Discussion on Government Tax Policies

All right, then tell me, I'm asking you again that

if the government is saying this—look, the government hasn't officially said anything

but we

have had.

If the government is saying it, does that make it right?

No, the fact is that we have heard from some

BJP spokespersons who are saying

that if there is a nominal fee, say zero point five percent on

every transaction that is imposed on people who can

afford it, big businessmen, industrialists etc.

You're saying you're collecting tax.

What's the problem? This is the government's logic.

No, then say you're collecting tax. Why are you calling this a charge?

Why are you calling it a charge?

Why are you calling it MDR? The customer won't be affected. Why are you saying

this?

If you can afford it, take anything. Now I'll tell you, you're such a

famous journalist. You can afford ₹500 every month for breathing

Give it. Is there any logic to that?

It's about affordability, right? You can afford it. Give ₹500. What will happen? Take a breath.

So

The most important thing in the world is, give ₹500 to the government per month, it's nothing.

Madam, what do you mean, and what are you also—

What do you mean, are you also carrying headlines? No charge above—there was no

charge in any case. Now there is some charge above ₹2,000, so your headline

So carry it in that

manner. You too are doing the government's work. Whose else's work are you

doing?

Okay, my

final question to you, Mr. Grover, is this: when the government is saying

there will be no impact on the consumer, is that

necessarily true?

Okay, tell me one thing.

You pay excise duty on petrol.

Okay, so the government can say, we collect excise duty

from the oil company, there will be no impact on the consumer. What?

It won't make a difference, brother, if your petrol costs ₹40–₹50.

After excise duty and all the taxes, we end up paying ₹100.

The consumer is the one paying at the pump. At the end of the day, who pays?

Whether it's tax or any charge, the consumer pays. So who are you

trying to fool? Who are you kidding, guys?

And this is something coming from the government, and our reporters are also

reporting, after speaking to our sources, that there is a digital

infrastructure required to run UPI.

That requires investment.

What is the benefit of UPI?

In terms

of trying to keep it safe, in terms of trying to expand,

get better technology, and someone has to pay for it.

Why should the government pay for it? Do you buy that?

Why? No, I don't buy that at all. I don't buy that at all.

If you do, then just wash your hands of it, right? You'll say

For us, other

than, you know, buying votes by giving stupid subsidies, we

don't have to do anything else. Every technology you're talking about,

there's one thing that works in your world. There is one thing

for which the world recognizes India. There has been nothing besides that in the last 14 years: UPI.

If you want to ruin even that, you're committing political suicide.

What do I care

about? Just tell me, this one of yours

in technology,

this one thing you're doing, you're not a leader in AI, nor are you a leader in any other

technology. You're a leader in FinTech, and even there, if subsidies bother you,

which they aren't. You can't even prove that it's a subsidy.

I'm saying the opposite, the financial system is giving you dividends every month, year

after year. So if you ruin one thing

can't afford it, if you can't afford a technology, then

then stop

blowing your own trumpet. UPI, UPI, and "we are global leaders,"

you are not

one then.

Okay.

If you can't afford ₹8,000 crore a year to run a financial system,

then what kind of global leader are you, brother

sir?

All right, we'll leave it there for the moment. Mr.

Grover, it's always good to get your views, your frank

views. Thank you very much for joining us.

Thank you