When Political Narratives Collapse Under the Weight of Inconvenience

The strange silence of Rahul Gandhi and Jairam Ramesh on Anil Ambani’s fraud highlights the curious case of selective outrage and political convenience.

Mumbai : A politician’s silence often reveals more than their loudest declarations. For the Congress party—particularly its two most vocal critics of corporate influence, Rahul Gandhi and Jairam Ramesh—a perplexing quiet now surrounds the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) charge sheet against Anil Ambani.

And this is no minor case. According to the ED, the younger Ambani siphoned off hundreds of crores through a maze of shell companies, fraudulent loans, and fictitious transactions. The evidence is detailed, damning, and backed by documentation. Yet from Gandhi and Ramesh, there hasn’t been so much as a murmur.

This silence is especially striking because, for the past five years, the term “Adani-Ambani” has been central to the Congress party’s narrative against the Modi government. In speeches, social media posts, and press briefings, Rahul Gandhi has consistently painted these two industrialists as emblems of “crony capitalism”—corporates who, he alleges, have thrived through proximity to power. Jairam Ramesh has faithfully echoed this message in his regular commentaries and barbed remarks. At times, it seemed as though “Adani and Ambani” had become shorthand for everything Congress believes is wrong with India’s political economy.

Consider just a few examples of this rhetoric in action:

In February 2023, during a fiery speech in Parliament, Rahul Gandhi accused the Modi government of favoring Adani in sectors ranging from airports to coal. “Modi hai toh mumkin hai,” he said sarcastically, implying that such favoritism was only possible through a special connection with the Prime Minister. He also alluded to Ambani—without specifying which brother—leaving little doubt about his targets.

In April 2024, at a rally in Kolar, Karnataka, Gandhi sharpened his attacks:
“All the ports, all the airports, all the roads, all the data—who owns them?” he asked. “Adani and Ambani.”
The line went viral.

Jairam Ramesh, meanwhile, took to platform X (formerly Twitter) with daily posts mocking the “Adani-Modi” nexus, raising frequent alarms about corporate influence over infrastructure, policy, and banking.

But now, when one of these long-invoked names—Anil Ambani—is actually in the dock, the two lead voices of the Congress have fallen inexplicably silent. No tweets. No press briefings. No signature jibes. Just… nothing.

Why?

Is it because this particular Ambani no longer fits the party’s script?

To be fair, Mukesh and Anil Ambani have been distinct figures for over a decade. Mukesh Ambani has expanded Reliance Industries into a global powerhouse, transforming sectors like petrochemicals, telecom, and retail. Anil Ambani, in contrast, saw his empire unravel in a storm of debt and failed ventures. His downfall was both swift and spectacular.

And yet, for years, Rahul Gandhi has blurred the line between the two—speaking generically of “Ambani” in his accusations, using the name to suggest that wealth and power are tightly concentrated in a few well-connected families.

That’s what makes this silence so striking.

Anil Ambani—once painted as part of the Modi government’s favored circle—is now facing a formal investigation. The ED’s charge sheet details how his companies raised funds through dubious mechanisms, routed them via shell entities, and diverted money into personal accounts. These are precisely the kind of allegations that Gandhi and Ramesh have built their campaigns around.

But this time, there’s no righteous anger. No fire and brimstone. Not even a soundbite.

This sudden restraint raises uncomfortable questions. Is the outrage of Gandhi and Ramesh only selective? If your politics claims the moral high ground of fighting corruption and corporate abuse, how can you ignore a case that seemingly validates your core arguments?

Unless, of course, the issue was never corruption per se—but the utility of certain names in your narrative.

To be clear, this is not a defense of any corporate house—be it Adani, Ambani, or otherwise. Nor is it an argument that politicians must comment on every ED charge sheet. But when leaders repeatedly invoke specific corporate names to build their political thesis, they can’t suddenly plead discretion when facts emerge that are politically inconvenient.

Because in this case, the facts are inconvenient.

Had this been about Mukesh Ambani or Gautam Adani, one can safely assume the Congress ecosystem would be in full rhetorical overdrive. But since it’s Anil—whose fall from grace has made him politically irrelevant—his name is now best ignored. Quietly shelved. Not amplified.

This silence carries a cost.

For the Congress party, it undermines the credibility of its anti-cronyism platform. It signals that its stance on corporate corruption may be more tactical than principled.

For public discourse, it sows cynicism. If criticism is inconsistent—loud against one businessman, mute against another—it begins to feel less like reformist politics and more like opportunism.

Indeed, this moment hands the BJP a convenient counter:
“You shouted Ambani for years. Now that one of them is being investigated, where are your voices?”

It’s a question neither Rahul Gandhi nor Jairam Ramesh has answered. And perhaps, they never will.

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

In public life, silence isn’t always golden. Sometimes it is calculated. Sometimes, it is cowardly. And sometimes, it speaks so loudly that it drowns out every slogan, every speech, every chant.

Especially when it comes from those who built their campaigns on loud words—only to fall quiet when the facts no longer cooperate.

(The content of this article is sourced from a news agency and has not been edited by the Mavericknews30 team.)