In 2008, theglobal economy was rocked by a financial earthquake that originated in the heart of capitalism — the United States of America. The collapse of Lehman Brothers marked the beginning of a devastating financial crisis. Subprime mortgages, credit default swaps, and a reckless chase for profit had brought some of the world’s biggest financial institutions to their knees. And yet, what followed in the U.S. was not a witch-hunt but a pragmatic, growth-first response from the state.

In India, when crises strike — whether financial, industrial, or institutional — the default response seems to veer in a very different direction: highlight corruption, find scapegoats, and sensationalize the fall. The opportunity to preserve innovation or protect economic engines is often lost in the noise of blame.

Why this divergence? What makes the U.S. system focus on revival while the Indian system defaults to retribution?

The American Playbook: Bail Out Now, Blame Later

When the U.S. economy began to unravel in 2008, the government under President George W. Bush, and later President Obama, rolled out one of the largest financial rescue packages in history — the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Major institutions including AIG, Citibank, and General Motors were infused with taxpayer money to stay afloat.

Despite clear evidence of mismanagement, greed, and regulatory failures, the government’s priority was clear: prevent collapse. The villains were known, but the focus was on stability, not spectacle.

There were investigations, yes. There were Senate hearings. But no CEO was paraded as a criminal on nightly news. No high-decibel campaigns demanded arrests. The culture of entrepreneurship and innovation was preserved. The American government understood: saving the system was more important than punishing the few — at least in the immediate term.

The result? The U.S. economy recovered in a few years, companies repaid their bailouts with interest, and Wall Street emerged bruised but alive.

The Indian Reality: Crime First, Context Later

Now contrast this with India. In recent decades, whenever a major business group or financial entity stumbles, the first response isn’t a strategic bailout or systemic review it is a narrative war.

Be it Kingfisher Airlines, IL&FS, Yes Bank, or even sectors like telecom and power, the Indian media and political ecosystem often shifts the public lens from innovation and industrial contribution to allegations, arrests, and acronyms of corruption.

Entrepreneurs who may have created thousands of jobs, exported Indian excellence to foreign shores, or developed indigenous technology are quickly painted in black and white. The complexity of business failures — market forces, policy gaps, infrastructure delays — is flattened into simplified tales of personal greed.

In this quest for accountability, we sometimes forget the larger cost: we kill risk-taking. We discourage ambitious thinking. And most critically, we often allow entire industries to collapse — along with their talent, trust, and global credibility.

Why the Difference?

1. Institutional Confidence vs Institutional Cynicism
   The U.S. trusts its systems — regulators, judiciary, media — to eventually deliver justice. India, scarred by historical inefficiencies, tries to deliver justice instantly through public trials.

2. Capitalist Culture vs Mixed Economy Baggage
   The U.S. sees business failures as part of capitalism. India still subconsciously sees business success as something suspect — often conflating wealth with wrongdoing.

3. Short-term Optics vs Long-term Vision
   Indian politics and media are often driven by the need for headlines and TRPs. The U.S., with its stronger bipartisan economic consensus, tends to look at macroeconomic health before micro-level morality.

What India Can Learn

India is at the cusp of becoming a global powerhouse. To get there, it must build a narrative ecosystem that celebrates creation over condemnation.

• Let investigative agencies do their job, but let entrepreneurs rebuild.

• Separate personal culpability from institutional potential.

• Offer revival packages not just for banks, but for innovators and risk-takers.

• Recognize that not every failed venture is a fraud — and not every business success story needs a footnote of doubt.

Conclusion: Protect the Creator, Then Punish the Culprit

The American model isn’t perfect — many believe it let bankers off the hook. But what it got right was this: economies grow when you protect creators, even if they sometimes falter. India must evolve to understand that growth and governance are not mutually exclusive, and that the future belongs to those nations that choose to rescue, reform, and rise, not just rage.