Alumni Forum for Institutional Integrity (AFII)

Bajaj Capital Ltd Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Rajiv Bajaj Jai Bajaj ETCIO Leadership is not a stage, a slogan, or a discussion about the workplace of 2035. It is accountability for the workplace you lead today. I find it difficult to reconcile lectures on leadership, AI and the future of work with publicly reported employee data showing Bajaj Capital’s headcount falling 51% year-on-year to 576 employees in March 2026. A generational transition in management makes the question of accountability even more important—not less. AI is highly marketable. “Transformation” is an attractive narrative. But reducing headcount and invoking AI should not automatically be presented as innovation or leadership. Where are the measurable gains in productivity, profitability, customer outcomes, employee capability and shareholder value? The irony becomes harder to ignore when a national business newspaper lends its platform to an event promoting “leadership insights for the enterprise of 2035.” The Economic Times is prominently associated with the Workplace 2035 campaign featuring Bajaj Capital’s CEO and MD. Business media should challenge corporate narratives, not merely amplify them. Leadership deserves a microphone after accountability—not instead of it. #Leadership #CorporateGovernance #Accountability #FutureOfWork #ArtificialIntelligence #AI #Workplace2035 #BusinessMedia #CorporateIndia #BajajCapital

FPSB India Ramesh Vishwanathan Rajiv Bajaj Jai Bajaj “A man is known by the company he keeps.” FPSB India endorses Bajaj Capital Ltd as a financial-planning organization. Yet the SEBI Investment Adviser registration sits in a separate Bajaj Capital Ltd subsidiary that reportedly generated only about ₹8 lakh of annual revenue, while the much larger Bajaj Capital Ltd. identifies itself as a distributor. That raises a legitimate question: Is the regulated advisory entity where the substantive financial-planning business actually takes place — or is the regulatory structure largely separate from the business presented to consumers? A professional standards body should be asking that question before lending its endorsement. Also, Bajaj Capital Ltd claims to have three Managing Directors from three generations each claiming to represent the company. #FPSBIndia #BajajCapital #FinancialPlanning #InvestorProtection Only connections can comment on this post; hence this report.

India’s private space sector has achieved a significant milestone with Skyroot’s Vikram-1 launch, but sustained industry growth requires more than technical success A single successful launch demonstrates engineering capability but not commercial viability, which depends on repeatability, reliability, cost efficiency, and customer demand. Skyroot’s valuation before launch was based on future potential, not proven revenue or market performance; milestones do not validate valuations. India’s large number of startups (around 440) contrasts with only 18 authorized by IN-SPACe, highlighting a focus on formation over proven commercial success. The goal to grow India’s space economy to $44 billion by 2033 involves segment-specific economics; current questions include market size, competition, and export potential. Space industry economics favor larger, integrated companies; fragmentation can dilute resources, talent, and infrastructure, risking inefficient capital allocation. Public capital and government support are vital but should be measured by outcomes, not just funding or company counts. A comprehensive industry dashboard should track revenue, customer base, technical success, capital efficiency, and international competitiveness. The government’s multiple roles—regulator, infrastructure provider, customer, investor—must be transparent to distinguish private success from public support. Moving from ecosystem creation to selection involves stage-gated support, rewarding differentiation, customer demand, and technological maturity. The focus should shift from celebrating startups to building a few globally competitive companies capable of sustained revenue and repeat business, ensuring India’s space industry matures beyond initial milestones.

Bajaj Capital Ltd Rajiv Bajaj Jai Bajaj Modernisation is welcome — but AI and technology claims should be held to the same standards of accountability as any other business transformation. After two consecutive years of negative net worth, we look forward to seeing the measurable impact of AI, data and modernisation on financial performance, productivity and sustainable growth. A 51% reduction in headcount, by itself, is not evidence of successful transformation — particularly if the technology investment required to achieve it is substantial. The relevant measure is the net economic outcome. “AI-enabled” and “future-ready” are easy labels. The harder questions remain: What improved? By how much? At what cost? And with what sustainable return? The scale of accountability should match the scale of the claim. Trust is earned through measurable results, not terminology. #AI #Accountability #Modernisation #Governance #BusinessPerformance #DigitalTransformation

