All the public money in the world can’t buy back a ruined life.
But it can buy preferred treatment for the politically connected.
The story that surfaced in late October—one that smells of old arrangements wrapped in new clothes—is this: government officials drafted a plan that would steer billions of rupees of public savings into a single corporate empire at the exact moment that empire was gasping for credit and reputation. The state insurer, LIC—the guardian of millions of small savers’ premiums—became the alleged instrument to prop up that empire. That allegation, reported by The Washington Post, says the plan was worth roughly $3.9 billion and was designed to “signal confidence” in a conglomerate under severe international scrutiny.
Before you reach for a shrug, remember what LIC is: not a private hedge fund, not a rich family office. LIC holds the life savings of ordinary people—pension money, children’s education funds, widows’ annuities. If a public insurer becomes a bailout arm for a corporate house with political ties, the problem isn’t just financial—it is moral.
What actually happened in May 2025—fact—is that Adani Ports issued a large bond and LIC underwrote or fully subscribed to a major portion of it, putting substantial LIC capital into Adani paper at a time when international markets had largely given Adani the cold shoulder after major governance concerns surfaced in 2023. Reuters reported that Adani Ports’ bond sale drew LIC interest as the group returned to the domestic market.
LIC and the government have gone on record denying a state-directed bailout. LIC calls the Washington Post story “false, baseless and misleading,” saying its investments follow board-level due diligence and portfolio rules. That denial matters—but it doesn’t erase the optics of a state insurer suddenly becoming the dominant buyer of bond paper for a distressed conglomerate that had cascading regulatory, legal, and reputational questions.
If you want the origin of this crisis, look back to 2023. Hindenburg Research’s explosive report accused the Adani Group of deeply troubling market practices—allegations that wiped tens of billions off market valuations and triggered probes, shareholder panic, and a broader reappraisal of governance in Indian markets. Adani’s rebuttals and court answers continue, but the shock was real.
Now stitch those facts together: an empire that suffered a credibility shock, a government whose political narrative relies in part on having transformational industrial champions, a state insurer that buys a chunk of the empire’s debt. Add to this past moments of preferential treatment—airport bids and other large concessions that critics say were rushed or shaped to fit one bidder—and you have the outline of a problem bigger than one company.
This is not just a scandal of money. It is a scandal of priorities.
When GDP growth figures are trotted out at conferences and in flashy government ads, they often tell a story designed to reassure investors and voters. But growth measured in aggregate numbers is not the pulse of a nation. The lived reality—employment that is precarious, small businesses shuttered, farmers squeezed, the informal sector still gasping for oxygen—tells a different story. The economy can be “growing” on paper because stock prices, corporate asset values, or export numbers have moved a certain way, while the people who live the economy feel no benefit. Selling hope doesn’t make one a leader; acting on it does.
Yet the pattern is simple to spot: when political capital is tied to one or a few corporate champions, the incentives change. Instead of spreading public money to build resilient supply chains, to fund small manufacturers, or to shore up social protection, the state sometimes finds it easier to funnel liquidity to the familiar monolith—because it believes that keeping one big player afloat keeps markets calm and the political narrative intact. That is the very definition of “too big to fail” being dressed up as national interest.
Who pays when this happens? The public pays in four ways.
First, financial risk. Concentrating a chunk of national savings into a single group concentrates systemic risk. If the empire falters, policyholders—ordinary people with LIC policies—face indirect harm in the form of lower returns, higher risk exposure, or the need for taxpayer bailouts to cover fallout. The public should never be a piggy bank for corporate weatherproofing.
Second, moral hazard. When conglomerates sense that political connections can smooth their path—by easing regulatory friction, reshaping tenders, or directing public capital—the discipline of markets weakens. Hard decisions that would have protected investors and consumers are postponed because someone always expects the state to step in.
Third, distorted opportunity costs. Money used to stabilise one empire is money not used to build factories, not used to shore up micro-enterprises, not used to expand health and education. In a fragile economy, opportunity cost is not philosophical—it is survival.
