By Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo
Before I say more about Rahul Gandhi’s August 29 press conference, I would like to raise some questions about the role of Rajendra Pal Gautam, who heads the Scheduled Caste (SC) wing of the Congress party.
Rajendra Pal Gautam was asked to speak before Rahul Gandhi, but I found his presentation difficult to understand. I was particularly struck by his body language: his left hand remained in his pocket while he held the microphone in his right hand. To me, this raised questions about the seriousness and intent behind his participation.
I use the phrase “difficult to understand” in the context of the reported purification ritual at the venue associated with Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge on August 13. Kharge reportedly raised the matter on August 13. Despite knowing about the issue, Rajendra Pal Gautam remained silent, even though he heads the Congress party’s SC wing.
If I had been in his position, I would have considered it my responsibility to protest immediately. On August 13, I would have organised a demonstration outside the BJP headquarters in New Delhi with my team members, along with members of National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) and the Indian Youth Congress. I would also have urged the Congress leadership to direct its state and district units to organise protests outside BJP state and district offices following Kharge’s statement in the Rajya Sabha.
There is another question that deserves to be asked: why were adequate party cadres and supporters not mobilised for Rahul Gandhi’s August 21 protest?
Rahul Gandhi staged a more-than-six-hour sit-in protest (dharna) outside the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) office at the Parliament Street Police Station in New Delhi. Yet, in my view, Rajendra Pal Gautam appeared unable to mobilise even 100 party cadres for the protest, despite also being in charge of the Uttar Pradesh Congress organisation.
This raises a legitimate organisational question. If the objective was to demonstrate strong support, why could more cadres not be mobilised from the Scheduled Caste community in the National Capital Region-NCR? Thousands of people live in Noida and Greater Noida, both of which are relatively close to Delhi.
I do not believe that mobilising supporters is necessarily impossible within a short period when a political leader maintains regular communication with party workers, leaders and supporters. In the era of social media, mobilisation can happen remarkably quickly. A well-organised political network can use WhatsApp, Facebook, X, Instagram and other platforms to communicate with supporters and bring people together within a short period.
Therefore, my question is not simply about the number of people who attended Rahul Gandhi’s August 21 protest. It is about political organisation, mobilisation and leadership.
If Rajendra Pal Gautam holds a significant organisational responsibility within the Congress party, then his ability to mobilise party workers—particularly when a major political protest is taking place—should be open to public scrutiny.
Ultimately, political leadership is not only about making statements from a stage. It is also about standing up when difficult issues arise, mobilising people when required and demonstrating organisational strength on the ground.
Let’s come to India’s Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi’s August 29 press conference, where he demanded an FIR over the alleged “purification” ritual in Haldwani following Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge’s address.
However, Rahul Gandhi should have made this demand in his August 13, 9:02 p.m. tweet. On the same day, he should also have asked Congress party leaders and workers to protest in front of BJP headquarters, as well as BJP state and district offices, in support of Mallikarjun Kharge.
The Congress party could have organised these protests to condemn the reported “purification” ritual that allegedly took place on August 10 in Haldwani following Mallikarjun Kharge’s August 8 address.
Why Goenka’s Allegations Matter
Yesterday at 12:30 pm, August 29, Rahul Gandhi spoke at his press conference as a Congress party leader because he raised an issue concerning his party president, Mallikarjun Kharge. In my view, he was therefore speaking in his capacity as a Congress leader rather than as India’s Opposition Leader.
I strongly believe that National Political Mirror and I are among the few who use the term “India’s Opposition Leader” rather than simply “Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.” On August 29, Rahul Gandhi should have spoken as India’s Opposition Leader and addressed broader national issues.
One such national issue was the allegation raised by Zee founder Subhash Chandra Goenka on August 28 concerning Mukesh Ambani. Chandra alleged that Mukesh Ambani had used a vast network of benami (proxy or unnamed) companies to manipulate stock-market operations. These are serious allegations and should be treated as allegations unless independently established.
I use the term “national issue” because thousands of investors put their money into leading Indian companies. If allegations are made that the owners or promoters of major companies are using benami entities or shell companies to manipulate share prices for personal benefit, such allegations deserve serious scrutiny and, where appropriate, investigation by the relevant authorities.
However, questions remain about why there has been no visible action so far. There is a perception among some people that influential business interests receive protection from people within the system. I am referring here to views and discussions I have heard privately, rather than presenting them as established facts.
Many journalists and media professionals also discuss important issues privately, including in what is sometimes described as “off-the-record” or “locker-room” conversations. Some of these conversations may contain significant information or opinions, but journalists often choose not to publish them because they have families, professional responsibilities and other considerations.
Interestingly, in a video message posted on August 28, Subhash Chandra Goenka made several allegations against Mukesh Ambani. Subhash Chandra Goenka alleged that Mukesh Ambani-linked media entities deliberately reported the Rs 22,000 crore figure as his personal debt, while ignoring the distinction between the total claims filed, the claims admitted by the tribunal, and the claims of the objecting lenders.
Subhash Chandra Goenka said that the matter relates to personal guarantees he had provided to certain lenders and that some lenders had already been repaid but still filed claims before the tribunal.
