Mahua Moitra's mistakes

Four years ago, Mahua Moitra's maiden speech in Parliament was greeted with acclaim. People thought she would be a fitting sparring partner for Nirmala Sitharaman. Mahua would be Mamta's ambassador in Delhi directing attention at big industrial projects- e.g. the Tajpur deep water port- which Mamta was pushing forward so as to restore Bengal to a position of economic pre-eminence. Sadly, Mahua went in for hysterical histrionics. She broke the rule which says you mustn't let other people log into you account to post Parliamentary questions. She showed a complete ignorance of the procedures and traditions of the house. She showered abuse on Adani despite the fact that Mamta needs the fellow to proceed with the Tajpur project. Then her ex-boyfriend came forward with allegations that she was corrupt. She had taken money from a rival businessman to attack the Adanis. 

Scroll India's Shoaib Daniyal asks-

What does the summary expulsion of an Opposition MP say about Parliamentary democracy in India?

It says it is like the British Parliament. If you take cash for asking questions in Parliament you are disqualified and may have to do prison time.  Older people will recall that 'Cash for questions' greatly harmed John Major's government. 

In this particular case, the Indian precedent was the 2005 cash for queries scandal which led to the expulsion of 11 MPs. The Supreme Court upheld this action. I believe criminal charges were later brought against those scoundrels.

Parliament needed to show it was takes corruption seriously. The Lokpal has referred the matter to the CBI. It would have greatly helped Mahua if the Ethics Panel had stopped short of disqualification. The CBI could have used 'parliamentary privilege' as an excuse to close the case.

What most undermines democracy is loss of faith in the integrity of elected politicians. Shoaib believes the opposite. MPs should never be punished for wrongdoing provided they are on your side politically speaking. 

On Friday at noon, a report of the ethics committee was tabled in Parliament. It recommended the expulsion of Trinamool Congress MP from West Bengal Mahua Moitra from the Lok Sabha for sharing her Parliamentary login details with a businessman and allegedly asking questions in the House in return for cash.

Mahua had  initially refused to attend and when she did appear, she stormed out of the Committee's hearing. She alleged that its members had asked sexually demeaning questions even though the wife of Amarinder Singh was on the panel. Naturally, this allegation would upset that lady and incline her to vote against Mahua. It simply isn't credible that a Sikh lady will sit idly by when a woman is being subjected to sexist behaviour. Moreover we are speaking of the Maharani of Patiala! 

Previously, Mahua had compared herself to the Goddess Kali whom she described as a drinker of alcohol. It was felt that her ego was getting the better of her. She was needlessly alienating religious people of more modest social position.  Mahua alleges that the Ethics Panel asked her demeaning questions. Yet, they had to verify the accusation made against her by her ex that he had overheard her conversation with the businessman on the speakerphone. It was perfectly proper for leading questions to be asked so she could clarify what actually happened. Instead of understanding she was being offered a way of gaining  the benefit of the doubt- she could hint her boyfriend got jealous- she took umbrage. She compared this line of questioning to the disrobing of Draupati. In a religious country like India, this is a horrible accusation to make. Thus the Panel decided to disqualify her even though it only exists so the Legislature appears to be taking action against its own members without their suffering any real punishment. The culprits are supposed to appear contrite and to bow their heads and listen to a long scolding.  

In this particular case, if a person has an intimate relationship with someone who gives them valuable gifts, there is a defence in law against the charge that there was a political quid pro quo. Had Mahua consulted a good lawyer he would have pointed out different ways she could keep her options open in this regard. You can say things like 'I don't want to reveal anything which is personal and which may affect other people's relationships. But I do accept I made 'errors of judgment'. We Parliamentarians must be like Caesar's wife- i.e. we must avoid even the appearance of impropriety.' The Ethics Committee could then have said that Mahua had not provided enough details to establish her innocence but she had expressed contrition for the appearance of impropriety. The mistake was to take umbrage over a line of questioning which, from the legal point of view, created 'reasonable doubt' in her favour.

Within hours, the speaker had moved a voice vote, a mechanism that decides motions by trying to gauge which side is louder when it shouts “aye” or “no”. Moitra did not even get a chance to speak as she was being expelled.

