In the Shadow of Mr. Paramavaisnava: Defamation, Dissent, and Democratic Rights

Posted on 4th August, 2025 (GMT 12:45 hrs)

Abstract

This open letter argues that the piece’s objective is not to malign or defame Mr. Paramavaisnava, but rather to subject his public role to democratic scrutiny. It positions critique as a civic duty aligned with Gandhian principles of non‑violence and civil disobedience, drawing a line between legitimate democratic dissent and defamatory intent onceinabluemoon2021.in. The author contends that vigilant public discourse is essential in holding influential individuals accountable—especially when their philanthropic gestures or public image are intertwined with questions of power, privilege, and socio-economic inequities.

In situating dissent within the framework of constitutional democratic rights, the piece foregrounds the importance of freedom of expression while cautioning against opportunistic defamation laws that may stifle critical voices. Overall, the article frames its critique as part of a broader tradition of civil restraint and moral resistance, underscoring the need for transparency and debate in robust democracies.

Dear Mr. Paramavaisnava,

We write to you not in haste or hostility,
But in pain and dismay.
Not the short-term discomfort pain for long-term gain,
But a deeper anguish—
Wrought by a system that appears to reward impunity and punish dissent.
Gains at what cost, we ask?
And for whom?

We now find ourselves under legal pressure from your side—
For defamation claims we did not invent,
But cited from credible public sources and independent investigations.
Our concerns were never solely about you.
They arise from a broader structure of cronyism
That is alleged to enrich the few while dispossessing the many.

Isn’t the blood money from this fincide—this financial genocide—not enough for the crony tycoons?

We ask again, and in all seriousness:
Why are you targeting us?

We were struck by the “Cancelled” stamps
On the cover of the defamation suit at the Bombay High Court.
What is the current status of this case?
And why do modest voices like ours find ourselves in your legal crosshairs?

We merely referenced secondary data—
Drawn from reports, whistleblower accounts, and journalistic work.
Will your legal writ now extend to the platforms themselves—
The Wire, Krishnaraj Rao’s exposés,
And numerous others who’ve raised similar concerns?

Why are you targeting us?
Are we soft targets, then—because we are a minority, perhaps?
Easier to isolate, to intimidate, to silence?

We recall the 2021 NGT’s findings on environmental concerns in Digwal,
SEBI’s caution notices about alleged financial irregularities,
And the unresolved questions surrounding your acquisition of DHFL—
“Buying imperfect, selling perfect.”
An approach which, according to observers,
Has left lakhs of financially devastated citizens
With neither justice nor redress.

Why are you targeting us?

This is not about you alone, Mr. Paramavaisnava.
It is about a broader corporate-state nexus—
One you are believed to exemplify.
A nexus that, critics allege, places profit over people,
And uses legal intimidation where moral accountability is demanded.
We see a troubling asymmetry:
Major media houses that reported on
Insider trading, electoral bond funding, Flashnet links, real estate disputes—remain untouched,
While grassroots voices like ours are met with legal aggression.

Why are you targeting us?

We note previous public commentary—
By Siddharth Jaaju, Krishnaraj Rao, and others—
Raising specific, documented concerns about Piramal Realty
And affiliated financial transactions.
Your statement during The Wire’s 2018 investigation
Promised legal action,
Yet no such case seems to have followed—until now.

So we ask, sincerely:
Why now? Why us? Why are you targeting us?

We ask again:
Why is scrutiny directed not toward
The originators of these allegations,
But those who echo them in the spirit of public interest?

Your legal representative, DSK Legal,
Have been described by observers as engaging in a
“Theatre of intimidation”—a phrase drawn from public discourse.
If such characterizations are incorrect, we are open to correction.
But should these be answered through reasoned dialogue,
Or through litigation that seeks to exhaust and silence?

We assert, respectfully: our aim is not defamation,
But democratic scrutiny.
We remain committed to non-violence,
To Gandhian civil disobedience
In the face of what we believe is systemic injustice.
Our call is for transparency, for ethical responsibility—
Not vendetta.

Why are you targeting us?
Should scrutiny not be directed toward
The sources of the allegations,
Rather than those who echo them in public interest?

Why not respond publicly—
To questions raised around the DHFL acquisition,
Associations with PM CARES,
The Flashnet-linked transactions,
Environmental violations in Digwal,
Or dealings with Shriram Finance?
Why choose lawsuits over honest answers?

Why are you targeting us?

We urge you, Mr. Paramavaisnava—
Live up to the philanthropic image you have cultivated.
Let it not be symbolic,
But a genuine ethical commitment.
The Gita urges action aligned with dharma, not just outcomes.
Consider verse 9.32—not as fate,
But as a call to moral responsibility, especially for those with power.

We await the day when these matters are addressed
With justice, not just legality.
When the emotional and financial trauma
Of lakhs of DHFL depositors is acknowledged—
Not reduced to arithmetic that equates ₹45,000 crore with ₹1.

We await a moment of introspection,
A turn toward reconciliation,
And the courage to engage in ethical dialogue.

Until then,
We remain—
Firm in our dissent,
Rooted in truth,
And committed to ensuring that even the highest towers
Hear the voices below.

Why are you targeting us?

Sincerely,
The Silenced Who Refuse to Be Silent

SEE ALSO: