Hypocrisy in Dissent

A politician’s sudden silence often reveals more than his loudest declarations. For the Congress party—and especially its two most persistent voices on corporate influence, Rahul Gandhi and Jairam Ramesh—a seemingly inexplicable silence now surrounds the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) charge sheet against Anil Ambani.

This is no minor allegation. According to the ED, the younger Ambani siphoned off crores and crores of rupees through a web of shell companies, facilitated loans and fictitious transactions. These findings are detailed, irrefutably damning and backed by documentary evidence. And yet, from Rahul Gandhi and Jairam Ramesh, there has not been a whisper.

This is especially curious because for the last five years, the phrase “Adani-Ambani” has been the backbone of the Congress party’s attack against the Modi government. In speeches, tweets, and press briefings, Rahul Gandhi has portrayed these two industrialists as symbols of “crony capitalism”—corporates who, he alleges, have grown fat on the largesse of state power. Jairam Ramesh has echoed this line with his own barbed remarks and daily media briefings. At times, it has seemed as though these two names—Adani and Ambani—were shorthand for all that the Congress believed was wrong with the Indian economy.

Consider just a few examples of how frequently the Congress’ lead voices have been chanting the “Adani-Ambani” mantra.

In February 2023, during a heated speech in Parliament, Rahul Gandhi accused the Modi government of favouring Adani in everything from airports to coal blocks.

“Modi hai toh mumkin hai,” he said, sarcastically implying that only proximity to the Prime Minister explains the Adani Group’s rise. He used the same speech to invoke Ambani too—and though neither Mukesh nor Anil were named directly, the reference was clear.

In April 2024, Gandhi ramped up his attacks on Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani in a speech in Kolar, Karnataka.

“All the ports, all the airports, all the roads, all the data—who owns them?” he asked. “Adani and Ambani.” This line became a viral soundbite.

Jairam Ramesh, for his part, has faithfully followed suit. His near-daily posts on X (formerly Twitter) often mock the “Adani-Modi” equation, and he routinely raises questions about corporate influence over policy, infrastructure projects and public sector banks.

But here is the problem: if Rahul Gandhi and Jairam Ramesh have made “Adani and Ambani” the twin pillars of their crony capitalism thesis, then why are they silent when one of them—Anil Ambani—is now formally accused by a government agency of financial fraud?

Is it because this particular Ambani no longer fits the narrative?

To be clear, Mukesh and Anil Ambani have been very different figures for at least a decade. Mukesh Ambani has built Reliance Industries into a global conglomerate, transforming sectors from petrochemicals to retail to telecom. Anil Ambani, on the other hand, watched his empire collapse under debt and mismanagement. His downfall has been both swift and spectacular.

And yet, for years, Rahul Gandhi has drawn Ambani into his political attack line. In fact, he has frequently spoken of "Ambani" without distinguishing between the two brothers—especially when the aim was to suggest that India’s wealth is being cornered by a handful of families close to power.

That is what makes the silence now so jarring.

Anil Ambani—whom the Congress once painted as part of the ruling regime’s favoured inner circle—is now formally in the dock. The ED has named him in a charge sheet detailing how his companies raised funds through dubious means, funneled them through shell entities and routed them to personal accounts. This is the stuff that Gandhi and Ramesh usually pounce on. But not this time.

There has been no Rahul Gandhi tweet. No angry press briefing. No Jairam Ramesh “Hum Do, Hamare Do” jibe. Nothing.

This sudden discretion raises uncomfortable questions. Is the Gandhi-Ramesh outrage only tactical? If your political campaign is built on the moral high ground of fighting corporate corruption, how can you ignore a case that confirms everything you claimed was wrong?

Unless, of course, your concern was never with the corruption—but with the utility of the names you could weaponise.

This is not a defence of any corporate house—Adani, Ambani or otherwise. Nor is it a claim that political leaders should comment on every enforcement action. But when politicians use corporate names as shorthand for all that is wrong with governance, they cannot then plead discretion when inconvenient facts arise.

In this case, the facts are deeply inconvenient. If the ED’s case against Anil Ambani had involved Mukesh Ambani or Gautam Adani, it would be on every Congress banner and pamphlet. But since it involves a man whose name no longer serves the party’s current script, it has been quietly filed under “do not amplify.”

This silence comes at a cost—both to the Congress and to the broader political discourse. For the Congress, it shatters the illusion of principled opposition. It tells the public that the party’s outrage is not based on ethics, but purely on optics.

For the broader discourse, it undermines faith in the sincerity of the Congress’ and Rahul Gandhi’s campaigns. If criticism is selective and partisan, then it is not reformist—it is opportunistic. And that helps no one.

Indeed, this episode has handed the ruling party an easy counter: “You spoke of Ambani for years—now that one of them is being investigated, why are you quiet?”

It is a question that neither Rahul Gandhi nor Jairam Ramesh has answered. Nor are they likely to.

Because for them, perhaps, Anil Ambani is no longer useful.

In public discourse, silence is not always golden. Sometimes, it is politically calculated. And sometimes, it speaks so loudly that it drowns out every slogan, every speech, every chant. Especially when it comes from those who have weaponised words for years—and suddenly run out of them.

The writer is the Assistant Editor of Millennium Post. Views expressed are personal