What factors led to the Adani Group being awarded the Dharavi redevelopment project? What are the BJP’s motivations for assigning major infrastructure projects like airports and seaports to Adani, particularly in light of ongoing U.S. legal cases against him?

 The decision to award the Dharavi redevelopment project to the Adani Group has sparked debate, with some arguing it reflects a pattern of favoritism, while others see it as a pragmatic choice based on capability and bidding. Let’s break this down.

The Dharavi project, aimed at transforming Asia’s largest slum into a modern urban hub, was awarded to Adani in 2022 after a competitive bidding process. Adani’s bid of Rs 5,069 crore was significantly higher—over 2.5 times the next highest offer—which likely played a key role in securing the contract. The project involves rehousing around 700,000 eligible residents (those living there before January 1, 2000) in 350-square-foot flats, alongside developing commercial and industrial spaces on 620 acres of prime Mumbai land. Supporters argue Adani’s financial muscle and experience with large-scale infrastructure—like running Mumbai’s airport—make them a logical choice for a complex, $3-billion undertaking that previous attempts failed to deliver. The Maharashtra government, led by the BJP coalition, emphasizes transparency in the process and the project’s potential to set a global standard for slum redevelopment.

Critics, however, point to political motivations. Opposition leaders like Rahul Gandhi and Uddhav Thackeray have labeled it a “land grab,” alleging the BJP-led government tailored tender conditions to favor Adani, such as raising net worth requirements that sidelined competitors like Seclink Technologies (a Dubai-based consortium that challenged the bid in court). The allocation of additional land, like 256 acres of salt-pan land, and changes to Transferable Development Rights (TDR) rules—making it mandatory for Mumbai builders to buy 40% of TDR from Adani—have fueled claims of undue benefits. These critics argue the project prioritizes commercial gains over residents’ welfare, with fears of displacement for ineligible residents to less desirable areas, like methane-heavy landfills.

On the broader question of why BJP-led governments have awarded Adani contracts for airports, seaports, and other infrastructure, the pattern raises eyebrows for some. Adani manages seven airports (including Mumbai and Ahmedabad), several ports (like Mundra), and power projects, often secured under BJP-ruled states or central policies. The government’s stance is that these are merit-based, with Adani’s bids reflecting efficiency and investment capacity. For instance, Adani’s airport privatizations followed a 2019 policy shift toward private management to boost infrastructure, and their port dominance stems from early investments in Gujarat, later expanded nationally. The BJP argues these projects drive economic growth, aligning with their agenda of rapid development and urbanization.

Yet, skepticism persists due to Adani’s proximity to power. The opposition highlights how contracts often coincide with BJP rule, accusing the party of cronyism—enriching allies while sidelining competitors. The 2023 Hindenburg report, which alleged stock manipulation and fraud (disputed by Adani), and ongoing U.S. bribery charges tied to solar power contracts add fuel to this narrative. These cases, involving accusations of $265 million in bribes for Indian projects, raise questions about why Adani continues to win major contracts despite legal scrutiny abroad. Critics argue the BJP overlooks these red flags to push a pro-corporate agenda, consolidating strategic assets like ports and airports under one conglomerate, which could pose risks to economic diversity and national interests.

On the flip side, Adani’s defenders note that legal cases in the U.S. are allegations, not convictions, and shouldn’t override domestic bidding outcomes. The BJP’s agenda might simply reflect a preference for proven players who can execute ambitious projects under tight timelines, especially in a country where infrastructure bottlenecks are a chronic issue. Dismissing Adani could delay critical developments, they argue, and no concrete evidence of rigging has been upheld in Indian courts (e.g., the Bombay High Court dismissed Seclink’s claims in 2024).

The truth likely lies in a messy middle: a mix of competitive bids, political alignment, and systemic flaws in how India awards mega-projects. The BJP’s push for infrastructure is clear, but the concentration of projects with one group invites legitimate scrutiny, especially when transparency concerns and international cases loom.