Sports

Mum's Not The Word

Is there more to Jaya Jaitly's frontfoot defence for Jadeja?

Advertisement

Mum's Not The Word
info_icon

When the Income-Tax officials knocked at Jaya Jaitly's door on July 21, while investigating the assets of Ajay Jadeja, did they really go to the wrong house? The Samata Party president would like us to believe that. During a press conference, a few days after the taxmen came calling, a very high-strung Jaitly accused the I-T officials of spreading lies about the raids on cricketers and of demanding a bribe of Rs 50,000 from Jadeja Consultants Pvt Ltd. She has also made her displeasure known to minister of state for finance Dhananjay Kumar and sports minister S.S. Dhindsa for vitiating the air with loose talk.

Advertisement

Jaitly's hysteria has been baffling, in the light of the fact that Jadeja himself has disassociated himself from her outburst. Even more intriguing is the fact that she held the press conference on what is being considered a purely personal matter at the residence of the defence minister. But why is she going out of her way to give Jadeja a clean chit? First, during an interview, she stated that he was 100 per cent 'not guilty'. Later, at the press conference at the defence minister's residence, she said that she held no brief for Jadeja. "I am doing this because the I-T people came to my house... and am only concerned about the manner of this investigation," she said.

Advertisement

Her allegations, including the demand for bribe, have been strongly refuted. Says Dhananjay Kumar, in support of his men: "No bribe was sought. My department has already denied this. They are confident that the truth will prevail," asserts he. Adds a senior I-T official: "As many as 89 places were raided. Except for her, no one else has complained. Why has she gone public about the raid? We didn't tell anyone that we'd gone to her house. Why is she panicking like this?" Jaitly provides part of the answer herself. She has admitted that apart from being childhood friends with Jadeja, her daughter Aditi is also an employee of Jadeja Consultants. And when asked why Jadeja's Lancer was parked at Jaitly's residence, she clarified that as an employee of the company, Aditi used the car whenever Ajay was away.

"Why is she giving all this information?" asks an I-T official. "She accuses us of leaks to the press and at the same time she is busy offering information to the media." Some say she's scared that her daughter might be implicated in some of Jadeja's match-fixing transactions. Also, it is learnt that Aditi was in the know of Jadeja's advertising contracts. "It makes political sense to volunteer the obvious and then claim that you were always levelling with the press," says one official. Some others believe that Jaitly panicked because top-secret defence ministry files were lying at her residence when the taxmen came calling. But the finance ministry doesn't buy this. "Why should defence ministry files be at her residence and that too at a time when the defence minister was in Sierra Leone," asks a finance ministry official. In fact, the buzz in the finance ministry is that Jaitly called Fernandes in Sierra Leone, who in turn called a 'top finance ministry official' to call off the raid. Whatever the reason, Jaitly's reaction is difficult to explain. Sports minister S.S Dhindsa says that she's being unduly emotional. But why is she defending her daughter's employer so hysterically? Unless, of course, the rumours are right and there is more to Aditi's involvement in the firm's dealings than that of an ordinary employee. Unfortunately, despite repeated phone calls, Jaitly was not available for any comment.

Advertisement

Dhananjay Kumar claims there was nothing personal in the raids. Dhindsa even accuses Jaitly of interfering and even threatening I-T officials. "No responsible leader should interfere with the working of any independent agency," he told Outlook.

However, the crucial question is why Jaitly has risked publicly antagonising two alliance partners and the entire Income-Tax department in order to defend someone who is her daughter's employer and, at best, a prospective son-in-law?

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement