Raj Thackeray deletes documentary alleging Adani-Modi ties from social media after police ‘request’

Raj Thackeray deleted from his social media accounts a documentary about the alleged long-standing friendship between industrialist Gautam Adani and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It also alleged that India’s industrial landscape was being handed over to Adani. The subject mattered because Thackeray linked it to monopoly, political influence and economic power.

Thackeray said the Mumbai Police commissioner conveyed a request to remove the documentary. He said the film had already reached the public widely, so its main purpose had been achieved. He also said he removed it out of respect for the Mumbai and Maharashtra police forces.

The deletion did not mean he had ended his criticism. Thackeray said his campaign against authoritarianism would continue. He also said his opposition was not aimed at one person, but at any monopoly, whether involving Adani or another industrialist.

A documentary is a non-fiction film or presentation that examines real people, events or public issues. It can present interviews, evidence, claims or commentary. In this episode, the documentary focused on the alleged relationship between Gautam Adani and Narendra Modi, and on the possible effects of that relationship on India’s economy.

According to the article, the documentary described an alleged “long-standing friendship” between the industrialist and the prime minister. It further alleged that India’s industrial landscape was consequently being handed over to Adani. These were the film’s claims, not findings established in the article.

The documentary became politically significant after Raj Thackeray shared it and discussed monopoly concerns. Mumbai Police later issued notices alleging that its claims were false, misleading and disparaging. The film was made by Hotmail founder Sabeer Bhatia and spread across several social media platforms.

The documentary reached a large online audience before it was removed. Raj Thackeray said it had been viewed more than 48 lakh times on X alone. He added that it had also reached audiences through other social media platforms. That scale made the dispute more than a private disagreement.

In the Indian numbering system, one lakh means 100,000. Therefore, 48 lakh equals 4,800,000, or 4.8 million, in international numbering. The figure refers only to views on X, so it does not include the additional audiences reached elsewhere or at an in-person screening.

Thackeray said the documentary’s wide reach had made people in power anxious about the allegations being publicised. He said his intention was for the issue to reach the public and that this objective had been achieved. He then removed the posts after a police request.

Raj Thackeray was the MNS chief who shared the documentary, defended its public importance and later deleted it. Sabeer Bhatia, the Hotmail founder, made the documentary and also posted it on X. Gautam Adani, an industrialist, and Narendra Modi, the prime minister, were the figures discussed in its allegations.

The documentary alleged a long-standing friendship between Adani and Modi and claimed that India’s industrial landscape was being handed to Adani. Thackeray used the film to express concerns about monopoly and the concentration of economic power. He said his opposition was not directed at one individual.

Mumbai Police conveyed a request through the police commissioner, according to Thackeray. Bhatia also said he removed his posts after a police request. Police later issued legal notices to 24 X users who had shared the documentary, alleging that it made false, misleading and disparaging claims.

On October 18, Mumbai Police issued legal notices to 24 users of X who had shared the documentary. The notices alleged that its content contained false, misleading and disparaging claims about the Adani group. Police said the claims were circulated without factual or legal basis and caused continuing harm to its reputation, goodwill and public image.

Sabeer Bhatia said on Wednesday that he removed his posts after a request from Mumbai Police. Raj Thackeray later said he deleted the documentary after a request conveyed through the Mumbai Police commissioner. He described the decision as an act of respect for the Mumbai and Maharashtra police forces.

The removal did not close the political dispute. Thackeray said the documentary had already reached the public widely. He also said he would continue campaigning against what he called authoritarianism and opposing monopolies, whether connected to Adani or anyone else.

Government support for one business group can raise competition concerns when rivals appear unable to compete on equal terms. A favoured group may gain better access to contracts, approvals, infrastructure or financing. That can reduce the number of serious competitors and leave more economic power in fewer hands. These are general risks, not findings established by this article.

The article gives Thackeray’s position as an example. He said the prime minister should help many industrialists grow, create employment and build wealth. He said he would oppose support for one industrialist if it reached a level that threatened the nation. His stated target was monopoly, not a particular individual.

The broader implication is that governments may face pressure to show fair treatment and encourage many businesses. If one group becomes dominant, concerns may grow about political influence, weaker competition and reduced economic choice. The article does not establish that such improper support occurred.

A monopoly is a market situation in which one company controls the supply of a product or service, with little or no effective competition. The article connects this idea to Thackeray’s opposition to the rise of a monopoly and his concern that one group could gain excessive national influence.

With weak competition, consumers may face fewer choices, higher prices or poorer service. Competitors can struggle to enter or survive. Workers may have fewer employers to choose from, which can weaken their bargaining position. The exact effects depend on the market, and the article does not describe specific consumer or worker outcomes.

A monopoly can also concentrate wealth and decision-making power. That is why governments often try to preserve competition and support opportunities for multiple businesses. In this episode, Thackeray said his opposition would apply to any monopoly, whether involving Adani or another industrialist.