Targeting Adani, demand of JPC worthless, says Pawar on Hindenburg report

Both houses of Parliament adjourned sine die, marking a near-washout of the Budget session. One of the major issues that stalled the working of the Houses was the Opposition's high-pitched demand for a joint parliamentary committee (JPC) to investigate the business affairs of a top Indian conglomerate, Adani Group, and alleged its links with the government.

In an exclusive interview with NDTV, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) chief and veteran politician Sharad Pawar held a difference in opinion with the Opposition.

Pawar criticised the 'out of proportion' importance that was given to the US short-seller Hindenburg's report on the Adani Group and said that its cost is borne by the country's economy. "Such statements were given by other individuals too earlier and there was a ruckus in parliament for a few days but this time, out-of-proportion importance was given to the issue," he added.

Questioning the authenticity of the report, the NCP chief said, "The issues that were kept, who kept them, we had never heard of these people who gave the statement, what is the background. When they raise issues that cause a ruckus across the country, the cost is borne by the country's economy, we cannot disregard these things. It seems this was targeted."

Extending support to the Adani Group, Pawar said that the report seems like an individual industrial group of the country was targeted. However, he added that if they have done anything wrong, there should be an inquiry.

Pawar also distanced himself from his Maharashtra ally's 'single-minded' demand for a JPC probe into the issue and candidly said he did not share the views of Congress.

'The demand for the Parliamentary committee was a demand against the ruling party'

Sharad Pawar said that following the demand for an inquiry, the Supreme Court set up an independent panel to investigate the report and has appointed a committee with a retired judge from the apex court, an expert, an administrator, and an economist. The committee was given guidelines and a timeframe for the conduct of an inquiry.

Further, he added that after the Supreme Court announced an inquiry, there was no significance of a JPC Probe.

"The opposition wanted a parliamentary committee to be appointed. If a parliamentary committee is appointed, then monitoring is with the ruling party. The demand was against the ruling party. If the committee appointed for an inquiry has a ruling party majority, then how will the truth come out? It is a valid concern. If the Supreme Court, which no one can influence, were to conduct the inquiry, then there was a better chance of the truth coming to light. So, after the Supreme Court announced an inquiry, there was no significance of a JPC Probe. It was not needed," Pawar told NDTV.

When asked what he believed was the Congress's intent behind pushing for a JPC probe, the NPC chief said that he cannot say what the intent was, and maybe the media reporting of the issue could have been a reason.

He also disagreed with Rahul Gandhi's "Adani-Ambani" style of targeting big business houses saying that it was 'meaningless' while referring to the "Tata-Birla" narrative of the past.

"This has been happening in this country for many years. Many years ago that when we came into politics, if we had to speak against the government, we spoke against Tata-Birla. When we understood the contribution of Tata, we used to wonder why we kept on saying Tata-Birla. Today the name of Tata-Birla is not at the forefront, different Tata-Birla's have come before the government," he said adding that these days if you have to attack the government, the name of Ambani and Adani is taken.

Pointing out that not just the Congress, but other Opposition parties also shared the demand, Pawar said that the effort to find a solution was missing from both the Opposition and the government.

Calling it a collective responsibility to run a House, Pawar said that whether you sit in the evening or the next day, there must be an effort to find a solution. "This process of dialogue is absent these days," he added.

"There can be different viewpoints. One has the right to speak strongly about the policies of the government, but a discussion should take place. Discussion and dialogue are very important in any democracy, if you ignore discussion and dialogue the system will fall into danger, it will just perish."

In the Lok Sabha, the government had planned to debate and pass nine Bills other than financial legislation. It could pass one. The Rajya Sabha was to pass 18 non-financial Bills. It succeeded with three.