- Adani Group Allegations: The U.S. Department of Justice has accused Gautam Adani and associates of bribing $265 million to secure solar power contracts in Indian states, but the allegations lack judicial standing in India.
- Political Repercussions: The controversy has fueled opposition claims of government links with Adani, despite the implicated states being opposition-ruled during the alleged period.
- Kenyan Withdrawal: Kenya canceled billion-dollar projects with Adani following U.S. allegations, amidst rising international scrutiny and local protests against the deals.
Recently, The United States Department of Justice issued a statement against Adani Group Chairman Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, and other associates for allegedly bribing $265 million to various Indian state governments. According to the allegations, the bribery was intended to secure solar power contracts by raising funds from the United States.
As per the indictment, the bribery was directed at the states of Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh, and Jammu & Kashmir to secure discoms and commit these states to purchase solar power at prices above market rates.
The time period for the alleged bribery mentioned in the indictment is between 2020 and 2024. Following this indictment, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission also filed a complaint against Adani Group Chairman Gautam Adani regarding the incident. It is important to understand that the indictment is merely an allegation, with no legal proof or assurance of what exactly transpired on the ground.
However, this is not the first time an American institution has raised allegations against Gautam Adani. Rather, it is the third time the United States has brought allegations against him. The first instance was when the American short-seller Hindenburg Research published a report accusing the Adani Group of stock manipulation and fraud. Later, another complaint emerged from Hindenburg regarding alleged financial discrepancies.
It is also crucial to note that these allegations do not hold judicial authority in India. For any charges to be valid and actionable, they must be pursued through the Indian legal system, as per the law of the land. The American indictment does not have legal standing in India.
This indictment comes at a time when the Indian Parliament is about to commence its last session of the year in the form of the winter session. The allegations against Adani have provided significant political leverage to the Indian opposition, particularly after their loss in the Maharashtra elections.
The Indian opposition, primarily led by the Indian National Congress, has accused the BJP of having an unholy nexus with Adani. However, it is important to note that the indictment mentions alleged bribery in states like Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Chhattisgarh—all of which were controlled by opposition parties during the relevant period. Odisha was governed by Naveen Patnaik’s Biju Janata Dal, and Chhattisgarh by the Congress. The only region mentioned under central government control was Jammu & Kashmir.
This raises questions about the opposition’s stance. While they blame the central government, they must introspect and acknowledge that it was their ministers and state governments that were allegedly involved in these activities.
The Kenya Row
As soon as the indictment came from the United States, Kenya, an African country involved in a deal with Adani worth $1.85 billion for the Nairobi airport and a $736 million power transmission line, decided to withdraw from both projects. These projects were supposed to be developed by Adani, but now Kenya has canceled the agreements. This has led to significant international reactions. However, it is important to understand that there were many controversies surrounding this report. The Kenyan government had been less than transparent regarding this partnership, and it was a whistleblower from Kenya who revealed the project details to the media. This revelation led to widespread protests in Kenya in the middle of this year.
Reasons for Indictment
It is also important to understand the bigger picture and why the United States of America appears so focused on Gautam Adani. Notably, under the Democrats, America has shown a tendency to interfere in Indian political matters. A key reason is that the current regime in India prefers to follow its own self-interest rather than align with American directives. This has led to attempts by certain American entities and institutions to support a regime change in India that would be more aligned with their interests.
One way to achieve this has been to target individuals closely associated with the current Indian government, directly or indirectly, and Gautam Adani is one such figure. Adani has played a significant role in reshaping India’s infrastructure, including ports, airports, energy, and other sectors, under the public-private partnership model. His contributions have been instrumental in India’s remarkable progress in these areas.
However, there appears to be an effort by external players to undermine this progress by targeting individuals like Adani, who are perceived as close to the Indian government. This could be part of a broader attempt to create instability in India.
Additionally, another factor is the United States’ concern over India’s significant economic rise. By targeting key architects of India’s modern infrastructure and economy, there seems to be an attempt to disrupt India’s economic cycle and slow its progress, thereby safeguarding the competitive edge of the American economy.
An important fact to consider is whether the American judiciary truly adheres to the concept of the “rule of law.” In practice, the judiciary in the United States seems to be influenced by political considerations. The appointment of Supreme Court justices, appellate court judges, and district court judges is done by the President and later confirmed by the Senate. This process allows for significant legislative influence over the judiciary, potentially compromising its independence.
Historically, governments have tended to nominate individuals to the judiciary who are more likely to remain loyal to their administration’s agenda. This raises questions about the impartiality of the judiciary. Therefore, such actions, including the indictment in question, could be viewed as a political issue rather than being entirely judicial in nature.
References:
- https://www.opindia.com/2024/11/sec-in-usa-has-no-jurisdiction-to-summon-foreign-nationals-like-gautam-adani/
(Aayush is a post-graduate student in International Relations at Kalinga University, Raipur. The opinions expressed are the author’s own)
SamvadaWorld Staff