She had her chance to speak to the Ethics Panel. She should have expressed contrition and said she'd made some errors of judgment. But the Panel should be merciful because she was a first time Member of the Lok Sabha.  

There could have been a proper debate on the Report but only of half an hour duration as specified by the rules. Mahua was not allowed to speak in her own defence because of the precedent created by Somnath Chatterjee, as Speaker, back in 2005, when a number of MPs were expelled summarily. 

By 3 pm, the Krishnanagar constituency had lost its representative in India’s Parliament.

If Mahua is sent to jail for more than two years she won't be allowed to stand in the next two general elections. That is what should be worrying her.  

The origin of Friday’s expulsion lies in a complaint made by a Delhi-based lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai. He alleged that the Krishnagar MP had asked questions in Parliament attacking industrialist Gautam Adani on instructions from competitor Darshan Hiranandani.

Which Hiranandani confirmed. 

Dehadrai has earlier been in a romantic relationship with Moitra. However, at the time of making the complaint, they had separated and were, in fact, feuding publicly.

They were in a custody battle over a dog named Henry Kissinger.  

That India’s federal

Central, not Federal. India is not a Federation. 

legislature first took up a complaint based on what seems like pique from a former partner

The guy was a lawyer who had made specific criminal allegations of cognizable offences. The Privileges Committee could have taken this up if the allegations were repeated by a legislator. The Ethics Committee is a milder alternative and could take action on the basis that the complaint was from a 'layperson' (i.e. not a legislator or other such official) .  Still, it appears that the Lokpal has already called for a CBI investigation. Mahua had previously said there had been a ' "selective leak of a plea bargain." In other words, the businessman who paid her would be a witness for the prosecution in return for which he might escape condign punishment. 

The Speaker followed the rules and traditions of the house in refusing to give Mahua a chance to speak separately from the half hour debate which he decided to permit in accordance with the rules. 

is the start of much that is unusual in the Moitra saga. While the ethics committee charged her for sharing her password, it is unclear what is the illegality involved in this since Parliament has no rules about password sharing at all.

It has a rule against unethical behaviour- e.g. raising questions, in return for money or other favours, in order to benefit a particular business house by tarnishing it rival.  

In fact, it is widely done by MPs. If the standard applied to Moitra were to be applied to all MPs, India might not have much of a Parliament left.

The 'Mahua effect' has led to a tightening of security in this respect.  Why did the silly woman not show some contrition and let herself be scolded for a couple of hours?

Even more unusual is the fact that the committee produced no proof that Moitra took money from Hiranandani.

It was not required to do so. Mahua's behaviour was unethical in their view. Since she showed no contrition, the Panel decided to disqualify her.  

An MP was thus expelled almost on a whim.

Nope. It was on the basis of legal affidavits from concerned parties. Mahua offered no defence and showed no contrition.  

To further underline this, action against Moitra was sharply divided on party lines. The ruling BJP wanted her gone even as Opposition parties cried foul.

Because she was attacking the BJP and its PM. So what? She had acted unethically and paid the price. The question now is whether she will face criminal charges. 

India is a Parliamentary democracy. This means that its claim to being a democracy rests on the fact that its legislators are elected by the people.

Those legislators get to decide that an unethical or corrupt legislator should be expelled from the House. Look at George Santos.  

Its other two arms of governments – the executive and the judiciary – are not.

The executive must enjoy the confidence of the House.  

Yet, as the Moitra expulsion shows, Parliament is precisely now the weakest arm of government.

Why? A strong Parliament can get rid of corrupt or crooked legislators. It is up to the Courts to send them to jail.  

An MP’s place in the House should be sacrosanct given that she represents the democratic voice of millions.

India could have chosen to give MPs immunity from arrest. It decided not to. That was a democratic decision.  

That Moitra was kicked out with no proof of wrongdoing and simply on the ruling party’s bidding is a sign of just how little power and prestige Parliament now commands.

Nonsense! Anyway, the thing is subject to judicial review. But the Courts may pass a sentence of two years or more in which case she will be disqualified.  

Moitra’s case is one in a long line of incidents that showcase this trend.

Nonsense! Other disqualifications have followed jail sentences being handed down.  

For one, Parliament now barely does its primary job – scrutinising bills.

Because the Opposition screams hysterically and so Parliament is adjourned after the Govt. gets its bills passed. 

