5.1 Completing the Hindu Agenda: Abrogation of Article 370, CAA, and the Ram Mandir

On August 5, 2019, the humidity of New Delhi clung to the walls of the Parliament building. Home Minister Amit Shah ascended the podium of the Rajya Sabha (the upper house of Parliament), clutching a bundle of documents. At that same moment, in the Kashmir Valley thousands of kilometers away, 35,000 additional troops had already completed their deployment. Telephone lines and the internet were cut, and political leaders, including former chief ministers, were under house arrest. Amit Shah spoke: "The government has decided to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution." The chamber erupted in simultaneous cheers and jeers. In just a few hours, a provision that had been a sanctuary of Indian politics for 70 years was dismantled.

Why Article 370? To understand this provision, one must go back to the moment of India's founding in 1947 as it emerged from British colonial rule. At the time, Maharaja Hari Singh, the Hindu ruler of Kashmir, was hesitating over whether to incorporate his Muslim-majority territory into India or Pakistan. When Pakistani-backed militants invaded Kashmir, Hari Singh requested military assistance from India and signed the Instrument of Accession. The price was Article 370 of the Constitution, which guaranteed extensive autonomy for Kashmir. In almost every area except defense and foreign affairs, Kashmir was allowed its own constitution, its own flag, and its own laws. To use a Korean analogy, imagine a situation where Jeju Island has its own separate constitution and flag within one country, and the rest of South Korea's laws do not apply there.

For Hindu nationalists, this provision was an intolerable contradiction—a situation where a Muslim-majority region received special treatment within the nation of India. The RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh), which Modi belonged to, and its political offspring, the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party), had for decades made the repeal of Article 370 a core party platform (see Chapter 1, Section 1.3). However, no previous administration had dared to touch this fuse. The Kashmir issue was directly linked to the nuclear-armed state of Pakistan, and a misstep could have escalated into war.

Modi was different. Having won an even greater victory in the 2019 general election than in 2014, he used his overwhelming parliamentary majority as a weapon. The BJP secured 303 seats, achieving a majority on its own, and Modi interpreted this as a "national mandate to execute the Hindutva (Hindu nationalism) agenda." Just three months after his inauguration, he removed Article 370 with a precision reminiscent of a military operation. He dismantled the legal basis of Article 370 through a presidential order and passed a reorganization act in Parliament to split the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories: 'Jammu and Kashmir' and 'Ladakh.' The demotion from a state to a Union Territory marked a shift from autonomy to direct rule by the central government.

Modi and Amit Shah proclaimed this the realization of "One Nation, One Constitution, One Flag." For the Hindu base, the news was a celebration. Hindus in the Jammu region took to the streets in joy, and BJP supporters across India set off fireworks. However, the scene in the Kashmir Valley was the exact opposite. The internet was cut for five months, hundreds of political activists were detained, and the daily lives of eight million residents ground to a halt under a curfew. In December 2023, the Supreme Court of India issued a final ruling that the abrogation of Article 370 was a "constitutionally valid measure." Judicially, Modi had also prevailed. But in the eyes of Kashmir's residents, the ruling was more like a confirmation that their voices had been permanently erased.

In December 2019, before the shock of the Article 370 abrogation had even subsided, the Modi government ignited another fuse: the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). On the surface, the law appeared humanitarian, as it aimed to grant citizenship to refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan who had come to India to escape religious persecution. However, there was a decisive condition: it applied only to followers of Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Christianity, Jainism, and Parsiism, excluding Muslims. For the first time in the history of the Indian Constitution, 'religion' became the criterion for granting citizenship.

Critics immediately pushed back. They asked what would happen if this law were combined with the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Poor Muslims without documents proving their citizenship would be classified as 'illegal immigrants,' while Hindus in the same situation could be saved through the CAA. Consequently, fears spread that only Muslims would lose their nationality and be sent to detention centers. In Shaheen Bagh, South Delhi, Muslim women began a sit-in protest, occupying the road, and the slogan "We will not show our documents (Kagaz Nahi Dikhayenge)" spread nationwide. In February 2020, bloody clashes between Hindus and Muslims broke out in Northeast New Delhi, resulting in 53 deaths. The vast majority of the deceased were Muslims (for the similarities to the 2002 Gujarat riots, see Chapter 3, Section 3.2).

