From Hungry “Thieves” (?) to Quora’s Ban: Victims Fight Crony Capitalism

From Hungry “Thieves” (?) to Quora’s Ban: Victims Fight Crony Capitalism

Posted on 22nd May, 2025 (GMT 11:20 hrs)

ABSTRACT

The article critiques the systemic exploitation of small investors in India through the DHFL scam, alleging that Ajay Piramal acquired DHFL at a major undervaluation via a flawed IBC process that favoured corporate interests over the rights of vulnerable small investors. It accuses political and financial elite, including the BJP and RBI, of enabling this injustice. The piece especially brings to light the recent event of censorship of certain DHFL victims’ voices on Quora, where certain OBMA members were suspended for criticizing the RBI-appointed CoC-led resolution process. Framing the issue as a case of crony capitalism and “financial genocide” (finacide), it calls for justice and accountability.

“We ain’t thieves! Just hungry!”

The title card, an inscription, reads “We ain’t thieves! Just hungry!” appears in the department store scene of Modern Times (1936), where the Tramp (Charlie Chaplin), a night watchman, encounters three burglars rifling through goods (45–50 minutes). Spoken by the burly leader, the line reveals their desperation as unemployed workers driven to steal food during the Great Depression (1929–1939), when U.S. unemployment hit 25%. Set in a store brimming with consumer goods—canned peaches, bread—the line contrasts capitalism’s abundance with widespread poverty, a critique central to Chaplin’s satire. The burglars, not villains but victims of a steel mill closure, embody the era’s economic violence or financial extermination, akin to war’s displacement. The Tramp’s empathetic response—sharing peaches, refusing to “squeal”—mirrors nonviolent solidarity and dignity restoration, offering humanity against systemic dehumanization. The line’s raw plea exposes capitalism’s irrationality as goods rot while people starve, a jab at market fundamentalism. The inscription on the celluloid (during the era of early talkies) portrays “thieves” as society’s casualties. Cut to: When a Victim has become a Culprit: Mr. Ajay Piramal Filed a Case against Dr. Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay VIEW HERE ⤡ The aforementioned blog post is a fervent open letter to Ajay Piramal, chairman of the Piramal Group, questioning the acquisition of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) by Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited (PCHFL) through what it claims was an allegedly fraudulent Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) resolution process. It targets Piramal of securing DHFL at a bargain (Rs. 34,250 crores against a Rs. 94,000 crore book value), devastating fixed deposit holders, NCD investors, and small stakeholders—many elderly or reliant on these funds—while alleging a nexus with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), figures like Nirmala Sitharaman, and the Reserve Bank of India allegedly enabled this through the functioning of crony capitalism. The letter highlights the human toll, with depositors facing financial ruin, and charges Piramal with using legal intimidation, including via DSK Legal, to suppress activism from groups like Once in a Blue Moon Academia (OBMA). Demanding justice, including full repayment with interest for DHFL victims, the post challenges Piramal’s philanthropist image as a hypocritical mask for exploitation, citing his professed adherence to the Bhagavad Gita as incongruent with his actions. It references legal precedents like the 63 Moons verdict and ongoing resistance efforts, blending financial analysis with moral outrage to argue that the resolution process violated natural justice, prioritizing corporate gain over retail investors. The letter positions itself within a broader campaign against corporate malfeasance, calling for accountability and restitution amidst claims of systemic corruption and regulatory failure.

Well, who are the true “thieves” then? Those who endure FINACIDE (FINANCIAL GENOCIDE) or those who commit such atrocities? Is not private property a grand act of theft— a theft from the natural world, a theft from all of humanity?

Who shall face the ban, we ponder? The so-called “thieves,” driven by hunger’s relentless grasp, who strive with weary hands OR the ominous shadows that linger, plotting to snatch from those labouring hearts?

