Yet, another misleading video by Abhisar Sharma
Abhisar Sharma, a journalist who has faced recent allegations of receiving Chinese bribes in exchange for producing pro-China content, has released a YouTube video focusing on Mahua Moitra. For the last few days, social media has been abuzz with accusations against West Bengal parliamentarian Mahua Moitra. She stands accused of receiving bribes from businessman Darshan Hiranandani in exchange for posing specific questions in parliament. This unfolding controversy has been termed ‘Bribe for Question’ by the mainstream media.
However, Abhisar Sharma, in his recent YouTube video, has contended that Member of Parliament Nishikant Dubey leveled baseless accusations against Mahua Moitra due to her outspoken stance against Indian businessman Gautam Adani. Furthermore, Sharma alleges that Sanjay Singh faced imprisonment because he also raised questions concerning Gautam Adani.
Sharma makes reference to a Financial Times report that implicates Adani Power in overcharging for imported coal. He also notes that the Adani Group issued a response to the FT’s allegations even before the report was published.
Abhisar Sharma’s reputation for disseminating unsubstantiated information and unfounded narratives is well-documented. The recent early morning raid by Delhi police at his residence serves as yet another compelling reminder of the importance of rigorously verifying and fact-checking the assertions made in Sharma’s videos.
To initiate the fact-checking process, let’s begin by revisiting the assertions presented in Abhisar Sharma’s recent YouTube video.
To begin, it’s essential to clarify that Gautam Das Adani was not connected to the recent accusations against Mahua Moitra. These allegations were actually made by Jai Anant Dehadrai, who was previously known as a “personal” friend of the West Bengal parliamentarian.
According to Hindustan Times, ‘Nishikant Dubey sent a letter to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, alleging that Moitra accepted bribes in exchange for asking questions in Parliament to favor a business group. He mentioned advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai’s evidence of these alleged bribes. Additionally, Dubey wrote to IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, requesting an investigation into Moitra’s House login credentials’ IP address.’
Furthermore, Hindustan Times also shed light on advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai’s relationship with Mahua Moitra. According to HT, ‘Jai Anant Dehadrai, who is said to be Mahua Moitra’s estranged partner, has a bitter dispute with her over the custody of their pet dog. Moitra has filed several police complaints against Dehadrai in the last six months for issues like trespassing, theft, sending inappropriate messages, and verbal abuse.’
According to Bar and Bench, ‘Dehadrai claimed that Moitra allowed Hiranandani to use her online Lok Sabha account to post 50 out of the 61 questions she has asked during her time as an MP. He alleged that this conspiracy aimed to:
Dehadrai also said that he witnessed phone calls between Moitra and Hiranandani that put this conspiracy into action.
In summary, Jai Anant Dehadrai, Mahua Moitra’s former partner, has provided substantial evidence to MP Nishikant Dubey, demonstrating that Moitra received bribes in exchange for posing questions in Parliament, tarnishing the reputation of PM Modi and Adani. In this scenario, Gautam Adani becomes a victim of the growing avarice of a parliamentarian who, instead of addressing issues in her constituency, caused a raucous within the Parliament.
Therefore, the assertion made by Abhisar Sharma is profoundly misleading, as he needlessly involved the prominent Indian industrialist rather than shedding light on the questionable activities of his favored parliamentarian.
According to India Today, ‘The Enforcement Directorate (ED) claims to possess evidence indicating that AAP MP Sanjay Singh, who was arrested in the Delhi liquor policy case on Wednesday, received a substantial amount of money from an individual who was initially accused but later turned approver.
Moreover, the investigative agency has established a financial link between this individual, Dinesh Arora, and Sanjay Singh. The ED alleges that Singh played a role in devising the now-defunct liquor policy and received illicit payments. Dinesh Arora is said to have provided Sanjay Singh with a significant sum of money, running into crores, and that Singh is associated with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).’
In addition to Sanjay Singh, Manish Sisodia and Satyendra Jain are currently in custody. Sisodia faces charges in the liquor case and has been incarcerated for approximately 8 months. The fact that the court has not yet granted him bail speaks to the seriousness of the allegations against these AAP leaders. However, Abhisar Sharma appears to have disregarded these crucial facts and has instead reiterated predetermined statements to fit his narrative. Therefore, the assertion he made regarding Sanjay Singh is also misleading.
What Abhisar Sharma failed to comprehend is that the Financial Times published two separate articles—one on Adani on August 31st and the other on October 12th. The Adani Group responded to the FT article on September 9th. As for the article from October 12th, the Adani Group has not yet issued a response.
Adani group in their reply on 9th October said, “Continuing their relentless campaign, the next attack is being fronted by Dan McCrum of the Financial Times, who jointly with the OCCRP put out a false narrative against the Adani Group on 31 August 2023. The OCCRP is funded by George Soros, who has openly declared his hostility against the Adani Group.“
The group later added, “The FT’s proposed storyline is a clever recycling and selective misrepresentation of publicly available facts and information with a deliberate and mischievous suppression of judicial decisions to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.”
The Financial Times in its 12th October article wrote, “The Adani Group denies any wrongdoing. It said the FT story is based on an “old, baseless allegation”, and is “a clever recycling and selective misrepresentation of publicly available facts and information”.
Upon closer examination of the evidence presented above, it becomes evident that the Financial Times (FT) published two articles related to Adani, one on August 31st and the other on October 12th. In response, the Adani Group issued a rebuttal on October 9th, specifically addressing the August 31st article. Furthermore, FT acknowledged Adani’s response to their earlier article by quoting select excerpts. However, Abhisar Sharma deceptively chose to conceal the fact that there were indeed two distinct articles under consideration, all in an attempt to construct his conspiracy theory against Adani.
Therefore, in his 15-minute video, Abhisar Sharma put forth three points, all of which are misleading. He skillfully danced around the issues, constructing a narrative to exonerate MP Mahua Moitra and Sanjay Singh, much like he has done for himself. It’s truly disconcerting to witness individuals like Abhishar Sharma donning the garb of journalism while essentially acting as a sycophant.
| Claim | Mahua Moitra and Sanjay Singh are in legal trouble because they raised their voices against Gautam Adani and PM Modi |
| Claimed by | Abhisar Sharma |
| Fact Check | Misleading |
Also Read: Newsclick Raid Links Rooted in Chinese Connections, Not Adani Criticism
This website uses cookies.