For more than four years after its enactment, the CAA remained a dead letter as its implementation rules were not notified. Then, on March 11, 2024, just weeks before the general election, the Modi government abruptly announced the implementation rules. It was a signal to the Hindu nationalist base ahead of the election. However, as of 2025, not a single person has actually been granted citizenship under the CAA. The law exists but is not functioning; the CAA was serving more as a tool of symbolic politics than as legislation.

And then the final piece of the puzzle fell into place: the construction of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. This story dates back to 1992. In December of that year, tens of thousands of far-right Hindu activists destroyed the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya with their bare hands. They claimed that the site of this 16th-century Mughal-era mosque was the birthplace of the Hindu god Rama (Ram). More than 2,000 people lost their lives in the religious riots that followed the mosque's destruction, and the event became one of the deepest wounds in modern Indian history.

Twenty-seven years later, in November 2019, the Supreme Court of India brought the dispute to an end. Recognizing archaeological evidence that a Hindu temple had existed on the disputed site, the court ruled that the land should be handed over to the Hindu side. Although the act of destroying the mosque itself was ruled illegal, the result was a victory for the Hindu nationalist forces.

On August 5, 2020, exactly one year after the abrogation of Article 370, Prime Minister Modi visited Ayodhya to preside over the groundbreaking ceremony (Bhoomi Pujan) for the Ram Mandir. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic hitting India hard, Modi personally laid a silver brick and performed rituals alongside Hindu priests. The architect in charge of the temple's design was Chandrakant Sompura. Coming from a family that had designed Hindu temples for three generations, the elderly architect from Gujarat envisioned a 161-foot (approximately 49-meter) high temple in the Nagara style. Built with pink Rajasthan sandstone, this massive structure insisted on traditional construction methods without using reinforced steel—an expression of the resolve to build a temple that would endure for a thousand years.

On January 22, 2024, during the consecration ceremony (Pran Pratishtha) held months before the general election, Modi effectively acted as the High Priest of Hinduism. He said he stood as "a witness before the Lord," but the place where he stood was not just an altar but the pinnacle of power. Modi declared that this temple was "liberation from centuries of a slave mentality" and a "symbol marking the resurrection of Indian civilization." It was a victory announcement in a history war to erase the legacy of the Mughal Empire and reorganize India's identity around Hinduism. On the first day of its opening, 500,000 people flocked to the temple, and the number of visitors to Ayodhya in 2024 reached 135.5 million.

The abrogation of Article 370, the enactment of the CAA, and the construction of the Ram Mandir. If taken separately, these are stories about constitutional issues, immigration policy, and religious facilities, respectively. But when bound together, the picture changes. It was a consistent project to transform the identity of India from a 'secular state' to a 'Hindu state.' The roots of this project reach back to the Hindutva ideology that has persisted since the founding of the RSS (see Chapter 1, Section 1.2). To his supporters, Modi was a leader of decisive action who kept his promises; to his opponents, he was the protagonist of division who dismantled the pluralism guaranteed by the Constitution. I leave the judgment to the reader. One thing is clear: through these three measures, Modi turned all the core agendas that the RSS had dreamed of since its founding into reality, making the title 'Hindu Hriday Samrat' (Emperor of Hindu Hearts) no longer a metaphor but a fact.

These massive political upheavals were a double-edged sword for Korean companies operating in India. While the business environment was simplified as legal systems that varied by state were integrated into the center, social instability caused by religious conflicts acted as a supply chain risk. For Samsung Electronics' Noida plant and Hyundai Motor's Chennai plant, India's 'social integration' was not just a sentence in a political analysis report, but a reality directly linked to the size of the protesters at the factory gates.

