Express News Service
Dehadrai’s cross-examinationExasperated MPs and the problem of pronoun
I received a legal notice from Jai Anant Dehadrai through his lawyer Md Tasnimul Hassan, in respect of my article titled “Mahua Moitra Trial: Memory loss, Desi Ghee and the issue of locus” published on November 6, 2023, as part of my weekly column “Power Games” in this paper.
The subject matter of the said article was the cross-examination of Dehadrai by the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee following his complaint against Mahua Moitra, MP, to the CBI in the form of an affidavit in which he has accused her of misusing her parliamentary privilege by asking questions in Parliament in exchange for gifts and cash.
In his legal notice, Dehadrai called my news report “misleading, defamatory and completely false…” He has specifically raised objections to three points in said report, and I would like to give a point-wise reply to his objections:
Objection 1: That I have wrongly written in my report that “The Chairman of the committee intervened at this point and told Dehadrai ‘aap zyada pareshan na hon, aap ne purana desi ghee nahi khaya hai, iss liye kam yaad hai. Jo kuch aap ko pataa tha, bataa diya (Don’t fret so much, You haven’t eaten desi ghee, that’s why you remember so little. You’ve already shared with us what you know).” In respect of this quote, Dehadrai’s lawyer says: “this statement was not directed at my client. It was a separate conversation between the Hon’ble Chairperson of the committee and Shri Danish Ali, MP, which you have maliciously and deliberately misattributed towards my client to show him in a negative light and to malign his reputation in the eyes of public at large.”
My Reply: At the outset, I would like to clarify that I have never met either Jai Anant Dehadrai or Mahua Moitra and have no history of bitterness with either of them. Therefore, there is no reason for me to malign or defame either of them, and that was not my intent. As for Objection 1, I would like to point out that it is not correct to say that the contents of the quote were “not directed” towards Dehadrai. On re-checking, I found that the Chairman was indeed addressing Danish Ali, MP, when he said “Aap gambhir mat hoiye. Main kewal ye bol raha hoon ki agar aap jaisi yaddasht sab ki na ho, aur sab ne purana desi ghee na khaya ho, unko jo yaad tha unhone bol diya, baki affidavit mein de diya. (Don’t get so serious. All I am saying is that if everyone doesn’t have a memory like you, and they have not eaten old desi ghee, whatever he could recall, he has said, rest he has mentioned in the affidavit.) The Chairman’s comment leaves little doubt that he refers to Dehadrai when he says, “if everyone doesn’t have a memory like you (the MP) and haven’t eaten old desi ghee”. This is because in the very next sentence, referring to Dehadrai, the Chairman says, “unko jo yaad tha, unhone bol diya”. The Chairman was addressing Danish Ali but was referring to Dehadrai. Instead of addressing Dehadrai in the first person, the Chairman addressed him in the third person. Since the inference is clear, the objection raised regarding the quote is merely semantic.
Objection 2: That the conversation mentioned in Objection 1 “was a separate conversation between Hon’ble Chairperson of the Committee and Shri Danish Ali, MP”.
My Reply: The conversation mentioned in Objection 1 was very much a part of Dehadrai’s cross-examination by the Ethics Committee. The said comment was made during Dehadrai’s cross-examination on 26.10.2023. It was not “a separate conversation between the Hon’ble Chairperson of the Committee and Shri Danish Ali, MP”, as claimed in the legal notice. It would, therefore, be far from the truth to say that the news report is “completely false”.
Objection 3: That Dehadrai did not use the phrase “I do not remember”.
My Reply: The phrase was used by an MP, who requested the Chairman to place on record Dehadrai’s refusal to reply to questions during his cross-examination by Members of Parliament belonging to the Ethics Committee. The MP said, and I quote: “In his verbal examination, Dehadrai has said 11 times ‘I do not remember’, but it is in the affidavit. It looks like this affidavit was prepared by someone else and he has merely signed it.” The phrase “I do not remember” was, therefore, part of the proceedings of the Ethics Committee. And it was attributed to Dehadrai.
