Mahua Moitra’s obfuscation, Trinamool’s wink, I.N.D.I.A. silence mark l’affaire Mahua Moitra.
William Congreve, a post Shakespearean-era British writer, published in 1697 his book, “The Mourning Bride” which is credited with origins of the adage, “Hell hath no fury like a woman’s scorn”. This is derived from a short poem in the book: “Heaven has no rage, like hatred turned; nor hell a fury like a woman scorned”. Hatred and scorn are two words which repeatedly prop up when we discuss l’affaire Mahua Moitra. Apparently the hatred which the Trinamool MP from Krishnagar nurtures towards Narendra Modi, which perhaps is manifested in her orchestrated diatribe against business tycoon Gautam Adani, and the scorn of lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai, whom Mahua describes in her defamation petition to the Delhi High Court as a “jilted Ex”, are two intrinsic elements of the ongoing saga which has no parallels in the history of Parliament of India.
The story begins with Dehadrai swearing an affidavit and appealing to CBI as well as to BJP Lok Sabha member from Jharkhand’s Godda, Nishikant Dubey (who is referred to by Mahua as a “Jharkhandi pit bull”) listing a number of charges. According to them she had been fielding questions in Lok Sabha to further the interests of the Hiranandani group, which had rivalry with Adani in some bids. The questions were framed by Darshan Hiranandani, an Indian businessman based in Dubai, who had access to the MP’s password and thus posted the questions directly from Dubai into the Lok Sabha’s question portal. Dehadrai’s allegation that quid pro quo, including gifts in cash and kind were involved in this transaction, has been referred by Dubey to the Speaker of Lok Sabha as well as to the Lokpal (an anti-corruption authority or body of ombudsman appointed by the President of India). The Speaker has referred the matter to the Ethics Committee, a 15-member body, which has seven BJP and eight Opposition MPs. After summoning Dehadrai and Dubey and recording their evidence the panel has now invited Mahua. She has refused to appear on 31 October, the day she was summoned, citing prior engagements and has offered to depose after 4 November.
Mahua has also filed a defamation suit against Dehadrai and Dubey. The High Court rapped her lawyer on the first date of hearing on learning that while the suit was pending Mahua’s lawyer had tried to reach an out of court settlement with Dehadrai. Thus admission of a suit filed on a matter pertaining to ethics was postponed to 31 October by the Judge who asked Mahua’s counsel to withdraw on grounds of breach of court’s ethics.
Mahua went on national television on 27 October, a day after Ethics Committee summoned her and alleged mala fide. She said she had shared her Lok Sabha login password with Darshan Hiranandani as he used to provide her the services of his secretary to type out the questions and submit them. Lok Sabha questions traditionally had to be submitted in writing, under a MP’s signature. Since 2019, as part of digitalisation, MPs also have the option of online submission, with a password issued by the National Informatics Centre (NIC). The concerned MP receives an OTP on phone for authenticating the question. Most MPs may be sharing their password with their personal secretaries, whose salary is reimbursed by the Parliament of India, and who are based either in New Delhi or in the MP’s constituency. Mahua apparently did not find a trustworthy steno-typist within Indian shores and thus entrusted her log in details overseas, to Hiranandani’s office, in Dubai. Reacting to Moitra’s affirmation, Dubey has pointed out that prior to accessing NIC facilities MPs have to affirm that they shall not share the portal’s access with anyone.
Amidst the brouhaha created by Dehadrai and Dubey, Darshan Hiranandani went to the Indian Consulate General in Dubai and signed a somewhat self-incriminating affidavit. Tracing his association with Mahua to a business meet in Kolkata in 2017 he said that he wanted to use her good offices to approach authorities in various states of India to further his business interests. Darshan Hiranandani states that Mahua “made frequent demands of me and kept asking me for various favours, which I had to fulfil in order to remain in close proximity with her and get her support. The demands that were made and favours that were asked included, gifting her expensive luxury items, providing support on renovation of her officially allotted bungalow in Delhi, travel expenses, holidays, etc, apart from providing secretarial and logistical help for her travels within India and to different parts of the world”.
Saying that Mahua was “very ambitious and wanted to quickly make a name for herself at the national level”, Hiranandani deposes that she felt that the “shortest possible route to fame” was by attacking Modi and his relationship with Gautama Adani. Says Hiranandani, “She thought the only way to attack Modi is by attacking Adani as both were contemporaries, belonging to Gujarat. She was helped by the fact that the rise of Adani had created jealousy and detractors among some sections of businesses both within and outside the country.” Hiranandani’s statement perhaps establishes an umbilical link, inter alia, between the Hindenburg disclosures (which plummeted India’s stock market) and other “disclosures” by the likes of Mahua and Rahul Gandhi in and outside Parliament.
Mahua has denied receiving any gifts or cash (she has asked Hiranandani to produce details and trail of these alleged largesse). She has also sought to cross-examine Hiranandani. She has not stated her intent to cross-examine Dehadrai and Dubey. The party to which she belongs, Trinamool Congress, has chosen to wink. Initially, TMC spokesman Kunal Ghosh summarily refused to comment, throwing the ball into Mahua’s court. Leader of TMC in Lok Sabha, Sudip Bandopadhyay, has kept mum. Party’s Rajya Sabha leader, Derek O’Brien, has described the Ethics Committee as the “right forum” for going into the issue. TMC supremo, Mamata Banerjee too has chosen to keep quiet. On the day Ethics Committee was summoning Mahua, Mamata had a press meet to criticise ED raids on her party men and Ashok Gehlot’s son, Vaibhav. The usual sabre rattling of TMC brass alleging harassment has somehow been missing in l’affaire Mahua.
With the exception of Sanjay Rout of Shiv Sena (UBT) and RJD’s Tejaswi Yadav (who praised Mahua’s educational and professional excellence but omitted the “cash for query” issue) no member of the I.N.D.I.A. bloc, of which Mahua is a firebrand and articulate (and perhaps a bit hyper) MP, has chosen to speak up for her. Mahua, prior to shifting her loyalties to Mamata (whom she refers to as “Mother”) had been part of Rahul Gandhi’s “Aam aadmi ke sipahi” troupe. Sources in Congress say Rahul, who fancies himself as the holder of the copyright on anti-Modi-Adani diatribe, wanted Congress to react. Sonia Gandhi did not give her nod. Apparently, some Congress brass tried to persuade TMC to stand by Mahua. But that party’s priorities apparently were different.
Sanctity of the Parliament of India and thereby the dignity and honour of the Republic of India are involved in the impugned matter before the Ethics Committee of Lok Sabha. There are no precedents which can be relied upon. The decision the panel takes, therefore, shall have long term effect on the functioning of our parliamentary system.