Curious case of Mahua Moitra

Mahua Moitra, the firebrand Trinamool Congress Lok Sabha MP from Bengal, seems to be fighting with her back to the wall, after being accused of asking questions, for a consideration, at the behest of a businessman, to tarnish the image of Industrialist Gautam Adani.
The charges which are of an extremely serious nature, if proven, could lead to her possible disqualification from the House, thus resulting in a major setback to the political career of someone, who was regarded as perhaps the most outstanding Parliamentarian of the current Parliament.
Jai Anant Dehadrai, an advocate with whom Mahua shared a long and close personal relationship, but has fallen out, has alleged that she had been targeting Gautam Adani after being fed questions by rival businessman, Darshan Hiranandani, and was receiving expensive gifts and cash payments from him. Dehadrai while asking for an investigation, had also sent a copy of his complaint to Nishikant Dubey, a BJP MP, who forwarded it to the Lok Sabha Speaker, Om Birla.
Dubey, had once been accused by Mahua, with whom he had a good rapport at one time, of possessing a fake degree. His letter to the Speaker has been referred to the Ethics Committee of the Lok Sabha for further action. However, several experts are of the opinion that instead of sending it to the Ethics committee, the Speaker should have forwarded the matter to the Privileges Committee, which is the appropriate forum to address such complaints.
To make matters worse for the Bengal MP, Darshan Hiranandani has also sent a sworn affidavit to the Lok Sabha secretariat, stating that he indeed had provided the questions against Gautam Adani. In addition, he claimed that he was provided the log in credentials of her official account by the Parliamentarian, and would directly send the questions on her behalf.
On her part, Mahua has denied all the allegations, which she has described as the handiwork of those who had been offended by her asking questions of the Prime Minister. She has maintained that Dehadrai had a grudge against her because of their parting, and Darshan Hiranandani had been pressurized to implicate her in a false case.
The Ethics Committee has asked Nishikant Dubey to appear before it on Thursday and if required could also summon Mahua Moitra for her version. Allegations if established could lead to legal and criminal implications which would be detrimental to the future of the MP, who seems to be isolated at this juncture, with nobody from her party coming out in her defence. Most of the politicians including the allies, have chosen to wait and watch, to understand the entire matter, before offering any comments.
Hiranandani’s self-incriminating letter, also names some prominent persons including political leaders and a top journalist. The insinuation is that all these people had conspired against Gautam Adani and were engaged in tarnishing his image in order to hit out at the Prime Minister, whom the industrialist had known for many years.
Hiranandani’s letter of course is no guarantee that Adani would not be targeted, but it has ensured that those who do so in the future, would have to think twice. In any case, many people familiar with business circles, believe that attacks on Adani were not only from Hiranandani but also at the behest of business rivals, whose beneficiaries, fed inaccurate information to the former Congress president, Rahul Gandhi who too has been attacking the industrialist at every opportunity he gets.
However, it is difficult to prove if this was true, and the former Congress president was merely relying on the information passed on by political associates, who were under the influence of business rivals of the Adanis. But the possible fallout would be that in the immediate future, anyone wishing to level allegations against any industrialist or business house would think twice before indulging in such activity.
The nexus between politicians and industrialists is well known but the charges against Mahua are of a very serious nature and the onus of establishing them would be on those who are making them. The evidence has to be of very credible nature and must corroborate these allegations. The Ethics committee would examine all aspects before making any kind of recommendation to the House, which would then take the appropriate action. The issue could even go up to the Apex Court, if justice appears to have been denied. Therefore, the Ethics Committee does face a very difficult task.
Generally speaking, cash for questions happens all the time in several elected bodies. In the early 1980s while covering the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, one would hear of stories how some member of the Standing Committee had taken money for getting some matter passed. In the instance of a certain corporator, one had to see his copy of the agenda to draw one’s own conclusions. If there was a tick before an item, the deal had been made, if there was a question mark, the matter was under negotiations and if a cross appeared, the issue was closed and rejected.
In Parliament, there have been unsubstantiated stories of how influential industrialists had over the years, given their inputs, before the formation of the Cabinet. In the current context, it also needs to be figured out how were certain questions asked, when the Question Hour has virtually remained suspended.
In Mahua’s case, it may be premature to draw conclusions but as of now, she is in serious trouble. Between us.