5.2 COVID-19 Response: Lockdown, Vaccine Maitri, and Economic Stimulus

At 8 PM on the night of March 24, 2020, Prime Minister Narendra Modi appeared on television. His usual flamboyant gestures were absent. He had a grim expression and a low voice. "Starting from midnight tonight, the entire nation of India will be under a complete lockdown for 21 days." The notice given was four hours. A population of 1.38 billion people was given only four hours to prepare. Trains stopped. Buses stopped. Factory doors closed. And on the roads of India, a tragic scene in modern history began.

India has approximately 100 million migrant workers—people who leave their rural villages to work at construction sites and factories in big cities, sending money back to their families. One can think of the young people from the countryside who moved to Seoul in Korea during the 1970s and 80s, but the scale is different: 100 million. When the lockdown was announced, they lost their jobs overnight. They had no money and no means of transportation. So they walked. They walked hundreds of kilometers under the scorching sun, carrying babies and lugging belongings. According to one study, 43.3 million migrant workers returned to their hometowns during the first lockdown, and about 35 million of them walked or used unconventional means of transport. Official counts alone reported 198 deaths from traffic accidents during transit, and the actual number including those who collapsed from hunger and exhaustion would have been much higher. This scene was broadcast live across the country via Indian television news, and criticism poured in regarding the Modi government's 'shock therapy without preparation.'

Modi's decision to lock down had its own logic. India's medical infrastructure was not at a level to handle a population of 1.4 billion. There were only 0.5 hospital beds per 1,000 people, and medical facilities in rural areas were almost non-existent. Time had to be bought before the virus spread across India. That is why the world's most powerful and largest-scale lockdown was implemented. Comparing it to the war in the ancient epic Mahabharata, Modi appealed to the public to "endure for just 21 days" in the fight against the virus. He asked citizens to bang pots and light candles, and millions came out onto their balconies to respond to his request. The ability to mobilize the public psyche in moments of crisis was a powerful political talent that Modi possessed.

However, did he use the time bought by the lockdown effectively? The answer to this question arrived in the spring of 2021. The Delta variant of the virus swept through India. Daily confirmed cases exceeded 400,000, hospital beds ran out, and oxygen vanished. Desperate messages from people trying to find oxygen cylinders across India filled social media. The daily demand for medical oxygen exploded from 3,842 tons on April 12 to nearly 11,000 tons in early May, but there were only 1,200 cryogenic tankers nationwide to transport it. At a hospital in Nashik, Maharashtra, 22 people died at once due to an oxygen tank leak. In Delhi, small oxygen cylinders were traded on the black market for 25,000 rupees—25 times the original price. The fires at crematoriums never went out for 24 hours, and bodies floated on the Ganges River.

The official COVID-19 death toll from the Indian government was approximately 480,000. However, the estimate for excess mortality released by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2022 was overwhelming. The WHO estimated that the excess mortality related to COVID-19 in India in 2020–2021 reached approximately 4.7 million—a nearly tenfold difference from the official statistics. While the Indian government vehemently disputed this number, data from crematoriums and cemeteries, as well as death registration records from local administrative bodies, supported the WHO's estimate.

The arrows of criticism were aimed at Modi. In January 2021, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, he celebrated by saying, "India is one of the countries that saved many lives." Immediately after, massive political rallies were held for the West Bengal state elections, and millions were allowed to gather and bathe in the Ganges for the Kumbh Mela, the largest Hindu festival. A report emerged that the COVID-19 transmission rate in Uttarakhand, where the Kumbh Mela was held, surged by 1,800% during that period. Criticism that the Modi government prioritized elections and religious events over epidemic prevention was unavoidable.

Even in the midst of the crisis, Modi pulled a card: 'Vaccine Maitri' (Vaccine Friendship). India possessed a massive pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity, often being called the 'Pharmacy of the World.' The Serum Institute of India (SII), the world's largest vaccine manufacturer, mass-produced the AstraZeneca vaccine under the name 'Covishield,' and 'Covaxin,' independently developed by Bharat Biotech, was also approved. Modi turned this manufacturing capacity into a diplomatic weapon. While domestic vaccinations were still in the early stages, India provided more than 230 million doses of vaccines free of charge or for export to over 90 countries, including neighboring nations like Bhutan, Nepal, and Bangladesh, as well as developing countries in Africa and Southeast Asia.

