A brand new podcast makes an attempt to recast Vijay Mallya as a misunderstood patriot, however not everybody’s shopping for it. One LinkedIn publish is chopping via the spin—with details, court docket rulings, and a pointy reminder: “You continue to owe us just a few solutions.”
Technique advisor Shubham Sharma spent ’14 hours poring over the Vijay Mallya podcast by Raj Shamani earlier than weighing in. “No, Mr. Mallya, you are not a misunderstood patriot or a scapegoat,” he writes. “And no, we don’t owe you an apology.”
In his LinkedIn publish, Sharma counters Mallya’s narrative with a collection of arduous details. First, the numbers: whereas Mallya claims a ₹6,203 crore default, Sharma says the precise debt crossed ₹9,000 crore throughout 17 public sector banks.
“These have been restructured twice over a decade,” he notes. “By the point Kingfisher collapsed, unpaid dues snowballed with curiosity, penalties, and authorized defaults.”
Mallya’s much-publicized provide to repay ₹4,000 crore? Sharma isn’t impressed. “If that’s his thought of justice, think about settling your own home mortgage at 45%.”
The publish additionally challenges Mallya’s insistence that his luxurious life-style was funded with “private cash.” Sharma factors to CAG reviews and revenue tax filings that tracked funds shifting via the UB Group, blurring the road between personal wealth and public default.
“For those who don’t need the general public to confuse your life-style with public default,” Sharma provides, “don’t fly hybrid canines in personal jets whereas 1,500 persons are owed salaries.”
He additionally slams the years of authorized wrangling that adopted. “The Indian authorities didn’t act too harshly. It acted too patiently,” Sharma writes, citing Mallya’s repeated appeals and delays in extradition proceedings.
“DRT handed a binding restoration order. Courts throughout two nations known as him a fugitive. The Enforcement Directorate traced each shell and each switch,” Sharma concludes. “You tried to rewrite historical past. However the proof nonetheless stands.”
