 This financial resolution and deposit insurance bill is one bill which has not been debated adequately. I read almost all the financial newspapers every day. And there has never been an attempt to have a critique of the bill. Today we have three speakers speaking on different aspects of the bill, including Honestor Swiss Royal saying that internationally there are bills like these. Many countries have adopted this bill. So apparently he does not see any problem with the bill. But I look at it slightly differently. Why at all you require a bill like this in this country? I have gone into some documents which probably others have not had access to. Normally you would not get access to which document is called the confidential documents which is available to some of the privileged members of the parliament. And many questions have been raised by the members of the parliament which has been already replied to them. And I have had a look at it. Now, one, the other countries and Indian economy, Indian banking system should not be compared is my position, which Priya also touched about. India is an economy based on savings. Japan has a negative interest rate for saving when you have to pay interest rate. Here 86% of the deposits are from the small depositors. And in spite of so much of fear created during the 2008 crisis, there was no run on any bank. Why? Because people have that faith that the public sector of banks especially will not fail. The State Bank of India Act has a provision that State Bank of India can never be liquidated. So today people have that confidence that once I put my money it will come back to me. But here you are bringing in a new concept based on the western concepts which have also failed. 2008 financial crisis, the so-called so-big banks could not survive. The government only had to come and rescue them. Here up to that how this origin has taken place is in 2009. The G7 countries means it is their decision, not the G20 decision. G7 countries mean they promote a board called the financial stability board. Then they call the G20 countries and tell them that you do what this financial stability board says. And the financial stability board comes up with an idea called key attributes in which all this bill draft itself is made. Later on our people have worked on it. There was nothing I think to work. Because if I look at the complete detail of key attributes and the draft of the bill, it is all cut and paste. Most of the classes are cut and paste, nothing new. Now you are bringing in a concept called bail-in as Mr. Swish was also explaining. Bail-out is a situation where a bank is going to fail, the government comes to the rescue of the bank. That's what in this country also has happened. It is what that happened with the cases of some of the banks in the US. They allowed some of the banks to die, but other banks they failed. In the bail-out the government brings in its money to save the bank so that the economy does not collapse and the depositor also gets back some of the money. Here in bail-in the total responsibility is shifted to the depositor. If the bank is not doing well and it is going to fail, because we have given all the loans to few corporates, 11,536 corporates, we have lent 37.8% of our advancements. And those fellows don't pay and the bank fails. The liability will be on this poor depositor. The depositor's money will be converted into an equity. Whether that equity will ever get back is a big question. And there is a classic example. In 2013, in Cyprus, a similar situation came where this bill has been already passed and that system is already working. The depositor's got only 47.5% of the deposit they deposited. The rest all were gone. Can this country afford that situation? Can we put this problem on the heads of small depositors? Lot of them pensioners, lot of them women, small amounts they collect and put it in the bank and they are not going to get back in the name of liquidation. That is going to be dangerous for this country. That's why Priya was saying that we should go to the depositor, mobilize their support also. Now comrades, why are you talking about liquidation? Can you liquidate State Bank of India in this country? 40 crore depositors, 40 crore accounts State Bank of India has. Can you say that State Bank of India is not doing well? It has given to big corporates, now they are not able to recover the money. So State Bank of India can be liquidated. Remember? It has not happened earlier also after 1969. After that we have not allowed anyone to find. Even the global trust bank when it was to be liquidated it was taken over by the whole kinder bank of farmers. New Bank of India was taken over by the Bank of National Bank. But here you are saying that question of liquidation itself will put a mistrust on the bank. People will lose that confidence that my money will come back. Once you tell the people that this is what is possible. Then what will happen? You will call a corporate who must have one of your own debauchers also. He will take over this bank. Liquidation will not happen. It will be only taken over by a corporate, maybe relay. Maybe Ambani's or Adani's or Tata's. Somebody will take over this big bank. It can never be liquidated. And this resolution, Adaraati will have that power. It will do everything and then only report to the parliament. There is a clause in the bill which says that this authority, though it does not have the authority of CVC, CVA, they can ask CVI, CVC, everybody to obey their order and they will use them for a resolution, for an investigation. And when an investigation is started, the resolution authority can tell the bank that stop your operation from tomorrow. We will do the assessment. That assessment should be completed within a month. And then who will approve that recommendation? A judicial manji, state-athlete, stickler. What he will know about the banking sector? He will decide whether this report can be implemented. Then you go in for the resolution. That is a very dangerous thing. If you recall 2012 when the Banking Regulation Act was amended, creating a provision for merger, we went on one day strike and then we forgot about it. Nobody thought that merger is going to come. But today it has become a reality. So same way this bill, in the arguments what we are saying, that these are all provisions already there in RBI Act, PFRD Act, Insurance Act, State Bank of India Act, all that we have combined together and we are bringing a mechanism which is going to be a super mechanism with absolute powers which is absolute power corrupts absolutely this. That is the biggest danger we have in this bill is my apprehension. We have been discussing with the members of the parliament who are in the 30-member giant parliament committee. As soon as this bill was to be introduced in the parliament, I met some of the opposition leaders including Sudha Agama. I had a 40-minute discussion with him. That time he was questioning. He had a good analogy. When we said that we have an apprehension that this is all steps towards privatisation. He was saying if the defence of the country can be managed by the government, why not the finances of the country? Why you cannot continue to have the public sector who is questioning? I appeal to him that you please ask your people to oppose this bill and they oppose it only at the introduction stage. Then he asked me to meet Mr. Meera Pumaili who is the Standing Committee Chairman for