Subhash Chandra Goenka further said that he attempted to reach Mukesh Ambani directly by phone after the Rs 22,000 crore figure began circulating in the media. He also said that he wrote a letter to Ambani regarding the matter.
Subhash Chandra Goenka claimed that when a mutual acquaintance raised the issue with Network18’s editor-in-chief and questioned the loss of credibility involved, the editor responded that he had “instructions from above” and was “compelled” to act on them.
Subhash Chandra Goenka directly addressed Mukesh Ambani, saying, “Mukesh ji, please stop the wrong propaganda against me personally and my group. Zee is a group company. I don’t own anything in it. I don’t own anything now after implementing this NCLT order. You are the son of Dhirubhai Ambani. I have learnt a lot from him. I think you have not learnt anything from him.”
On August 28, Subhash Chandra Goenka also revisited the events of January 2019, when Zee shares fell by nearly 40% in a single trading day. He blamed people associated with Mukesh Ambani for the crash in Zee’s share price and alleged that they were involved in manipulating stock-market operations. Goenka further suggested that it was difficult to identify or trace those allegedly involved because, according to him, thousands of shell companies were being used to conduct stock-market operations.
Goenka further said that when he approached Mukesh Ambani with a proposal to sell Zee in order to clear his debts, Mukesh Ambani advised him against repaying the banks in full. According to Subhash Chandra Goenka, Mukesh Ambani told him, “Subhash ji, why are you paying back the banks’ money, including interest? No one does.”
Subhash Chandra Goenka also alleged that Reliance had attempted to acquire Zee in partnership with Invesco under terms that would have benefited his family but not the minority shareholders. He said this was the reason the offer was rejected, with the company eventually opting to merge with Sony instead.
Describing himself as a proud corporate citizen who did not flee during a crisis, Subhash Chandra Goenka said his group had accumulated total debt of Rs 45,000 crore, of which RS 43,000 crore had already been repaid by liquidating Zee shares and personal assets. He added that, over the course of his career, he had paid Rs 60,000–Rs 70,000 crore in interest alone to India’s banking system, and that only two lender accounts remained unsettled, both backed by adequate collateral.
Addressing Mukesh Ambani directly, Subhash Chandra Goenka said, “I have learnt a lot from your father, Dhirubhai Ambani, but it seems you have not adopted his principles. You are trying to kill a person who has nothing left to lose.”
Subhash Chandra Goenka further warned that if the alleged campaign against him, which he linked to associates such as Manoj Modi, did not stop, he would not remain silent. “You have a lot to lose, and you also have many skeletons in your closet. So stop this dirty game,” Goenka said.
He ended his statement by urging Ambani to pursue global financial dominance instead of playing “corporate games” within India.
Is Rahul Changing His Stance on Ambani?
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has frequently criticised both Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani during his political rallies and public events. However, when allegations concerning Mukesh Ambani and the alleged use of thousands of shell companies were raised on August 28 by another prominent corporate leader, Subhash Chandra Goenka, Rahul Gandhi remained silent.
Subhash Chandra Goenka, who remains an influential figure in the corporate sector, has publicly raised these allegations and addressed the issues himself. Yet, as India’s Opposition Leader, Rahul Gandhi did not appear to address the allegations against Mukesh Ambani. In my view, this silence potentially spared Ambani’s company from a major market reaction, which I will discuss in the next paragraph.
By the way, Subhash Chandra Goenka is not running a roadside shop in the streets of Delhi or Connaught Place. He is a corporate leader, and the allegations he has made against Mukesh Ambani are serious and, in my view, deserve to be investigated by the relevant government agencies, as well as through a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) probe.
India’s Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, should also have demanded such an investigation during his August 29 press conference, but he did not.
However, in 2023, Rahul Gandhi’s party, the Congress, demanded a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) inquiry into the allegations made against the Adani Group by Hindenburg Research.
Rahul Gandhi’s actions also raise questions about whether he speaks on selected issues based on advice from his team members, non-political advisers and business well-wishers.
I use the term “well-wishers” deliberately because, in politics, powerful business interests can sometimes have relationships with political leaders and parties. Such individuals may advise political leaders on whether raising a particular issue could have consequences for businesses, companies or their share prices.
After all, political parties require substantial financial resources to operate and meet their day-to-day expenses. This raises an important question: When a political leader chooses which corporate issues to raise and which to remain silent on, what factors influence that decision?
And I do not know the names of the Congress party leaders who advised Rahul Gandhi not to speak about Subhash Chandra Goenka and Mukesh Ambani during his August 29 press conference. However, I believe there are individuals within the Congress party who are sympathetic to Mukesh Ambani.
Had Rahul Gandhi raised the issue during his August 29 press conference, the financial markets could have reacted sharply. In my assessment, Reliance Industries could potentially have lost billions of dollars in market value by 11 a.m. on August 31.
But there would have been another major consequence: Rahul Gandhi could have dominated the news cycle on August 30 and August 31 and potentially become a major international media story.
This would have been particularly significant because Reliance Industries has a large global investor base, including investors and financial institutions with interests in markets such as the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Dubai and Qatar.
Within minutes, Rahul Gandhi’s remarks could have triggered intense political and financial discussion—not only in India but also internationally.
