The Wire article is misleading
On the 3rd of January, a riveting day unfolded in the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court of India, marked by two consequential rulings. Firstly, the apex court, in a significant decision, declined to order an inquiry by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the allegations propagated by the Hindenburg Research report, which implicated the Adani group of companies in stock price manipulations. Secondly, the Supreme Court rendered no respite to Mahua Moitra in the matter of her expulsion, dismissing any relief in her favor.
Notably distinct, these legal pronouncements have found themselves entwined in the narrative spun by left-leaning journalism circles. A particular claim propagated in these circles asserts that Mahua Moitra’s expulsion from the parliament stems from her relentless interrogation into the business dealings of the Adani group. Adding credence to this perspective, an article in The Wire recently articulated a similar narrative, positing Mahua Moitra as an intrepid critic of both Gautam Adani and Prime Minister Modi, suggesting a causal link between her fearless scrutiny and subsequent expulsion.
The article featured in The Wire intricately delved into the labyrinth of inquiries surrounding the Adani group’s business affairs. Before scrutinizing the intricacies of Adani Port’s acquisition at Dhamra Port and the alleged displacement of state-owned entities IOCL and GAIL from the LNG sector, the author provided illuminating insights into the nuanced relationship between Mahua Moitra and businessman Darshan Hiranandani. The article shed light on the intriguing dynamics, suggesting that Moitra, purportedly, directed a mere 10 percent of her parliamentary inquiries under the influence of her business associate.
However, this article embarks on a rigorous fact-checking endeavor, meticulously scrutinizing each assertion propagated by a communist media entity. The author, in his- attempt to tilt the narrative in favor of Mahua Moitra, has ventured into the realm of intricate business dealings without furnishing substantiating evidence or referencing credible news reports. Within the confines of this exposé, we aim to unravel and cast a discerning light on these claims, seeking to reveal any potential biases and offer a balanced perspective on the matter at hand.
Also Read: Dear Abhisar Sharma, Mahua Moitra Faces Trouble Due to Her ‘Jilted’ Lover, Not Gautam Adani
The article in The Wire navigated through two distinct subjects: the expulsion of former parliamentarian Mahua Moitra and the allegations surrounding the Adani group, including matters related to port privatization. As part of our comprehensive fact-checking initiative, we will categorize our examination into these separate spheres, aiming to discern the accuracy and veracity of claims within each distinct issue.
Claim 1- The ongoing rapid privatization of port and LNG terminal development that has taken place during Modi’s prime ministership. This began in 2018 and has gathered momentum rapidly since then.
Fact- Following the liberalization of the Indian economy in 1991, a pivotal shift away from socialism catalyzed the entry of private and foreign business entities into the port sector. Renowned companies such as Reliance and Nayara (previously Essar) emerged as noteworthy private contributors to the LNG industry. Notably, Gujarat Pipavav Port, Mundra Port, and Kamarajar Port had already transitioned to private ownership before the year 2014.
Acknowledging the post-2014 landscape, it is undeniable that under Prime Minister Modi’s leadership, the trajectory of the Indian economy has witnessed a significant ascent. This economic surge has been marked by substantial increases in both export and import activities, consequently escalating the demand for ports. Interestingly, this surge has extended beyond states governed by the BJP, such as West Bengal, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala, which have actively facilitated Adani Group investments in their respective port infrastructures.
In light of the escalating market demands, the imperative for privatization becomes evident. This need transcends political affiliations, emphasizing that irrespective of the ruling government, the privatization of ports has become a compelling necessity to efficiently meet the burgeoning demands of the market.
Claim 2- In 2015, a year after the BJP came to power, it withdrew from the Paradip project and took an 11% share in a similar project at Dhamra port, also in Odisha. IOCL, another member of Petronet, took 38%. The other 51% was to be taken by ‘an unspecified partner’. That partner turned out to be the Adani group.
Fact- On May 17, 2014, several prominent business media outlets, including Business Standard and Economic Times, reported a significant development: Adani Port and Special Economic Zone (APSEZ) acquired Dhamra port in Orissa for Rs. 5,500 crore. Prior to this acquisition, Dhamra Port was a joint venture between L&T and TATA Steel, each holding a 50% stake. Adani, in its announcement, confirmed the execution of a definitive agreement with both companies, resulting in the acquisition of a 100% stake. This landmark transaction, one of the most substantial in the port sector in recent years, strategically positioned APSEZ to gain access to the east coast.
Having established the ownership of Dhamra port by Adani Port and SEZ even before Prime Minister Modi assumed office, let’s now delve into the related accusation regarding the alleged takeover of the LNG terminal business from GAIL and IOCL. According to Business Standard, in 2015, Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) inked an agreement to utilize up to 60% of the terminal’s 5 million tonnes annual capacity for importing gas for its refineries in Haldia, West Bengal, and Paradip, Odisha. Simultaneously, GAIL secured a commitment for 1.5 million tonnes of the terminal’s regasification capacity.
This implies that while Dhamra Port was indeed under the ownership of Adani Port, the group engaged in collaborative agreements with IOC and GAIL, facilitating the utilization of the LNG terminal for import purposes and other business endeavors.
Claim 1- The author wrote that the Chairman of the ethics committee insinuated that Moitra was having an affair with a businessman and was giving him sexual favours for asking questions at his behest.
Fact- In the testimony provided by Hiranandani, a clear distinction emerged, refuting any claims of romantic involvement between him and Ms. Moitra. Instead, their association was characterized by business dealings. Termed as the ‘Cash for Query’ affair, it alleged that Mahua Moitra received gifts and financial incentives from Darshan Hiranandani, ostensibly in exchange for posing favourable questions that could potentially benefit his business ventures while causing harm or financial loss to the Adani Group.
During the inquiry, the Chairman of the Ethics Committee, Vinod Kumar Sonkar, sought clarification from Ms. Moitra regarding her interactions with businessman Hiranandani. It’s crucial to note that the Wire author portrayed this query as having a sexual undertone. However, in reality, Sonkar was merely establishing a chronological framework for the broader investigation, emphasizing the need for clarity on Moitra’s engagements with Hiranandani.
Claim 2- Moitra disclosed her login credentials, though she would have received an OTP before anyone accessed her parliamentary account. This suggests that the questions asked were indeed from her, not Hiranandani.
Fact- Acknowledging her admission of sharing her login ID and password, a serious breach of confidentiality is apparent. The investigation into this matter should be bifurcated, focusing on two distinct facets. Firstly, Mahua Moitra’s acceptance of gifts in exchange for posing questions aimed at harming a business competitor demands scrutiny. Secondly, her act of sharing parliamentary account credentials constitutes a breach of confidentiality, posing potential risks to matters of national security.
The nuanced perspective here recognizes that Moitra’s actions extend beyond mere ethical lapses. By accepting gifts to influence her parliamentary inquiries, she is implicated in a questionable ethical terrain. Simultaneously, sharing login credentials for parliamentary accounts raises grave concerns, as it not only breaches confidentiality but also introduces a dimension of national security apprehension.
For those with a discerning intellect, the inherent understanding is that sharing one’s login ID and password entails responsibility for activities carried out under that account. Analogously, if someone were to share their Facebook credentials and objectionable content was posted, both parties would be held accountable.
Claim 3- Mahua Moitra faced disqualification for inquiring about the Adani Groups.
Fact- Her acknowledgement of breaching a sacrosanct confidentiality agreement came with the admission of sharing her login credentials. The crux of her disqualification stemmed from the narrative provided by her ex-boyfriend, which was subsequently corroborated by her business associate, Hiranandani.
The author of the article, however, failed to acknowledge this pivotal aspect, opting instead to propagate the narrative presented by Mahua Moitra.
In conclusion, a fastidious examination of the facts surrounding Mahua Moitra’s disqualification and the Adani port issue highlights a notable omission of crucial details and nuances in the narrative presented by the communist-leaning Wire article. The article, rather than offering an objective analysis, appears to align itself with Moitra’s version of events, sacrificing factual accuracy for a more favorable portrayal. Notably, when scrutinizing the Adani port issue, it becomes apparent that there is no substantiated evidence supporting the claim that any favor was extended to the Adani Group.
This website uses cookies.