Jairam Ramesh’s Manufactured Myths: A Political Script Without Substance

Jairam Ramesh's allegations against the Adani Group raise questions about their validity and reflect broader issues in Indian politics. This analysis explores the claims and their implications for corporate governance.

In the high-pitched world of Indian politics, allegations often come first and evidence—if ever—later. The Congress’s general secretary in-charge of communications, Jairam Ramesh, has once again trained his guns on Indian corporate houses, with a particular focus on the Adani Group. But behind the rhetoric lies a deeper question: are these charges rooted in fact, or are they a reflection of political positioning in a shifting landscape?

Ramesh recently claimed that government agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Income Tax Department were misused to push companies into parting with assets—citing L&T and Tata’s exit from the Dhamra port project. However, both companies have long maintained that their entry and exit decisions were based on commercial considerations. Neither raised red flags of coercion at the time. To suggest otherwise not only casts aspersions on Adani but also indirectly questions the credibility of two of India’s most respected conglomerates—L&T and Tata.

Another recurring theme in Ramesh’s critique is the privatisation of ports and airports. He portrays these as secretive, backroom deals. The reality is different. Ports are privatised through state-level tender processes, while airports are awarded via competitive bidding, where the highest revenue share per passenger wins. If an Indian company outbids global competitors, shouldn’t that be seen as a mark of competitiveness rather than cronyism?

Diplomatic Influence: A Double-Edged Argument

Ramesh also accused the government of misusing diplomatic influence to secure overseas projects. Yet, some of the deals he points to—such as approvals by the Queensland government in Australia in 2011–2012—happened under the UPA’s tenure. Does this mean his own party was complicit? Or does it simply underline the fact that host governments make their own decisions based on national interest? Either way, the charge appears self-defeating.

Electricity Pricing and Market Realities

On the question of inflated electricity tariffs, Ramesh has criticised corporate practices without acknowledging how the market actually works. Under the Electricity Act, 2003 (passed during a Congress-led government), grid operators decide power purchase on merit order, not on the diktat of individual companies. If flaws exist in the system, they are systemic—not the result of one company’s influence.

The Bribery Charge: Serious Words, No Evidence

Perhaps the most serious allegation is that of bribery in contracts. But where is the evidence? If Ramesh indeed has proof, the courts are the natural forum—not press notes or political rallies. Without substantiation, such statements risk being seen as political theatre rather than genuine accountability.

The Larger Pattern

Across these charges, a pattern emerges: rhetoric heavy on innuendo, light on facts. In the process, Indian institutions—from tendering systems to diplomatic processes—are portrayed as compromised, despite being frameworks the Congress itself helped build.

India’s economic growth story—particularly in infrastructure—has been shaped by risk-taking entrepreneurs, transparent bidding processes, and regulators. To reduce it to "favours and funnelling" ignores the professionalism of engineers, bankers, bureaucrats, and investors who ensure projects meet global benchmarks.

The Road Ahead

The issue, ultimately, is not about defending or condemning one corporate house. It is about the credibility of Indian business and the institutions that regulate it. Political leaders have every right to raise concerns, but they also have a responsibility to distinguish between fact and insinuation.

Until concrete evidence is placed before the judiciary, allegations remain just that—allegations. For now, the debate seems less about corporate malpractice and more about political desperation.