Legislation is now often passed in Parliament summarily. Sometimes, literally within minutes. The Lok Sabha, for example, took as little as five minutes to pass the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which puts in place an insolvency resolution mechanism for micro, small and medium enterprises.

So what? Nobody thinks any MP had anything valuable to say about it.  

Even worse, often Parliament even votes in a way that does not make it clear whether bills had the support of enough members, using the device of a voice vote.

So what? The Government has a clear majority.  

This trusts the presiding officer to estimate votes based on how loud MPs shout their vote. In 2020, for example, the Rajya Sabha passed three critical bills which changed how the agriculture sector worked based on a voice vote.

That didn't work out so well for Modi- did it?  

In 1985, Parliament even passed a legislation called the Anti-Defection law that forces MPs to vote according to the commands of their party. This is high irony given that MPs are actually elected by the people of India while party high commands are not. In fact, till this law was passed, parties were not even legally a part of the structure of Parliament. The legislature was, quite obviously, made of legislators and nothing more.

The true scandal was that India had turned away from Democracy towards Dynasticism.  

Parliament is a majoritarian institution. This means numbers are what decides how it functions. However, if that were all that mattered, a democracy would run at the whims and fancies of the current government and the ruling party.

There is judicial review and the countervailing power of protests organized by powerful lobbies- e.g. that of the farmers.  

In practice, this majoritarian nature of Parliament is held in check by a liberal politics that values the place of the Opposition.

If the Opposition has sensible people who can make good speeches- sure. But that is not currently the case. The place is a bear garden.  

This point becomes even more critical given that India’s first-past-the-post-system tends to exaggerate the number of MP seats. The ruling BJP, for example, got less than 38% of the vote in the previous Lok Sabha elections. If using this mandate, it starts to expel Opposition members, that would be a perversion of electoral democracy.

Such expulsions are subject to judicial review. Why expel a guy if his party wins the by-election with a bigger majority?  

Unfortunately, this liberal politics is under strain in India due to a number of factors.

There is only one factor. Rahul is a moon-calf. Yet Congress has to keep pretending he can be PM.  

Most critical is the fact that MPs have not only been devalued in law, by the Anti-Defection Law,

Which are almost 40 years old. Anyway, Rajiv was brought down by rebels within his own Cabinet.  

but have also seen a reduction in their importance due to larger political trends. Elections in India are now increasingly Presidential in style,

as they were in the Fifties and every subsequent decade.  

both in the states as well as the Centre. Voters vote for leaders – be they Modi or Mamata Banerjee – not legislators.

This was certainly the case for Nehru and Indira.  

This means that MPs are dependent on the executive branch for their power.

Cabinet members are MPs. Some MPs who represent castes or ideologies with a big geographic spread will have more power than nonentities kept in place by the party machine. 

Not the other way around, as is the design in a Parliamentary system.

This is nonsense. The PM has to resign if he loses a vote of confidence.  

To some extent this has always been true in India. Which is what explains the unusual passing of the Anti-Defection Law itself, where MPs voted to reduce their own power.

Rajiv rammed it through using his mammoth majority. But this didn't save him from VP Singh and his cousin Arun Nehru.  

But this topsy-turvy power dynamic has certainly been exacerbated by recent trends where big money has entered election campaigns and parties

It did so in the Nineteen Twenties and Thirties. Indira curbed the money power of the big business houses. They tend to keep good relations with all parties.  

connect state functions, especially welfare, to the personality of one leader.

Nehru and Indira had big personalities. Many welfare schemes are named after members of the Dynasty. 

This centralisation of power

which occurred under Nehru 

has not only devalued Parliament,

That happened when the Planning Commission was created. Thankfully, Modi abolished it.  

it will eventually end up devaluing Indian democracy.

In which case it got devalued at its very inception.  

Legislators that are responsible to a constituency are a critical interface between the state and the people.

Only if they actually act in a responsible manner. Mahua has not done so.  

They carry the voice of their voters into corridors of power and hold the government accountable. To reduce them to rubber stamps or, as in Moitra’s case, cast them aside on the orders of the party that controls the government, would be disastrous.