This was not pure humanitarianism. As China was expanding its influence in developing countries with its homegrown Sinovac vaccine, India stepped up as a countermeasure. Modi's name was engraved on every vaccine vial, and leaders of recipient countries sent letters of gratitude to him. Modi framed this as the practice of the ancient Indian philosophy 'Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam' (The world is one family). It was a narrative that while Western nations were preoccupied with 'me-first' nationalism, India showed the responsibility of a global leader. Although it went through a period of halting exports due to a domestic vaccine shortage during the second wave, Vaccine Maitri was a diplomatic achievement that significantly boosted India's soft power.

Domestically, digital infrastructure functioned as a key tool for crisis response. Through 'CoWIN,' a digital vaccination platform linked to the Aadhaar ID system established during Modi's first term, India reached one billion doses at a rapid pace (for the process of establishing Digital India and the UPI payment system, see Chapter 4, Section 4.3). This system, which managed the vaccination data of 1.4 billion people in real-time, became a practical report card for 'Digital India' promoted by the Modi government.

To break through the economic impact, the slogan Modi put forward was 'Atmanirbhar Bharat' (Self-reliant India). In May 2020, he announced an economic stimulus package worth 20 trillion rupees (approximately $266 billion), equivalent to about 10% of the GDP. The slogan "Let's make it ourselves instead of relying on others" resembled the spirit of Korea's 'nation-building through exports' in the 1970s.

Through this package, the government did more than just hand out cash. While addressing immediate hunger with a food security program (PMGKAY) that provided free grains to over 800 million impoverished people, it simultaneously drew the sword of structural reform. PMGKAY began as an emergency response to COVID-19, but it was continuously extended due to its political popularity. At the end of 2024, the Modi government announced that the program would be extended until December 2028. The annual cost of this program, which provides 5 kilograms of rice or wheat for free to 800 million people every month, is approximately 2 trillion rupees (about $24 billion). The world's largest food welfare policy has effectively become permanent. The government introduced the Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme to encourage domestic production in core industries such as semiconductors, electronics, and pharmaceuticals, and expanded collateral-free loans to micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs). The vulnerability of global supply chains exposed by COVID-19 provided Modi with the justification to send a message to companies worldwide: "Leave China and come to India."

An immediate shock was also transmitted to the Korean economy during this period. Samsung Electronics' Noida plant and Hyundai Motor's Chennai plant ground to a halt due to the lockdown, affecting global sales. Paradoxically, however, COVID-19 became an opportunity for Korean companies to reconfirm the strategic value of India. For Korean companies trying to reduce their dependence on China, India was almost the only alternative, and the Modi government actively lured them by waving the carrot of the PLI scheme.

As a result, India succeeded in a rapid V-shaped recovery among major economies. In 2022, it overtook the UK to become the world's fifth-largest economy, and in 2025, it surpassed Japan to become the world's fourth-largest economy. This was the result of the growth engine created by the domestic market of 1.4 billion people, a young workforce, and digital infrastructure being fully operational after the pandemic. The unprecedented crisis of COVID-19 brought two things to Modi simultaneously: the indelible shadow of the suffering of millions, and the paradoxical opportunity to leap forward as a 'post-China' manufacturing powerhouse.

The COVID-19 response of the second Modi term was a microcosm of his governance style. Bold determination and insufficient preparation, strategic agility in turning crisis into opportunity, and structural cruelty where vulnerable people were the first to collapse coexisted. While he consolidated power by delivering vaccines and stimulating the economy, the bodies floating on the Ganges were a list of people that power failed to protect.