My news report was, therefore, not based on “hearsay and whataboutery” as claimed in the legal notice. It was based on definite information about the proceedings of the Ethics Committee. I, however, apologise for the minor aberrations in the report, which do not dispute the spirit and substance of its content. Follow channel on WhatsApp
Dehadrai’s cross-examination
Exasperated MPs and the problem of pronoun
I received a legal notice from Jai Anant Dehadrai through his lawyer Md Tasnimul Hassan, in respect of my article titled “Mahua Moitra Trial: Memory loss, Desi Ghee and the issue of locus” published on November 6, 2023, as part of my weekly column “Power Games” in this paper.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
The subject matter of the said article was the cross-examination of Dehadrai by the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee following his complaint against Mahua Moitra, MP, to the CBI in the form of an affidavit in which he has accused her of misusing her parliamentary privilege by asking questions in Parliament in exchange for gifts and cash.
In his legal notice, Dehadrai called my news report “misleading, defamatory and completely false…” He has specifically raised objections to three points in said report, and I would like to give a point-wise reply to his objections:
Objection 1: That I have wrongly written in my report that “The Chairman of the committee intervened at this point and told Dehadrai ‘aap zyada pareshan na hon, aap ne purana desi ghee nahi khaya hai, iss liye kam yaad hai. Jo kuch aap ko pataa tha, bataa diya (Don’t fret so much, You haven’t eaten desi ghee, that’s why you remember so little. You’ve already shared with us what you know).” In respect of this quote, Dehadrai’s lawyer says: “this statement was not directed at my client. It was a separate conversation between the Hon’ble Chairperson of the committee and Shri Danish Ali, MP, which you have maliciously and deliberately misattributed towards my client to show him in a negative light and to malign his reputation in the eyes of public at large.”
My Reply: At the outset, I would like to clarify that I have never met either Jai Anant Dehadrai or Mahua Moitra and have no history of bitterness with either of them. Therefore, there is no reason for me to malign or defame either of them, and that was not my intent. As for Objection 1, I would like to point out that it is not correct to say that the contents of the quote were “not directed” towards Dehadrai. On re-checking, I found that the Chairman was indeed addressing Danish Ali, MP, when he said “Aap gambhir mat hoiye. Main kewal ye bol raha hoon ki agar aap jaisi yaddasht sab ki na ho, aur sab ne purana desi ghee na khaya ho, unko jo yaad tha unhone bol diya, baki affidavit mein de diya. (Don’t get so serious. All I am saying is that if everyone doesn’t have a memory like you, and they have not eaten old desi ghee, whatever he could recall, he has said, rest he has mentioned in the affidavit.) The Chairman’s comment leaves little doubt that he refers to Dehadrai when he says, “if everyone doesn’t have a memory like you (the MP) and haven’t eaten old desi ghee”. This is because in the very next sentence, referring to Dehadrai, the Chairman says, “unko jo yaad tha, unhone bol diya”. The Chairman was addressing Danish Ali but was referring to Dehadrai. Instead of addressing Dehadrai in the first person, the Chairman addressed him in the third person. Since the inference is clear, the objection raised regarding the quote is merely semantic.
Objection 2: That the conversation mentioned in Objection 1 “was a separate conversation between Hon’ble Chairperson of the Committee and Shri Danish Ali, MP”.
My Reply: The conversation mentioned in Objection 1 was very much a part of Dehadrai’s cross-examination by the Ethics Committee. The said comment was made during Dehadrai’s cross-examination on 26.10.2023. It was not “a separate conversation between the Hon’ble Chairperson of the Committee and Shri Danish Ali, MP”, as claimed in the legal notice. It would, therefore, be far from the truth to say that the news report is “completely false”.
Objection 3: That Dehadrai did not use the phrase “I do not remember”.
My Reply: The phrase was used by an MP, who requested the Chairman to place on record Dehadrai’s refusal to reply to questions during his cross-examination by Members of Parliament belonging to the Ethics Committee. The MP said, and I quote: “In his verbal examination, Dehadrai has said 11 times ‘I do not remember’, but it is in the affidavit. It looks like this affidavit was prepared by someone else and he has merely signed it.” The phrase “I do not remember” was, therefore, part of the proceedings of the Ethics Committee. And it was attributed to Dehadrai.
My news report was, therefore, not based on “hearsay and whataboutery” as claimed in the legal notice. It was based on definite information about the proceedings of the Ethics Committee. I, however, apologise for the minor aberrations in the report, which do not dispute the spirit and substance of its content. Follow channel on WhatsApp