Indian Venture and Alternate Capital Association (IVCA) Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade Department Of Economic Affairs, Government Of India IVCA does not fully or fairly represent every segment of India’s private capital ecosystem, largely because structural realities pull the organization toward its heaviest contributors. While the association acts as the recognized apex body and works to include a wider range of participants—such as the growth of micro-VC networks—several imbalances skew how true "ecosystem consensus" is formed Concentrated Assets vs. Fragmented Realities: A small handful of large general partners and mega-funds control a massive portion of the aggregate capital represented, meaning their strategic priorities naturally overshadow the niche hurdles faced by smaller, specialized, or first-time fund managers. Domestic Policy Weight: Because the regulatory push in India increasingly favors domestic capital formation (such as expanding SEBI-registered AIFs and local institutional participation), advocacy positions often tilt toward domestic structural needs. This can leave foreign-headquartered funds—who navigate different cross-border tax, currency, and FEMA constraints—feeling underrepresented or treated as secondary priorities. The Advocacy Echo Chamber: Regulators like SEBI, the RBI, and the DPIIT look to peak bodies to streamline feedback. When policy drafts are reviewed, the consensus submitted is heavily filtered through the lens of executive committees and legacy heavyweights, smoothing over divergent warnings from smaller cross-border players or early-stage specialists. India's PE & VC Market Enters 'Disciplined Phase' https://lnkd.in/gnwSVCt4

Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) SEBI A thoughtful address on entrepreneurship, governance and public accountability. However, everyone cannot give the same speech as our Prime Minister - we need the bureaucrats and regulators in particular focused on execution and enforcement. How have recent regulations measurably improved capital formation, investor protection, corporate governance and access to public markets? Are compliance costs proportionate, particularly for emerging companies? What regulatory gaps must still be addressed if India’s capital markets are to support the goal of becoming a developed economy by 2047? India’s aspirations are important, but regulatory leadership should go beyond encouraging enterprises to build, innovate and earn trust. It should also explain—with evidence—how regulation is enabling them, what outcomes have been achieved and where the regulator itself must improve. That would turn an inspirational address into a meaningful discussion about SEBI’s accountability and contribution to India’s 2047 journey. #SEBI #CapitalMarkets #CorporateGovernance #InvestorProtection #ViksitBharat2047

Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) SEBI_updates SEBI Economic Diplomacy Division | Ministry of External Affairs, India Indian Ministry of Finance Anyone and everyone talk about achieving the Viksit Bharat 2047 to impress the political bosses. A thoughtful address on entrepreneurship, governance and public accountability. However, coming from the Chairman of SEBI, one would have welcomed a more substantive connection between these aspirations and SEBI’s regulatory work. How have recent regulations measurably improved capital formation, investor protection, corporate governance and access to public markets? Are compliance costs proportionate, particularly for emerging companies? What regulatory gaps must still be addressed if India’s capital markets are to support the goal of becoming a developed economy by 2047? India’s aspirations are important, but regulatory leadership should go beyond encouraging enterprises to build, innovate and earn trust. It should also explain—with evidence—how regulation is enabling them, what outcomes have been achieved and where the regulator itself must improve. That would turn an inspirational address into a meaningful discussion about SEBI’s accountability and contribution to India’s 2047 journey. #SEBI #CapitalMarkets #CorporateGovernance #InvestorProtection #ViksitBharat2047

SEBI_updates Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) SEBI An important question of regulatory philosophy: When does regulation of an outcome become regulation of engineering? There is little doubt that SEBI should require Market Infrastructure Institutions to maintain resilient, secure and continuously available systems. Exchanges, clearing corporations and depositories are critical market infrastructure, and system failure can create systemic risk. But should a securities regulator itself be designing an IT Resilience Index, statistical measures of system robustness, early-warning parameters and online service-monitoring frameworks? Or should the regulator instead specify the outcomes it expects — uptime, recovery, redundancy, security, capacity, auditability and accountability — and require the MIIs, their boards and independent technology experts to demonstrate compliance? There is an important distinction between regulating technology risk and designing technology systems. The first is unquestionably a regulator’s responsibility. The second requires us to ask: where does the technical expertise reside, who owns the engineering decisions, and who becomes accountable when a regulator-prescribed framework itself proves inadequate? Good regulation should make institutions accountable for outcomes. It should be careful about becoming their technology architect. #SEBI #MII #CapitalMarkets #Regulation #Technology #Governance