The IBC (Amendment) Act, 2026: Cosmetic Speed or Deepening the Crony Heist?

This report by Once in a Blue Moon Academia indicts the IBC (Amendment) Act, 2026 as a high-speed polish on a structurally flawed regime. While promising faster resolutions and marginal creditor safeguards, it leaves untouched the core contradictions — especially the tension between Section 66 (fraud recovery for creditors) and Section 32A (clean-slate immunity) — that enabled the DHFL heist, where retail depositors lost 75–80% while fraud upside flowed to Piramal. The amendment accelerates crony capture rather than correcting it, turning bankruptcy into a profitable tool for the superrich at the expense of the common people.

Bankruptcy as Profitable “Bijness”: India’s Grand IBC Heist!

India’s insolvency regime, culminating in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC, 2016), represents not a rupture but a refinement of a long-standing political economy that protects and reproduces elite accumulation. While the pre-2014 framework (BIFR/SICA/DRT/SARFAESI) enabled overt promoter impunity through delay and fragmentation, the post-2016 IBC has professionalised and sanitised this asymmetry into a time-bound, creditor-driven architecture that systematically socialises losses and privatises gains. Empirical trends—~8,800+ CIRP admissions, ~31–33% recovery rates, ~67% average haircuts, ₹4+ lakh crore realised against far larger claims, and a surge in wilful defaulters to ₹3.83 lakh crore by 2025—reveal a system where public-sector banks, workers, SMEs, and retail investors absorb the bulk of distress while politically connected acquirers consolidate assets at deep discounts, often through phoenixing and procedural arbitrage. Landmark cases like Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd illustrate how legal doctrines (e.g., Section 32A clean slate vs. Section 66 fraud recovery) enable the transfer of both assets and upside from fraud to new owners under the doctrine of CoC “commercial wisdom.” Far from disciplining capital, the IBC normalises strategic default as a rational, even aspirational pathway within India’s crony-capitalist order—an evolution from chaotic promoter protection to a streamlined mechanism of wealth transfer, embedded within a broader regime of opaque political funding, selective enforcement, and taxpayer-backed recapitalisation.

Savage Cannibal Capitalism’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde — The Piramal Scenario

This article offers a structural critique of contemporary capitalism through Deleuze and Guattari’s Capitalism and Schizophrenia, exposing the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde split between the ethical philosophy of conscious capitalism — inclusive growth, Gandhian trusteeship, Karuṇā–Sevā–Samṛddhi, philanthro-capitalism, and animal spirits — and the savage cannibal logic of surplus labour extraction. The luminous Dr. Jekyll face presents capitalism as purposeful and compassionate, with profit as mere “oxygen” and Shubh Labh as guiding intent, yet this high-definition screen conceals the relentless Mr. Hyde reality of appropriating unpaid labour, life savings, and ecological commons for capital accumulation. Marxist, anarcho-syndicalist, and Orwellian lenses reveal how ethical language merely re-describes extraction without changing its arithmetic, unmasking doublespeak and Memory Hole mechanisms in restructuring and philanthropic reterritorialization. The 2021 DHFL resolution, upheld by the Supreme Court on 1 April 2025 and culminating in the 2025 reverse merger into Piramal Finance, exemplifies the paradox: celebrated as bold value unlocking, it delivered steep haircuts for retail depositors while allowing the acquirer to retain avoidance recoveries — losses socialised downward, gains capitalised upward. Conscious-ethical-inclusive capitalism thus emerges as a Chimera, generating a Glitch Art aesthetic of smooth philanthropic visions atop crashing realities for the vulnerable, as capitalism deterritorializes ethical flows only to reterritorialize them as legitimacy capital, sustaining its schizophrenic reproduction. True change demands confronting the foundational mechanics of accumulation beyond moral rebranding.

Speed, Violence and Exclusion: the Legitimation Crisis of India’s Electoral System

This article critically examines the 2025–26 Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls conducted by the Election Commission of India, arguing that it marks a decisive shift from deliberative enumeration to accelerated exclusion. In contrast to the time-intensive, de novo 2002–03 revision, the current exercise compresses verification into a high-velocity, deadline-driven regime that relies on legacy databases while shifting the burden of proof onto citizens. Drawing on emerging empirical patterns—including mass deletions (over 90 lakh in West Bengal, more than 2 crore in Uttar Pradesh, and over 65 lakh in Bihar), documented worker deaths and distress, and disproportionate impacts on migrants, minorities, and economically vulnerable populations—the article contends that the SIR functions less as administrative “cleanup” than as a system of structured electoral filtration. It further interrogates the role of the Supreme Court of India, whose limited, non-disruptive interventions have allowed the process to proceed within its compressed temporal architecture, thereby reinforcing rather than restraining its effects. Situating the SIR within broader dynamics of accelerationist governance and “speed capitalism,” the analysis demonstrates how administrative velocity, when detached from deliberation, accountability, and human-scale verification, risks transforming electoral governance into an apparatus of systemic disenfranchisement—eroding the epistemic integrity, ethical grounding, and participatory foundations of Indian democracy.