Mahua has been cast aside. What great disaster will befall India? The answer is that Henry Kissinger- the dog- may bite Shoaib's leg. Mahua will beat him up for trying to ingratiate himself with her beloved pet by offering him his own tender flesh. She will hold a press conference and say Shoaib tried to outrage the modesty of her dog because Shoaib is a paid agent of the Adanis. Rahul too has a dog. He will get very upset and fly off to Bangkok. Soniaji and Priyankaji will have to go there and comfort him and assure him that it is safe to return.  

Surprisingly, the FT has a long article on Mahua's expulsion suggesting that there are significant vested interests abroad who wish to see the demise of the Adanis and the infrastructure they provide India

India’s lower house of parliament has expelled Mahua Moitra, one of its most outspoken female opposition MPs who is a trenchant critic of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the powerful Adani conglomerate.

Mahua is a first time MP. She made a promising start but her reputation has declined because she makes wild allegations without any proof. She should have kept her head down and gained a reputation as an expert on fiscal policy.  

A majority of members of the Lok Sabha, which is dominated by Modi’s governing Bharatiya Janata party, on Friday voted to oust Moitra following an investigation into what she said were trumped-up allegations.

She said there was a 'plea deal'- i.e. the guy who paid her would provide proof of her wrong-doing in exchange for a lighter sentence. This was just one of her very many missteps. 

Om Birla, Speaker of the Lok Sabha, agreed with the chamber’s ethics committee that Moitra engaged in “immoral and indecent” conduct and so should not continue as a member of parliament.

More seriously, it now appears inevitable that criminal charges against her will be brought. She may do jail time.  

The probe into the former investment banker’s conduct has laid bare bitter divides in Indian politics both on gender issues

Nonsense! The BJP just passed a Woman's Reservation Bill. Mahua should have imitated Nirmala Sitharaman and shown herself as a good debater. Instead she has become renowned only for 'unparliamentary language' 

and between the BJP and opposition parties that have attacked Modi over his links to Adani’s founder Gautam Adani.

Everybody is linked to the Adanis. They prospered under Congress and are doing big projects in Opposition ruled States.  

Mamata Banerjee, the leader of Moitra’s party, the All India Trinamool Congress, called her expulsion a “betrayal” of her constitutional rights.

Mamta gains by being seen as the benevolent elder sister standing up for a spoiled brat.  

“They didn’t allow Mahua to take her own stand, to explain her situation,” Banerjee said.

Mahua initially refused to meet the Ethics Panel and then stormed out after using 'unparliamentary language'.  

Moitra was ejected over claims she posed parliamentary questions, including about Adani, in exchange for gifts from a Dubai-based Indian businessman, Darshan Hiranandani.

Her ex-partner says she pocketed lots of money from the dude.  

In an interview before her expulsion, Moitra called the allegations “absolute rubbish” aired by her ex-partner Jai Anant Dehadrai because of a “bitter custody battle” the former couple had over their pet rottweiler, Henry.

If she can't even manage her personal life, what great political issues will she be able to handle?  

The ousted MP said she walked out of an ethics hearing in October after being subject to a “filthy, sordid line of questioning”,

in which case Amarinder Singh's wife, who was on the panel, must be a spineless creature. Is it credible that a Sikh woman- that too a Maharani- will sit idly by when a woman's modesty is outraged?  

including questions about who she speaks to at night.

Did she speak to the businessman when her boyfriend was in the room? She could say 'no. There was no bedroom chit-chat. I don't use 'speakerphone' because I have earbuds. There is no way my ex could have gained any information about my dealings with the businessman in question.'  

“What’s happening is a very poorly run hatchet job,” Moitra said. 

It was well run. Her ex-boyfriend is a smart Supreme Court lawyer. The whole thing has been very well orchestrated. The businessman involved decided to cooperate after talking to his lawyers. Incidentally, the ex claims that Mahua keeps showing up at night at his house even after this scandal hit the papers. The lady comes across as demented.  

Analysts said the probe highlighted the difficult position of women in India’s male-dominated politics.

No they didn't. Mamta Bannerjee rules West Bengal just as Sonia Gandhi once ruled the country. But Mamta and Sonia have a reputation for personal probity and chaste conduct. That is where Mahua falls down. 

It also showed how Adani has become one of India’s most divisive political issues since short seller Hindenburg Research in January accused the group of stock manipulation and fraud.

