NCP Chief Sharad Pawar
Earlier, Uddhav Thackeray protested against the ‘I am not Savarkar’ remark of Rahul Gandhi. Now, Sharad Pawar in an interview has stated that Adani was targeted in the recent Parliamentary sessions. As the Congress Party is raising concerns over Hindenburg Reports on Adani and they are continuously asking for Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC).
Sharad Pawar is the Chief of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP); he is a prominent name in the field of politics. His party is an ally of the Indian National Congress Party in Maharashtra. They play a significant role in the state.
Sharad Pawar against the views of his Maharashtra ally
Pawar stated, “Such statements were given by other individuals too earlier and there was a ruckus in parliament for a few days but this time out of proportion importance was given to the issue. The issues that were kept, who kept them, we had never heard of these people who gave the statement, what is the background. When they raise issues that cause a ruckus across the country, the cost is borne by the country’s economy, we cannot disregard these things. It seems this was targeted.”
“An individual industrial group of the country was targeted, that is what it seems. If they have done anything wrong, there should be an inquiry.”
Regarding the Congress’s steadfast demand for a JPC investigation into the Hindenburg report, Mr. Pawar was forthright in stating that he did not concur with his Maharashtra ally’s position.
Also Read: A Busy Day For Modi! Launch Of Two Vande Bharat Trains, Check Details Inside
NCP Chief poses his faith in the Supreme Court rather than JPC
He claimed that once the demand was made, the Supreme Court established an investigation and created a team made up of a former Supreme Court judge, an expert, a manager, and an economist. They were instructed to undertake an investigation and given rules and a deadline.
Mr. Sharad said, “On the other hand, the opposition wanted a parliamentary committee to be appointed. If a parliamentary committee is appointed, then monitoring is with the ruling party. The demand was against the ruling party, and if the committee appointed for an inquiry has a ruling party majority, then how will the truth comes out is a valid concern. If the Supreme Court, who no one can influence, if they were to conduct the inquiry, then there was a better chance of the truth coming to light. So, after the Supreme Court announced an inquiry, there was no significance of a JPC Probe. It was not needed.”
