Editorial: Deafening diplomatic silence

Of all the elephants crowding the Prime Minister’s room, the Adani Group is the biggest and most noisome one to ignore. It keeps trumpeting its presence at regular intervals but the Narendra Modi government’s silence has been steadfastly deafening. So, it was no surprise that on the first day of the winter session of Parliament on Monday, the government cried off from hearing 13 notices for a debate on the twin indictments served on the group by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) last week.

Perhaps anticipating the demand for a parliamentary debate, the Prime Minister used his party’s landslide victory in the Maharashtra election as a shield to defend himself, albeit without acknowledging the Adani issue. In his remarks to the media before the session began, he implied that the opposition was shameless enough to disrupt Parliament proceedings despite being repeatedly rejected by the people. Such witticisms are par for the course in politics and are allowed to leaders who’ve just won an election, but as a PM who counts ease of doing business as one of the big achievements of his government, Mr Modi ought to be concerned about the damage done to India’s business reputation as a result of the Adani dealings worldwide.

Even before MPs warmed their seats in Parliament on Monday, we heard that the new government in Bangladesh has decided to review the power agreement its predecessor regime signed with the Adani group in 2017, under which power from a thermal plant owned by the Adanis in India is being sold to the neighbouring nation at an exorbitant price. Last week, the very day the DOJ and SEC announced their separate actions on Gautam Adani and six of his top executives, the government of Kenya announced immediate cancellation of all infrastructure deals with the Adani Group.

And it emerged over the weekend that the US International Development Finance Corporation which had agreed to lend $500 million to the Colombo Port development project backed by the Adani Group will now conduct due diligence on the deal. It didn’t mention the bribery allegations against Gautam Adani and his executives, but the implication is obvious.

Unlike the Hindenburg case last year, the Modi government’s defenders don’t have the facility this time of saying charges levelled by a private short-seller do not have to be answered and, if an explanation had to be provided, it was for the Adanis to render, not the government. This time, the indictment is from a foreign government agency and the allegations involve dealings in India. Also, it won’t be long before New Delhi will be called upon to play a part in the case. Gautam Adani and his six aides have until December 12 to answer the DOJ summons. If they don’t, the US will have to use diplomatic channels to gain access to them. What then? Whether it likes it or not, New Delhi will then have to, passively or actively, express its attitude to the case. Bitter critics of Mr Modi will suggest that brazenness being state policy, the government will not baulk at stonewalling the US agency too. The more cynical of them will say the stonewalling will continue until Donald Trump is sworn in as President on January 20, after which it will be a matter between friends. That’s a bit fanciful, but then diplomacy is nothing but a tradeoff with polite language. Will India do a tradeoff to protect Gautam Adani? And what might that tradeoff be?