Back in 2014, Kejriwal was gunning for the Ambanis- one of whom did in fact go bankrupt. Incidentally, it appeared that Mamta was about to take a big project away from Adani and give it to Mukesh.  However, that may no longer be the case. 

Adani has strongly denied the allegations. Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi, Moitra and others seized on the report to question whether Adani or Modi, both of whom hail from the western state of Gujarat,

like the Ambanis and the Tatas and many other big business houses.  

profited from their relationship.

Nobody believes Modi or Mamta eats money. But, with Mahua, we have a 'smoking gun'.  

  Moitra said in the interview both the BJP and Adani wanted her out of politics. 

She is a gift to Modi. The silly moo had said Goddess Kali was a wine-drinker! This is offensive to Hindus and a boon to the BJP.  

“It’s the same thing with Rahul Gandhi,” she said, referring to Gandhi’s expulsion from the Lok Sabha in March following a defamation conviction.

Rahul hadn't taken money. He could have avoided the conviction just by apologizing.  

Gandhi returned to parliament after the conviction was stayed in August. “We don’t accept women politicians; they are supposed to be modest,” Asim Ali, a political commentator, said of the move to expel Moitra.

This is a foolish thing to say. We expect politicians to manage their personal lives properly. Mahua should have conciliated her ex and agreed to shared custody of the dog.  

“Once you go out as an individual with liberal values and independence, you get attacked for being too loud and not knowing your place.”

But Mahua was not attacked for 'liberal values'. She got into trouble for 'cash for questions'. Mahua's proper place was as a representative of Mamta's in Delhi. She should spend her time telling the world about the TMC's great achievements. She should be publishing articles in the FT about the wonderful investment opportunities in 'Golden' West Bengal.  

The ethics probe was triggered in October after Moitra’s ex-partner Dehadrai filed a complaint to India’s Central Bureau of Investigation accusing her of corruption and money laundering and forwarded a copy to parliament. Dehadrai could not be reached for comment.

His latest tweet speaks volumes 
' I want to warn the Prime Minister @narendramodi that there are dangerous forces operating - in Delhi - links to foreign agencies - whose agenda is to target & delegitimise his authority. These snakes are debauched fixer-MPs, foreign-passport “editors” & “scholars.” Beware, Sir.'

Adani is building Indian infrastructure and making the country 'atma nirbhar' or self-sufficient. Vested interests abroad- Soros etc- are out to bring down India by bringing down Adani and Modi. 

Hiranandani, the businessman at the centre of the allegations, also filed an affidavit claiming Moitra shared her parliamentary login details so he could post questions “directly on her behalf”, including about the Adani Group. Moitra said on Friday there were no rules against sharing logins and MPs were “conveyor belts” to get questions from the public raised in parliament. Hiranandani’s affidavit also claimed Moitra “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”.

This is why Mahua says he wants a 'plea deal'. But, if no crime has occurred, nobody needs any such thing. Mahua is a very inept communicator. She may think she is smart but her ex is a well educated lawyer. 

 Indian media have described the affair as one of “cash for questions”, but Moitra denied taking money from her “old friend”,

she only met him in 2017 after she had got elected to the State legislature. 

or receiving anything other than small gifts. Hiranandani declined to comment.

He wants a plea deal first. 

The day after Dehadrai made his complaint against Moitra in October, Adani issued a statement describing it as a “shocking development”. The company declined to comment on her claims it sought to engineer her removal from politics. 

That rumour is helpful to them. People will think twice before going against them. I have always declined to confirm rumours that I have a giant dong which I use to sexually gratify thousands of super-models. No. Not male super-models. They all have vaginas. Just take my word for it already.  

Moitra said she would try to return to parliament in elections next year. “I am 49 years old,” the politician, who compares her expulsion to the disrobing of Draupadi, a female protagonist in the Hindu epic Mahabharata,

because Draupati was notorious for demanding bribes from businessmen- right?  

declared in a speech on Friday that took aim at the BJP. “I will fight you for the next 30 years inside parliament, outside parliament, in the gutter, on the streets,” she said.

Fight in the streets by all means. Why mention the gutter? Is it because this well educated and sophisticated lady prefers only the language of the gutter? Still, I suppose, it will help her rise up as the leader of a prison gang.