5.3 Internal Resistance: Farmers' Protests and the Controversy over Press Freedom

On the morning of November 19, 2021, Prime Minister Narendra Modi stood before the TV cameras. This day was Gurpurab, the birth anniversary of Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, and the largest holiday in Northern India. His usual firm tone was nowhere to be found. Bowing his head, Modi said: "I brought these laws with a pure heart, but I failed to convince some of the farmers." It was the moment the man who had never retreated since taking office first admitted his defeat.

It was not the opposition or international pressure that brought him to his knees. It was the farmers who drove their tractors up to the capital.

Three Laws, One Anger

The incident dates back 14 months. In September 2020, amid the chaos of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Modi government passed three agriculture-related bills in Parliament. The crux of the bills was to open the agricultural distribution market to the private sector. The government's logic was clear: by moving beyond the existing government-managed wholesale markets, known as Mandis, and allowing farmers to trade directly with corporations, middleman commissions would decrease and income would increase. It was an extension of Modinomics: "Just as 'Make in India' changed manufacturing, we will modernize agriculture through market forces."

However, to the farmers of Punjab and Haryana, these bills were read as a 'death warrant for their survival.' The core issue was the Minimum Support Price (MSP). MSP is a system that has been the backbone of Indian agricultural policy since the Green Revolution in the 1960s, a mechanism through which the federal government guarantees a minimum purchase price for major crops like wheat and rice. If the government-managed Mandis are weakened, the MSP system itself is bound to be shaken. The farmers sensed that if the power to determine prices passed to giant agri-food companies like Adani or Reliance, they would be relegated to subcontracted laborers for them.

The process of passing the bills also fueled the anger. In the Rajya Sabha, the opposition's demand for a vote was rejected, and the bills were processed via a voice vote in a manner close to being railroaded. Legally, agriculture is a state subject, but the federal government pushed it through unilaterally without the consent of the states. This provoked a backlash not only against the content of the bills but also against the Modi-style unilateral management of state affairs.

Dilli Chalo: "I'm going to Delhi"

In November 2020, tens of thousands of farmers from Punjab and Haryana set out for New Delhi on their tractors. 'Dilli Chalo' means "Let's go to Delhi" in Hindi. The police used tear gas and water cannons to block their entry, but the procession of farmers did not stop. When entry into Delhi was blocked, they occupied major border points on the outskirts of the capital, such as Singhu, Tikri, and Ghazipur, and began a long-term sit-in.

This was no ordinary protest. The farmers built a kind of autonomous community equipped with food, bedding, generators, and even washing machines. At the Langar, the traditional Sikh community kitchen, three meals a day were provided for free, and volunteer doctors operated clinics. More than 200 farmers' organizations formed the 'Samyukta Kisan Morcha' (United Farmers Front), creating a solidarity that transcended caste, religion, and region. It was a scene that would be recorded as one of the largest protests in human history.

The government met them with a hardline stance. It drove iron nails and built concrete barricades around the protest sites and cut the internet. Ruling party officials and pro-government media maligned the protesters as 'Khalistani (Sikh separatist) terrorists' or 'anti-national forces.' On January 26, 2021, India's Republic Day, when the farmers' tractor march turned into some violence and some protesters entered the Red Fort, the government used this as a pretext to further intensify the crackdown.

However, the farmers did not break. They held their positions for over a year amid the sub-zero cold of December, the 50-degree heat of June, and the threat of COVID-19. In the process, more than 700 people lost their lives to cold, disease, accidents, and suicide, according to counts by farmers' organizations. The government did not officially recognize this number and refused compensation for the bereaved families.

Why Modi Retreated

So why did Modi, who had held out for over a year, suddenly apologize and withdraw the bills? The answer lay in the way Indian politics works. In early 2022, elections in Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, known as India's 'weather vanes of public sentiment,' were imminent. The fire of the farmers' protests was spreading even to the Jat farmers of western Uttar Pradesh, a core support base of the BJP. If they lost this vote, the path to Modi 3.0 could be blocked.