In continuation with: “The Shadow of Quora: Why Once in a Blue Moon Academia Faces a Singular Blockade?” VIEW HERE⤡

In response to someone called “Jen(Quora)”’s E-mail dated May 2, 2025, 11:33 AM PDT to OBMA founder-member Dr. Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay:

Gmail – [Quora] Re_ Urgent Appeal for Account Reinstatement and TransparencyDownload

Allegations against Dr. Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay by the Quora team: 

“After reviewing your activity on Quora, we have determined that your account was in violation of our Platform Policies, specifically due to posting the same content, or sending the same messages repeatedly, or sharing irrelevant answers/comments for the purpose of driving traffic to an external site or for monetary gain.”

In a nutshell, there are four allegations against Dr. Bandyopadhyay, precisely speaking:

1. “…[p]osting the same content”: SED CONTRA– As far as we, the Once in a Blue Moon Academia (OBMA)  team  remember, only once we have mistakenly posted the same article. However as a prosecution/plaintiff, you have the obligation on a party to prove a specific fact or allegation to a particular standard, i.e., in in legal terms, “the burden of proof” is Quora’s responsibility.
2. “… [o]r sending the same messages repeatedly”: SED CONTRA– Though we know that this part of disjunctive proposition (started with “or” connector) is vague; statistically incorrect, “the burden of proof” is Quora’s responsibility. As a defendant, OBMA has nothing to say but to laugh.  
3. “… [o]r sharing irrelevant answers/comments for the purpose of driving traffic to an external site”: SED CONTRA– Disjunctive proposition continues with more than one alternatives without showing statistical evidences (in the Nyāya Darśana, dṛṣṭanta is crucial one)! Is it an exclusive or inclusive disjunction?—we are curious enough to know! It is surprising enough to say that the defendant, Dr. Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay, a known academician, would indulge or allow redundancy (“irrelevant answers/comments”) in the unpacking of any given discursive formation.  
4. “…[o]r for monetary gain”: SED CONTRA– This highly speculative, hypothetical, derogatory and defamatory allegation in a form of disjunctive proposition, must be proven by presenting the proper facts of auditing. OBMA is welcoming Quora to file an RTI1 as well as a legal case against OBMA in this money-matter. It is also to be noted that OBMA’s Quora space has not been monetized even the fact that Quora had repeatedly offered that opportunity for each article. OBMA, though does not have bank account, its three founder members, who have lost their life savings for the reason of DHFL scam, are ready to show their bank accounts, though, we repeat, “the burden of proof” is your responsibility. Since its inception on February 3, 2021, OBMA has not accepted funding from any agency, nor is it crowd-funded. Tragically, when OBMA appealed for just Re.1 on April 5, 2025, after more than four years of efforts to show solidarity with the DHFL victims, it received only five responses. Cf. Your 1 Rupee = Our 1 Step Forward: A Humble Plea from OBMA VIEW HERE ⤡

Thus, Quora’s disjunctive proposition presents at least 3-4 possibilities/alternatives/disjuncts. However, demonstrating numerous options without providing examples logically undermine your arguments further.

Moreover, the 3rd allegation, viz., ”… [f]or the purpose of driving traffic to an external site” is a peculiar one. OBMA”s site is not sponsored/funded by anyone. OBMA wants to reach wider audience by using different platforms keeping in mind the motto, “to occupy cronies, occupy walls of internet” by taking cue from “Occupy Wall Street” movement. Furthermore, OBMA’s goal (cf. appendix) is based on Gandhian non-violent civil disobedience movement by largely covering two crucial issues:

(a) Devastating financial ecosystem (by using the buzzword “financial ecosystem”, we have committed “fallacy of misplaced concreteness);

(b) Catastrophic natural ecosystem.

However, our current concentration is on the DHFL Scam⤡⤡. For this allegedly politically-orchestrated scam, small investors have to face huge haircuts on their lifetime hard-earned investments.

Thus getting into the theme of the centrality of suffering itself, OBMA’s logo represents an emaciated Buddha in skeletal frame with gaunt silhouette. OBMA “believes” in the ideology of bahujana sukhāya, bahujanahitāya ca/बहुजनहिताय  बहुजनसुखाय च॥ (“For the happiness of the many, for the welfare of the many”).

As we do not, following Gandhi, place our faith in the expensive and protracted processes of the seemingly saffronized Indian judiciary, we seek an amicable resolution through honest dialogue—free from manipulation or coercion (cf. Nyāya’s Vāda and Habermasian dialogue-constitutive universals).

