The Hard Facts | Cash for Query Case: The ‘Joke’ May Not Be on MP Mahua Moitra, But Her Voters

It is a profound travesty that the Mahua Moitra story is thus far exciting interest for all the wrong reasons. But then who can blame the public. Who can resist the thrall of the oh-so-silky entreaties of a Hermes scarf, the unknown possibilities that lurk within the velvety confines of a Gucci bag or the uppity clippety-clop of Ferragamo heels? The story has it all: a pugnacious and lively female MP, an “embittered ex"; the hint of corporate intrigue and the sordidness of political vendetta. It is as a friend joked – “pure Masala".

But while the public is allowed its trivial pursuits, it is necessary that the more public minded cut to the more substantive aspects at the heart of the matter.

For the alleged “cash for queries" scandal hits at the heart of a compact between voters and their representatives. Remember, Members of Parliament (MPs) serve at the behest of the people. They speak for the people and are voted into office or ejected from it by the people. In this way, a Lok Sabha MP is essentially the custodian of public trust. The people trust that their MP will speak up for them, draw Parliament’s attention to their problems or needs so that suitable interventions can be made to address them.

But what if a Parliamentarian begins to violate the terms of the contract? What if the MP were to stop speaking for the public and instead were to speak for a fee for a coterie of friends looking to advance their interests? Wouldn’t this breach of faith undermine the most sacrosanct relationship in a democracy? Wouldn’t it push a parliamentary democracy towards dysfunction?

Given the significance of the above questions, it is a matter of grave concern that Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra stands accused of breaching the people’s trust.

BIZ BARON’S BIG CLAIM; MOITRA LAUGHS OFF ‘JOKE’

The charge has been made by a prominent businessman called Darshan Hiranandani.

“Mahua Moitra was very ambitious and wanted to quickly make a name for herself at the national level. She was advised that the shortest possible route to fame is by personally attacking Shri Narendra Modi. The only problem was that Sh. Modi enjoyed an impeccable reputation …She thought that the only way to attack Sh. Modi is by attacking Gautam Adani and his group as both were contemporaries, and they belong to the same state of Gujarat…She shared with me her email ID as Member of Parliament… so that I could post the questions (against Adani) directly on her behalf when required…Over a period, my friendship with Ms Mahua Moitra grew. I also felt that, through her, I would get support in other states ruled by the Opposition…Importantly, she also 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…"

As of now, of course, Moitra has laughed off Hiranandani’s claims, calling them a “joke penned by a member of the PMO" who wants to silence her for raising awkward questions about businessman Gautam Adani and his alleged proximity to the Prime Minister.

“The contents of the letter are a joke. It has clearly been drafted by some half-wit in the PMO who doubles up as a creative writer in the BJP’s IT cell. It sings paeans to Modi and Gautam Adani while linking in every opponent of theirs to me and my alleged corruption," she claims.

The Lok Sabha rules of procedure are clear. Such cases are to be brought to the attention of either the Parliament’s privilege committee or the ethics committee.

The accusations have sparked a war of words between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and those speaking up for Moitra.

THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT BY ‘FRIEND’-TURNED-FOE; MOITRA CALLS HIM A ‘JILTED EX’

The entire case stems from an original complaint filed by an advocate who enjoyed a close relationship with Moitra.

SC lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai is the estranged partner of Moitra. Dehadrai wrote to BJP MP Nishikant Dubey alleging ‘cash for queries’. Dehadrai claims Moitra received gifts for posing questions. He has sent a letter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging corruption and money laundering. He has submitted a copy of the complaint to the Lok Sabha Speaker. He has also claimed a bid by Moitra to “coerce him to withdraw complaint".

Moitra has dismissed Dehadrai as a “jilted ex" with an acrimonious history. She has filed multiple complaints alleging criminal trespass and abuse. She has filed a defamation suit against Dubey and Dehadrai. Moitra has also maintained that she is ready to answer the CBI and the ethics panel.

“INCONVENIENT" HARD FACTS

While there’s very little in the public domain to independently verify the charges against Moitra, there are some hard facts that raise inconvenient questions:

1. Complainant Dehedrai appears in court to reveal that Moitra’s lawyer offered a deal to withdraw case. Moitra’s lawyer admits. By meeting the complainant hasn’t Moitra’s lawyer committed an impropriety? Doesn’t approaching the complainant to settle the matter colour Moitra’s defence?
2. Moitra hasn’t specifically denied that Hiranandani got her to give him access to her Lok Sabha Login and password. Isn’t the absence of a specific denial by Moitra a matter of concern? Why would Moitra allegedly share her LS Login and password knowing it as impropriety?
3. In 2005, a committee specifically set up to investigate a sting exposing cash-for-query punished 11 MPs. If there is precedence in Parliament, can Moitra summarily reject the investigation by the Parliament ethics committee?
4. The TMC and its leader and West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee has not yet defended Moitra. Is the TMC silent because it knows more about Moitra’s involvement than revealed in public?