Modi painfully confirmed the fact that power ultimately comes from the ballot box. In December 2021, Parliament officially scrapped the three laws, and the farmers ended their sit-in. However, the legal guarantee of MSP demanded by the farmers was not achieved. In February 2024, farmers took to the streets again. This time, the police dropped tear gas with drones. The laws were gone, but the roots of the conflict remained in the soil. In November 2024, farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal went on a hunger strike demanding a legal guarantee for MSP. Dallewal's strike continued for 52 days, and as the life of the 73-year-old was in danger, national attention was drawn. An unusual situation occurred where the Supreme Court directly intervened to recommend ending the strike. Three years had passed since the Modi government withdrew the farm laws, but the fundamental demands of the farmers had not moved a step forward, circling in place.

The Muzzled Pen: The Fall of Press Freedom

If the farmers' protests were resistance on the road, another shadow of the second Modi term was cast in an invisible space: silencing the press.

In the World Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), India's ranking has steadily plummeted since Modi took power. From 140th in 2014, the rank fell to 161st in 2023 and remained at 159th in 2024. It is in the lower tier of 180 countries, classified as 'very serious.' RSF described India's media environment as an "unofficial state of emergency."

Control of the press operated at several levels simultaneously. First was the reorganization of media ownership. As conglomerates close to Prime Minister Modi bought up major media outlets, critical voices disappeared. Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Group built a massive media empire reaching 800 million Indians by owning more than 70 media outlets. At the end of 2022, the acquisition of NDTV—India's representative critical media outlet—by Gautam Adani's group was decisive. RSF evaluated this as a "signal that the pluralism of mainstream media has ended." Indian citizens called such pro-government media 'Godi Media.' 'Godi' means 'lap' in Hindi, and it sounds similar to 'Modi.' It was a mockery of a lapdog press sitting on the lap of power.

This situation might not feel unfamiliar to Korean readers. In the 1970s and 80s in Korea, there was a time when the government merged and abolished media companies and sent down reporting guidelines. The difference is that in India, instead of the state owning the media directly, pro-government conglomerates are using market logic to achieve the same effect.

Second was the judicial suppression of critical journalists. The Modi government utilized sedition laws—a legacy of the colonial era—and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), an anti-terrorism law, as tools for media control. Siddique Kappan, a journalist from Kerala, was arrested while on his way to cover a gang rape case in Uttar Pradesh and was imprisoned for over two years on charges of conspiring to commit terrorism. Mohammed Zubair, co-founder of the fact-checking site 'Alt News,' was detained due to past tweets. The news portal 'NewsClick' underwent a UAPA investigation on charges of receiving Chinese funding, and its founder was detained. In a country where the act of reporting itself becomes a crime, journalists have no choice but to choose self-censorship.

Third was retaliation against foreign media. In January 2023, the British BBC aired a documentary titled "India: The Modi Question," which dealt with Modi's role during the 2002 Gujarat riots. The Indian government immediately invoked emergency measures to block links to the video on YouTube and Twitter. Students who tried to screen the documentary on university campuses were detained. A few days later, tax authorities raided the BBC offices in Delhi and Mumbai for an intensive investigation. It was a clear retaliation for critical reporting (for the connection with Modi's security nationalism stance, see Chapter 4, Section 4.5).

India also set a world record for internet shutdowns. According to counts by the digital rights group 'Access Now,' the number of internet shutdowns implemented in India since 2016 has exceeded 700. From long-term shutdowns in Kashmir to shutdowns at the sites of farmers' protests and shutdowns under the pretext of preventing exam cheating, it was a record of being the country with the most internet shutdowns in the world for five consecutive years. Freedom House demoted India from a 'Free' country to a 'Partly Free' country.

The farmers broke through the barricades. Their tractors stopped the runaway legislative train and proved that the democratic mechanism of elections could check power. However, at the same time, the microphones that would convey that victory were being turned off one by one. The voices of 1.4 billion people grew louder, but the channels to transmit those voices were narrowing. India in the second Modi term was such a country.

