness. And it's about a nation that believes in justice for all—not just for the powerful few.
The contrast between a farmer losing his tractor and a billionaire settling a ₹22,000 crore debt for ₹6.25 crore is not just an economic issue; it is a moral one. It reveals the deep inequality that pervades India's financial system.
The public is not fooled by the distinction between a "loan write-off" and a "loan waiver." When a corporate borrower walks away from thousands of crores of debt, it is a waiver in every practical sense. And when a farmer is hounded for a fraction of that amount, it is a clear sign of a system that serves the powerful at the expense of the powerless.
As Sant Seechewal rightly asked: "Does the country's economy survive only on the corporates and not on the farmers who feed the nation?"
The time has come for a fundamental re-evaluation of India's lending policies—policies that treat every borrower equally, regardless of their wealth or influence. Until then, the double standard will continue to erode the very foundation of economic justice in the country.
Because in the end, it's not just about money. It's about dignity. It's about fairness. And it's about a nation that believes in justice for all—not just for the powerful few.
