So, SCAM 2003 turned out to be another SCAM.
For the past two years, I had eagerly anticipated this show, but what we received in return was a half-baked, generically researched story. When SCAM 1992 was released, it genuinely set new standards in terms of storytelling. However, in SCAM 2003, Hansal Mehta single-handedly brought the show down.
Here’s a piece of advice for those who haven’t watched the series yet: don’t set your expectations too high for this one. The show feels like a Hotchpotch of SCAM 1991 and the Shahid Kapoor-starrer ‘Farzi.’ While it borrows some elements from the success of SCAM 1992, it mostly inherits the flaws from ‘Farzi.’
So, what went wrong with SCAM 2003? When SCAM 1992 was released, it was hailed as the finest financial thriller ever produced in India, and it certainly lived up to that claim. It provided a deep dive into the intricate world of the stock market, financial loopholes, and technicalities. It was an educational treasure trove for viewers like me. However, SCAM 2003 is burdened by a hollow, almost formulaic story—a typical Bollywood tale of rags to riches.
The memories of the Telgi scam are still vivid in the minds of Indian audiences. Each day, the headlines were filled with the latest updates on the Telgi scam. It was a shock that reverberated from Mumbai to Delhi and shocked the entire nation. It was the first time Indians witnessed corruption on such a massive scale. But what happened behind the scenes during that time? Who was Abdul Karim Telgi as a person? What endowed him with a Midas touch? What were the technicalities and financial loopholes that allowed Telgi to infiltrate the system and corrupt it? What if those loopholes remain open, and such corruptions are still happening?
In SCAM 2003, the portrayal of Abdul Karim Telgi is that of a man with god-like power, someone who knows everything, never makes mistakes, and outsmarts everyone. A core question that haunted me until the fifth episode was: why was it only Telgi? If the stamp paper scam was so immensely profitable, why hadn’t others attempted it before? The story leaves you with the impression that in this country, everything, from the police to political leaders to officials, is up for sale. So, if you intend to achieve something by playing by the book, you might need to rethink your strategy.
Whenever the protagonist confronts an adversary or a challenge, he appears completely at ease, as though he already knows the outcome. Unlike SCAM 1992, where other characters had their own stories, in SCAM 2003, aside from the protagonist, all the characters seem to exist merely to support the protagonist in achieving his goal. They lack their own purpose or goals.
Overall, I would say that without Gagan Dev Riar, SCAM 2003 would be nothing more than a passable Bollywood flick that could easily be overlooked.”