The 23.08% Illusion? DHFL Scam and the IBC’s Presumed Finality

This article examines a senior DHFL fixed deposit holder’s grievance against the 23.08% recovery under the Piramal resolution plan. In Purvapaksha, Mr. Ravindra Mahidhar, the senior citizen FD Holder in question, argues that using the December 2019 cut-off instead of the 29 September 2021 payment date shortchanged him, recalculating his claim at ₹3,28,117 (versus the admitted ₹2,79,137) and receiving only 19.64% instead of 23.08%. Uttarpaksha rebuts that under IBC rules, claims are fixed at the Insolvency Commencement Date, the payment matches the approved plan, and the Supreme Court (2025) upheld it as binding and final. Apoha then probes the deeper paradox: while the individual claim fails if IBC is accepted as legitimate, questioning the IBC’s core as an ill-conceived and incoherent law reveals structural contradictions — particularly between Section 32A’s clean slate immunity and Section 66’s fraud recovery provisions — raising concerns of systemic unfairness, moral hazard, and crony sanitisation for retail victims.

Predetermined “Democracy”: Why the 2026 West Bengal Assembly Election Stands Rigged—and Must Be Boycotted!

Ahead of the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections, nearly 91 lakh voters — almost one in eight — have been deleted through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), with independent reports showing Muslims disproportionately targeted in opposition strongholds, mirroring a nationwide BJP playbook of communal disenfranchisement. This purge is compounded by engineered bogus additions via bulk Form-6 applications, money-muscle power including pre-poll cash and freebies distribution, and opaque EVM vulnerabilities, all allegedly enabled by a captured Election Commission and passive Supreme Court. The piece argues that these three layers constitute institutional “vote dacoity” turning elections into a managed authoritarian spectacle, and calls for a total boycott of the polls, aggressive use of NOTA, Right to Recall, and proportional representation as the only moral response to reclaim genuine democracy.

Scrap IBC Now: How Section 32A Buried Section 66 | The DHFL Case (Video)

In the DHFL insolvency — India’s first major NBFC case under the IBC — over 2.5 lakh retail depositors, including pensioners and widows, suffered heavy haircuts of 54–77% on their life savings. Yet the company emerged spotless in Piramal’s hands, fully discharged from a ₹5,050 crore PMLA case in February 2026 under Section 32A of the IBC. Inserted retrospectively via ordinance on 28 December 2019 — just 25 days after DHFL entered CIRP — this “clean slate” provision granted the new owner complete immunity from past offences, even as ₹45,000 crore in alleged fraud recoveries were valued at one rupee. Like Valmiki’s Ramayana, which existed before Rama’s birth and reconfigured reality itself, Section 32A rewrote corporate accountability after the fact (POST-FACTO), turning a law meant to protect creditors into a sophisticated mechanism that socialised losses and privatised gains for cronies like Piramal. The DHFL case stands as a stark example of how retrospective legislation can erase liability while ordinary citizens bear the burden.

Who Owns the Crisis? Indian Banking from Nationalization to Crony Regime

Posted on 1st April, 2026 (GMT 07:50 hrs) ABSTRACT This article traces the historical transformation of Indian banking from postcolonial state-led social banking to the contemporary regime of what it terms “resolution capitalism,” foregrounding the shifting configurations of power, distribution, and knowledge. Beginning with the pre-1969 era of private concentration and systemic fragility, it examinesContinue reading “Who Owns the Crisis? Indian Banking from Nationalization to Crony Regime”

Pressing Repeat: A Tragi-Comedy of DHFL Ruin, Viraha, and Satyagraha through Dilemma

In this darkly comic, self-reflexive monologue, a financially devastated DHFL victim—robbed of her life savings and hounded by a 100-crore SLAPP suit under an undeclared emergency—chronicles her solitary existence through obsessive loops of Rabindrasangeet. Trapped between paralyzing fear and compulsive repetition, she navigates aesthetic intimate separation anxiety (biraha), confronts the absence of any divine or human companion, and mercilessly dissects the selective “divine intervention” granted to the powerful while she receives only silence. Weaving Tagore’s melodies, Sudhindranath Dutta’s merciless “Ostrich,” Socrates’ Euthyphro Dilemma, Nietzsche’s amor fati, and Gandhi’s faith in truth, she transforms personal malady into a weapon of creative resistance. Refusing fatalism or piety, she reclaims the pharmakon of crisis, turning her suffering into non-violent digital satyagraha against the state-corporate apparatus. The result is a haunting, non-conclusive testament: a lone whistleblower who, though penniless and abandoned, continues to press “send” — pressing repeat no longer as surrender, but as quiet, unrelenting war.

A DHFL Victim’s Anonymous Letter — and the YouTube “Dislike” Campaign

This post presents an anonymous testimony from a DHFL depositor, documenting the lived human cost of India’s crony-capitalist financial regime. Through a raw account of loss, dispossession, and psychological distress following the DHFL collapse and subsequent resolution process, the letter foregrounds how institutional decisions, regulatory opacity, and political–corporate entanglements translate into everyday suffering for ordinary citizens. At the same time, it traces a shift from despair to resistance, as the victim transforms personal trauma into acts of digital dissent and collective voice. By reproducing the testimony in both transliterated Hindi and English, this piece seeks not only to archive a voice often erased in financial discourse but also to situate it within broader critiques of the “money-signifier” as a structuring force that shapes visibility, accountability, and justice in contemporary India.