Fourth, institutional corrosion. The mere perception that state agencies can be asked to prop up chosen firms damages trust. Global investors price governance risk; domestic citizens lose faith. Courts, regulators, and public institutions must be impenetrable. Once that faith erodes, recovery is slow and costly.
Critics will say: “But the market demanded stability. LIC’s investment helped stabilise debt markets and allowed refinancing.” There is a technical argument there that is not false. But stability bought with public savings and skewed in favour of politically connected owners is not neutral. Fairness doesn’t steady the markets anymore — favour does? And that sets a precedent: those close to power will be protected, others will not.
Ask this simple question: would a tiny company with no political ties get the same privileged access to public capital when it hit the same speed bump? The answer is obvious. The machinery of state should be blind to the stature of those who ask for help. The machinery should answer only to law, fairness, and public interest.
Let us be frank about the political calculus. Governments crave narratives: “We launched infrastructure; we built airports; we created jobs.” There is merit in large projects. India needs ports, airports, transmission lines. But those projects must stand on procurement rules, competitive tendering, independent technical evaluation, and clear, public accounting. When those processes are bent—either by design or convenience—the result is not efficiency; it is capture.
Look at the airports episode: awarding several major airports, quickly and to one bidder, raised eyebrows precisely because the process looked engineered to finish quickly and create a national champion in infrastructure. Critics documented internal objections that were ignored. Whether those choices were made out of genuine belief in a bidder’s capabilities, haste, or favouritism—no one can accept opacity as the answer.
What should be done? This is not a call for partisan triumphalism; it is a call for institutional repair:
• Full, independent audit. A sitting, broadly respected judicial or parliamentary committee must review the LIC investments and any internal government communications tied to them. This audit must be public, detailed, and unredacted to the extent national security does not prevent it.
• Parliamentary oversight of public investments. LIC is public in mandate. Its trustees and board decisions must be transparent. Any large investment in a single business group should trigger mandatory, independent review.
• Strengthen SEBI and insurance regulation. Regulatory capture is slow poison. Enforce stricter disclosure rules, conflict-of-interest checks, and ring-fence rules for public provident and insurance funds.
• Break the concentration. If a corporate group is too large and too intertwined with state functions, consider structural remedies: divestment, enforced sales, or mandated dilution of holdings in strategic sectors.
• Rebuild the social safety net. The state must stop preferring selective corporate rescues and instead stabilise people—through direct social transfers, job guarantees, targeted credit to MSMEs, and investment in small manufacturing nodes.
• Sunlight as disinfectant. Every government decision that uses or redirects public funds should be traceable in real time on a public ledger. Opacity invites corruption; transparency deters it.
To anyone who still believes in leaders as vessels of hope: hope is not a commodity to be sold with ad campaigns. Hope is a promise kept in public life—schools open on time, clinics with medicines, steady power to farms, and bank accounts that actually mean something. Selling hope in slogans while allocating public capital to private empires is not governance; it is stagecraft.
Finally, this is about respect—respect for the millions who save in LIC for their old age, respect for the small traders whose goods never became national projects, respect for the public trust that undergirds any republic. The Modi era promised a new India—self-reliant, robust, prosperous. If that promise is fulfilled by propping up one house of cards while the foundations of most lives wobble, then the promise is hollow.
Do the hard thing: make the account books public, let a neutral investigation do its work, and stop pretending that rescuing a politically close conglomerate equates to rescuing the nation. For the sake of the poor, the small, and the honest investor—leave the devil’s disguise at the door.
Sources and key reporting that informed this piece: Washington Post’s October 24, 2025 investigation on the LIC-Adani plan; Reuters reporting on LIC’s subscription to Adani Ports’ May 2025 bond issue; LIC and Indian government public denials reported in Indian Express / Economic Times; Hindenburg Research’s 2023 report on Adani; reporting and analyses on controversial awards and privatisations associated with the Adani Group.
Leave a Reply