Finance with an apprehension that this bill will be referred to the Finance Standing Committee. They did not want that. They want it to be somehow passed. So they have recommended it to a giant parliament committee where the head of the committee is Mr. Bhubendra Yadav from Ajmer who is a rolling party member of parliament in Rajeshwara. I have repeatedly written to him asking for an opportunity to present our views to the parliament Standing Committee. Till now I have not got a reply. I have asked him for an appointment through some of our friends in the ruling party. He has said that openly he has told some of our friends my responsibility given is that I should somehow get this bill passed. So what is the use of meeting your people and listening to them? I am going to get it passed. And the same thing Mr. Meera Pumaili also told me when I met that if this government wants to get it passed they will push it through. We cannot stop it. So what I am trying is these are people like Modi and Priya. They have worked on this bill and they have also submitted their suggestions to the giant parliament committee. From my book I have submitted a detailed presentation to them which is supposed to be a privilege to the government which I am not supposed to circulate. So I am not circulated. But our effort next is that once the parliament is Standing Committee's draft is ready I have already discussed with some of the members of the parliament that they should submit a dissent note which they are organizing. So there will be a dissent note and then subsequently if it is brought to the next session of the parliament that is what we are wanting to do. We will ask some of the members of the parliament to oppose it in the floor of the house. Ask for amendment. That's why we have invited some of the opposition leaders like Mr. Sharad Yadav who will be coming late in the next session. So that time we want the entire opposition party to oppose it. And if that does not happen and still the bill is passed we are already discussing with some of the top lawyers of this country how to challenge that again in the court of law. Because there are certain things in this bill which is against the constitution itself. Constitutions say that you cannot pass a bill which will take away the rights of some people. And here you are taking away the rights of the same point of position. So that is unconstitutional is my argument. Similarly in the bill they are creating a mechanism which they say that their decision cannot be changed in court of law. Who can take away the authority of the law? Can you take away the authority of a judiciary? But they are creating a clause. Today in the last bill that clause is there. That these decisions of the resolution authority cannot be challenged in the court. That is the last refugee you have. You can go up to Supreme Court challenging any decision. But that itself they want to take it away. So governments here this bill is in my understanding. And the understanding of many of the people who have worked on this bill is that the attempt today made is only to see that the privatisation can take place without any direct intervention of the parliament. The resolution authority after making the decision they will just send the recommendation to the parliament for approval. By the time damage is done, which is a democratic country, people have their views to be told. But the Standing Committee, Joint Parliamentary Committee is not even willing to call you for a discussion. And whatever discussion for taking place so far is with Reserve Bank of India, with the DFS. Who have drafted the bill and Reserve Bank of India? Of course in their comments they have said that you cannot take away the authority of the central bank. Because they are also seeing that their authority is being taken away. But in spite of that this bill is being forced on the parliament. And if it is passed, maybe it will take one or two years for them to really take action on the bill. Action on the act. But that will pave a way for the government to decide that any bank can be liquidated, including the RRBs. 14,000 branches and they have a large network to the rural areas. They mobilize sort of deposit from the common man. Even RRBs can be liquidated. Property banks can be liquidated. Public sector banks can be liquidated. And now they say that LIC can also be liquidated. LIC was started with just 5 crore investments from the government. Today 26% of the budgets for the government is being financed by LIC of India. Because they are flooded with so much of money. They are investing in every bank. They have 9% shareholding in state bank of India. In some of the public sector banks they have shareholding up to 16%. Many of the public sector undertakings they are having the holding. That way they are helping the government. And how worse you can think of or even imagine of talking about liquidation of LIC of India. Today their repayment rate is much better than any of these private insurance companies. Similar is the case with the general insurance corporation. So all these institutions now they are wanting to bring under one number of authority called the resolution authority. Which will have absolute power which is dangerous for the country. And as we have been talking about earlier also. Today the entire economic criteria is based on a policy called the Chicago School of Cards. Or the Hilton Firemen School of Cards. Which talks about minimum role for the government. The government's role is to look up to the border. The government's role is to look up to the taxation. And the law and the order within the country. The rest of it they say that it has to be carried over to the private sector. Because in their understanding the private sector is more efficient. Now you see whether in your own eyes whether private sector is really efficient. Come to the banking sector itself. Global trust bank that man was awarded first banker of the year award. Next year it collapsed. It had to be taken over by Oriental Bank of Hong Kong. Many of the private sector banks died. That is why nationalization was brought in. So in my understanding within this country we already have a robust resolution mechanism. You have just started the IPC and the NCLT. You have not even tested it. And it is unfortunate that the first case which was welcomed by NCLT. The amount got back by the lenders, the bankers is just 6% of the outstanding. So it is whether it is going to help the depositors. Whether it is going to help the bankers or the depositors. That is a big question. So these mechanisms we have to look at in an overall picture. What is the ultimate goal with which these are brought in? That is why we have to oppose this will. We will take all of the efforts. And we have to see that the public sector banks remain as public sector. Come let's look at that key what has happened. And to cover, he has dismissed 156000 public sector employees. He has dismissed 5000 academicians from the regular job. And he is looking into a new kind of a world based on the same theory of free portion. That he will give everything to the private sector and they will manage. So that is very dangerous for this country. So I would like you to please read the materials we circulate, discuss with the people, discuss with the customers and tell them the dangers. That is the larger majority of this country. Let them take the decision. With this I conclude. Thank you. Thank you Onanda.