5.4 The Adani Crisis: Allegations of Crony Capitalism

On January 24, 2023, a report was posted online from an office in New York. It was written by Hindenburg Research, an American investment firm specializing in short-selling. The title was as follows: "Adani Group: How The World’s 3rd Richest Man Is Pulling The Largest Con In Corporate History." The revelations contained in the 106 pages subsequently wiped out $150 billion—about 200 trillion Korean won—in market capitalization within ten days. The entire Indian stock market wobbled, and the shockwaves of the report crossed the ocean to shake the political scene in New Delhi.

There is a reason why this incident went beyond a corporate scandal. It was because the fate of the Adani Group overlapped precisely with the power of Prime Minister Modi.

The Chai-Selling Boy and the Diamond Broker

Gautam Adani is a figure who dropped out of college and started as a diamond broker in Mumbai. Like Modi, he is from Gujarat, is self-made, and takes pride in his humble beginnings. The trajectories of the two men began to intersect in the early 2000s, during Modi's tenure as the Chief Minister of Gujarat.

When Modi held the 'Vibrant Gujarat' investment promotion events, Adani was the partner in the front row providing funds and executing projects. Modi allocated land and eased environmental regulations, while Adani built ports and power plants. Behind the 'Gujarat Model' examined in Chapter 3 lay this symbiotic relationship between the two (see Chapter 3, Section 3.3).

In May 2014, when Modi was elected Prime Minister and headed to New Delhi, the fuselage of the plane he boarded clearly bore the word 'ADANI.' The scene of a prime minister-elect entering the capital on a specific company's private jet was unprecedented in Indian political history. Critics remember this as a single photo that encapsulates the relationship between the two.

The Birth of an Infrastructure Empire

Since Modi took power, the speed of the Adani Group's expansion has been phenomenal. Ports, airports, power, coal, defense, green energy, and media. As the government pushed for the privatization of airports, the Adani Group, which had zero experience in airport operations, monopolized the operation rights of six major airports, including Mumbai. Coal mines were approved in areas where environmental regulations were eased, and it expanded overseas by acquiring the Port of Haifa in Israel. Gautam Adani's assets surged, placing him at one point as the third richest person in the world.

Critics called this the '2A Economy.' The 'A's stand for Adani and Ambani. The criticism was that the Modi government's core economic policies were designed to favor these two conglomerates. Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi held up a photo in Parliament showing Modi and Adani together and asked: "How did Adani's assets increase like this after you became Prime Minister?" Modi ultimately never mentioned Adani's name directly.

This setup might feel familiar to Korean readers. It resembles the Korean chaebol model in that the state concentrated resources on specific companies to lead high-speed growth. However, there is a decisive difference. While the growth of Korean chaebols was verified through fierce export competition, Adani's growth was primarily based on the monopolistic winning of government infrastructure projects. The suspicion that political connections, not the market, were the engine of growth is the core of the Adani crisis (refer to the discussion on crony capitalism in Chapter 3, Section 3.3).

Hindenburg's Bomb

The Hindenburg report released on January 24, 2023, was the result of a two-year tracking investigation. The core of the report was condensed into three points.

First, the allegation was that the Adani family established dozens of paper companies (shell companies) in tax havens such as Mauritius, the UAE, and the Caribbean and artificially inflated stock prices by purchasing large quantities of Adani subsidiary shares through these companies. Second, the analysis was that it had a dangerous leverage structure of expanding business by taking out massive loans using the inflated stock prices as collateral. Third was the suspicion that it bypassed the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regulation limiting major shareholder stakes to 75% by using offshore entities. Hindenburg concluded that the Adani Group's major listed companies were "overvalued by more than 85%."

The market's reaction was immediate and destructive. Within ten days of the report's release, the Adani Group's market capitalization was halved. In the words of one media outlet, the amount that evaporated was double the entire GDP of Costa Rica. The $2.5 billion follow-on public offering ambitiously pursued by Adani Enterprises was abruptly cancelled, and Gautam Adani immediately dropped from 3rd to outside the top 20 in the world's rich rankings. Citigroup set the collateral value of Adani bonds to zero, and S&P excluded Adani Enterprises from the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices.