Unless we receive a fair and complete resolution to the financial crisis unleashed by the DHFL scam enabled by the BJP-led government’s crony-monopoly policies, we will not refrain from weaving our art of resistance against every attempt to stifle our voices.

If the Quora team does not issue a sincere public apology retracting their defamatory, speculative, hypothetical or “false” allegations against the OBMA members within a fortnight, OBMA will be compelled to take necessary action in this regard.

Under the burden of cannibal-savage capitalism, our docile and wounded bodies in this bleeding India have already endured way too much.

This is our last resort: a non-violent act of resistance and a fiery testament of “truth”, until the threshold of our terminal breath.

If needed, our final statements will name those responsible, including Quora. It must be noted that our decision bordering on self-harm stems from multiple factors that together created the DHFL scam scenario, which we call the overdetermined “atideśa” (expansion) effect.

Lastly, OBMA is paraphrasing the initially cited inscription (“We ain’t thieves! Just hungry!”) from Chaplin’s Modern Times:

“We are not criminals to be punished (or banned), but victims of financial abuse”

~ APPENDIX ~

Once in a Blue Moon Academia (OBMA): Our Initiatives VIEW HERE ⤡

The mission and initiatives of Once in a Blue Moon Academia (OBMA), a self-funded, non-profit organization established in 2021, focus on addressing systemic injustices in India’s financial and ecological ecosystems. As mentioned previously, OBMA tackles two primary issues: the devastating financial ecosystem, highlighted by the Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) scam, and the catastrophic natural ecosystem, which underscores climate crises and environmental degradation. For this reason, it navigates the ideas of Seizing the Dalal Street, envisaging ecotopias, moving beyond the conventional school/university systems and so on. Drawing inspiration from non-violent civil disobedience rooted in Gandhian principles and the Occupy Wall Street movement, OBMA campaigns for justice for DHFL scam victims who experienced significant financial losses due to alleged corporate and political malfeasance. The organization utilizes academic activism, legal challenges, and digital campaigns to expose crony capitalism, regulatory failures, and environmental neglect. Guided by the Buddhist ethos of bahujana sukhaya, bahujanahitaya ca (“for the happiness and welfare of the many”), OBMA aims to dismantle disciplinary boundaries, cultivate transdisciplinary praxis, and advocate for systemic reform to ensure accountability and equity.

Once in a Blue Moon Academia (OBMA): MOA VIEW HERE ⤡ 

OBMA’s OBJECTIVES VIEW HERE ⤡

ATTACK ALL-OUT BY MAINTAINING अहिंसा VIEW HERE ⤡

We advocate for a non-violent, comprehensive all-out resistance against systemic financial and ecological injustices, drawing inspiration from Gandhian principles of ahimsa (non-violence) and the tactics of total football. We critique the devastating effects of crony capitalism, specifically focusing on the Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) scam, which defrauded small investors through alleged corporate and political collusion/nexus. We call for collective action to challenge regulatory failures and corporate greed, emphasizing OBMA’s commitment to transdisciplinary activism and civil disobedience. By invoking ahimsa as a strategic tool, our endeavour parallels historical non-violent movements led by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., urging stakeholders to resist oppression while upholding ethical integrity. The piece also outlines OBMA’s broader mission to address ecological crises and promote social equity, positioning non-violence as a powerful means to achieve systemic reform.

OBMA’s Web-Based Civil Disobedience Movement: An Open Letter to Mr. Ajay Piramal VIEW HERE ⤡

The above article is a direct address to Ajay Piramal, chairman of Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited (PCHFL). Written in a formal yet assertive tone, it outlines the authors’ campaign, described as a “web-based non-violent civil disobedience movement” (abbreviated as OBMA), against PCHFL’s acquisition of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL). The authors accuse PCHFL of engaging in questionable practices during the DHFL resolution process, which they claim disadvantaged DHFL’s creditors, depositors, and investors while benefiting Piramal’s conglomerate. They frame their online criticism—targeting Piramal and his company—as a legitimate exercise of free speech aimed at exposing crony capitalism and seeking justice for DHFL victims. The letter addresses PCHFL’s legal notices, issued through DSK Legal, as an attempt to suppress dissent rather than logically refute the allegations. The authors emphasize their resolve to continue the movement despite legal threats, positioning it as a moral stand against corporate overreach and a call for transparency and accountability in the DHFL case.

We have nearly lost trust in the Indian judiciary’s processes and professionals (especially after the 1st April verdict on the DHFL scam by the Supreme Court of India!) which is why we have chosen the path of mass mobilization to dismantle the arrogant plutocracy in India. This endeavour is both our responsibility and a pressing necessity of the moment.

We hope to be safeguarded against cyber threats, including tampering, data manipulation, and hacking, within an AI-driven post-truth society, i.e., we do not wish to be a victim of Pegasus Spyware. 2

Walking in the footsteps of our briefless barrister, viz., Mahatma Gandhi, one can ponder over the following reflections of Bapu on the question of the efficacy of the legal profession:

“I have no desire to convince you that they (lawyers) have never done a single good thing…That the Congress owes the lawyers something is believable. Lawyers are also men, and there is something good in every man. Whenever instances of lawyers having done good can be brought forward, it will be found that the good is due to them as men rather than as lawyers. All I am concerned with is to show you that the profession teaches immorality; it is exposed to temptation from which few are saved. The Hindus and the Mahomedans have quarreled. An ordinary man will ask them to forget all about it; he will tell them that both must be more or less at fault, and will advise them no longer to quarrel. But they go to lawyers. The latter’s duty is to side with their clients and to find out ways and arguments in favour of the clients to which they (the clients) are often strangers. If they do not do so they will be considered to have degraded their profession. The lawyers, therefore, will, as a rule, advance quarrels instead of repressing them. Moreover, men take up that profession, not in order to help others out of their miseries, but to enrich themselves. It is one of the avenues of becoming wealthy and their interest exists in multiplying disputes. It is within my knowledge that they are glad when men have disputes. Petty pleaders actually manufacture them. Their touts, like so many leeches, suck the blood of the poor people. Lawyers are men who have little to do. Lazy people, in order to indulge in luxuries, take up such professions. This is a true statement. Any other argument is a mere pretension. It is the lawyers who have discovered that theirs is an honourable profession. They frame laws as they frame their own praises. They decide what fees they will charge and they put on so much side that poor people almost consider them to be heaven-born. Why do they want more fees than common labourers? Why are their requirements greater? In what way are they more profitable to the country than the labourers? Are those who do good entitled to greater payment? And, if they have done anything for the country for the sake of money, how shall it be counted as good? ….Those who want to perpetuate their power do so through the courts. If people were to settle their own quarrels, a third party would not be able to exercise any authority over them. Truly, men were less unmanly when they settled their disputes either by fighting or by asking their relatives to decide for them. They became more unmanly and cowardly when they resorted to the courts of law. It was certainly a sign of savagery when they settled their disputes by fighting. Is it any the less so, if I ask a third party to decide between you and me? Surely, the decision of a third party is not always right. The parties alone know who is right. We, in our simplicity and ignorance, imagine that a stranger, by taking our money, gives us justice.” — Hind Swaraj (1909)

We do not wish to add anything more after such a radical enunciation. For taking a relief, we may look into a movie’s (Lage Raho Munna Bhai) clipping for elaborating the above enunciation of Mahatma Gandhi:

https://videopress.com/v/EWZgTf2H

ENDNOTES

1. “RTI on RTIs: After the Autopsy…”VIEW HERE ⤡  RBI, CAG and IBBI Do Not Know Their Own Records Pertaining to the RBI-Appointed CoC for DHFL under the Ill-Conceived IBC!
   Autopsy of RTI in the Police Universe of the Indian Polity ”VIEW HERE ⤡ ↩︎
2. The “Pegasus scandal” in India refers to the revelation that Indian government under the BJP-led NDA regime, officials may have used the Pegasus spyware, developed by NSO Group, to target individuals, including ministers, opposition leaders, journalists, and activists. Phone numbers of these individuals were allegedly found on a database of hacking targets, leading to accusations of misuse of power and potential violations of privacy.  ↩︎