"An Attack on India"

The Adani Group issued a 413-page rebuttal. Dismissing Hindenburg's claims as "calculated lies" written by a "Madoff of Manhattan," it defined the real purpose of the report as a "calculated attack not just on a specific company but on the independence and growth story of India." It was a strategy to substitute allegations of corporate corruption with an attack on the nation.

The Modi government and the BJP also jumped onto the same logic. They either remained silent or ignored the opposition's demand to form a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). In Parliament, the microphones of opposition members were turned off, and the records of their remarks were deleted from the transcripts. Rahul Gandhi even lost his seat as a member of Parliament for a time after being found guilty of defamation for remarks related to Adani.

Meanwhile, the Indian Supreme Court ordered SEBI to investigate, but SEBI's response was lukewarm. In January 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that a separate Special Investigation Team (SIT) was unnecessary and that it trusted SEBI's investigation. However, in August 2024, when Hindenburg raised suspicions through a follow-up report that the SEBI chairperson herself had a conflict of interest relationship with the Adani Group, the independence of the regulatory body itself came under scrutiny. A structure where there is no one to watch the watchers—that was the fundamental problem facing the Indian financial market.

And in November 2024, the Adani crisis entered a completely new phase. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) indicted Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar Adani on bribery and fraud charges. The contents of the indictment were shocking. The core allegation was that the Adani side provided $265 million (about 350 billion won) in bribes to Indian government officials to win Indian solar energy contracts. According to the indictment from the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, these bribes were in exchange for securing favorable power purchase agreements in several Indian states. The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also separately filed a civil lawsuit.

The Adani Group immediately denied all allegations. Gautam Adani stated, "I will prove my innocence by mobilizing all legal means." However, this indictment brought within the US judicial system carried a weight of a different dimension than the Hindenburg report. A report from a short-selling investment firm could be left to the judgment of the market, but an indictment by a federal grand jury was a path leading to a criminal trial. Kenya cancelled its airport construction contract with the Adani Group, and several international financial institutions began to re-examine their transactions with Adani.

The Indian opposition immediately demanded an explanation from Prime Minister Modi. "The businessman closest to the Prime Minister has been indicted on bribery charges in the US, so why is the Prime Minister silent?" However, Modi and the BJP did not open their mouths this time either.

The Shadow of the Growth Model

The questions left by the Adani crisis go beyond the corruption of a single company. This was a question about the structural contradictions of Modinomics.

Modi's economic strategy is the 'National Champion' model—a way in which the state fosters a few giant corporations to build infrastructure and drive growth. It has similarities to Korea's developmental experience. However, while Korea's chaebol capabilities were verified through global competition in semiconductors, automobiles, and shipbuilding, Adani's business was mostly based on a monopoly of domestic infrastructure. In a structure where political connections, not competition, are the key to success, loyalty is rewarded over efficiency, and networks over innovation.

The opposition called this 'Crony Capitalism.' Under the slogan of 'Atmanirbhar Bharat' (Self-reliant India), it was a question of whether the state-led growth was actually for the benefit of a few close conglomerates. Added to this was the criticism that the 'Electoral Bonds' system introduced by the Modi government became a channel for opaque corporate donations to flow to the ruling party.

Nevertheless, the Adani Group survived. Global investment firm GQG Partners invested $1.9 billion, restoring confidence, and the stock price gradually rebounded. Around June 2024, the Adani Group's market capitalization recovered most of its pre-Hindenburg levels. Gautam Adani also returned to the top of the world's rich rankings. However, with the US indictment in November of that year, the stock price plummeted again, and the Adani Group once again stood at a crossroads of survival.

Power sometimes hides itself behind glamorous airport terminals and massive port cranes. Just as Robert Caro tracked the power of Robert Moses behind New York's roads and bridges, the Adani crisis was an event that allowed a look at the inner workings of power hidden behind India's highways and power plants. The suspicions that began with Hindenburg's report spread to the US DOJ's indictment. Numbers can lie. However, the question of who monitors those numbers, and who monitors the monitors, remained a heavy task for India as it entered the Modi 3.0 era.