In financial markets, there is a very perfect description of the end of a trend—there is an explosive burst of buying (blow-out) or a panic-driven sale (exhaustion). When that happens, one knows that the story, trend, is over.

Well, we have just had that panic-driven irrational move to the downside (all puns intended). On Wednesday, July 1, two English media channels—NDTV and Times Now—led with the story, from noon till midnight, that Kaushal Swaraj, external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj’s husband and lawyer for KK Modi’s firm Indofil, had, within an hour of receipt of an offer from Modi’s son, Lalit, to be an alternate director, summarily declined the offer. Mr. Swaraj has been associated with the KK Modi Group for the last 20 years. Now, he stood accused by the media-mob of conflict of interest for rejecting an offer to be an alternate director.

Really? I happened to be on NDTV on July 1. My response: What NDTV had was a “dog bites man” story; what they needed, in order not to look abundantly foolish, was a “man bites dog” story.

The LalitGate story has been relentless, manufactured, and in my opinion, suggests that the English TV and print media is extremely biased. Ever since Narendra Modi (no relation to Lalit Modi) got elected with a surprising majority last May, the “liberal” English media has not come either to terms with this fact. One can go into the reasons, but in the main, there are two. First, PM Modi is not one of them. Second, their forecasts and assessments of the man and the event (Election 2014) were nowhere close to the eventual reality.

May 2014 marked the beginning of the end of the oldest political party in India, Congress. Leaders in the fight for Independence achieved nearly 68 years ago, the party has not forgiven the people of India for turning their backs for the “favour” they granted the nation. So, they will stop Parliament from functioning!

Add a disgruntled, dispirited and disillusioned Congress to the disappointed, out of influence, English media elite, and you have a potent cocktail that produces stories like Mr. Swaraj’s Believe it or Not conflict of interest. Note that I have consistently said the English media elite, i.e., the overwhelming Hindi TV media has been excluded. Why? Because they had the good sense to only minimally report the LalitGate stories rather than literally do it 24/7.

Now that two weeks of relentless coverage in the English media have passed, let us reconstruct what happened. There is information available about the travel of an Indian citizen, Lalit Modi, based in England, to Portugal in July 2014 to attend the eighth cancer operation on his wife. This operation was a life-threatening one, which is why the doctors requested close members of the family, including husband Lalit, to be present.

But Lalit Modi could not travel because his passport had been revoked by the UPA government in 2010. What is noteworthy is that Lalit Modi’s passport was revoked by the UPA government, at the same time, perhaps coincidentally, that Lalit was embroiled in a BCCI internal battle with N Srinivasan, an individual who assumed control of the BCCI in 2011! Revoked on what grounds? On the recommendation of the Enforcement Directorate (ED)—an agency housed in the ministry of finance and widely acknowledged to be as political (if not more) as its “sister” agency, the CBI. On cue, the ED slapped on charges of FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management ACT) violation on Lalit Modi.

Note that a FEMA violation is not a criminal charge, its violation carries no jail term, and only a financial penalty, at best. If you talked to any person tuned into the English TV media, a popular interpretation of the events is that Modi had been charged with violation of the Money Laundering Act, a charge whose conviction is deemed criminal. While on the subject of precedents, may the same English media re-inform the public about the fact that the UPA government, in 2010, awarded Sant Chatwal, a person convicted of bank fraud in India, and of election fraud in the US, with a Padma Bhushan?

What did Sushma Swaraj do wrong? What did she do that the hounds pretend to smell blood? In her own words, on June 14, 2015, she tweeted: “Taking a humanitarian view, I conveyed to the British High Commissioner that [they] should examine the request of Lalit Modi as per British rules and regulations. If the British Government chooses to give travel documents to Lalit Modi—that will not spoil our bilateral relations.” (emphasis added)

My question to all, especially the nobility in the Congress and the English media (one and the same?) is the same—what did Ms. Swaraj do wrong, and so wrong that it warrants her resignation as external affairs minister? Is there a question about the “humanitarian” angle of the need for a husband to be close to his wife undergoing a life-threatening cancer operation? Who other than Ms. Swaraj could decide whether foreign relations with UK would be affected “adversely” with Lalit Modi being issued British travel documents? How can a senior bureaucrat, or the High Commissioner, decide on political matters? The UPA had denied Lalit Modi travel on British documents on the grounds that this would “adversely affect” relations. Your guess of the adversity faced by the nation (or BCCI?) with Lalit Modi’s travel is as good as mine. Shouldn’t the media, and us, opine on which political party made the right decision—the UPA in denying Lalit’s right to travel, or the NDA in affirming his right to travel? Incidentally, the Delhi High Court admonished the UPA for revoking Modi’s passport, and reinstated his passport, on August 27, 2014.

PM Modi has taken the right course in not being intimidated by the vigilante English media. He has not commented on the issue (no need for him to do so) and not asked for any resignations. But LalitGate has provided PM Modi with a Congress-sent opportunity to begin to cleanse the system. What he will note, what he must note, is that this is not l’affaire Lalit, but is really l’affaire BCCI. The real conflict of interest is not with Ms. Swaraj or Ms. Raje, but with the BJP and Congress politicians in the BCCI. Give sports back to the people, and take it away from the politicians. Politicians of all colours should be made to resign from BCCI, and all sporting bodies. This should be the start of PM Modi’s campaign to reduce corruption in India.

I used to believe that history will judge FIFA to be the most corrupt organisation in the world and BCCI second. I now believe history will judge BCCI to be the most corrupt. Second, I no longer believe that Ms. Swaraj should have recused herself from the decision to state to the British authorities that if they wanted to allow Lalit Modi to travel, the Indian government would have no objection. If I were in her position, I would have done the same. What would you have done?

Bhalla is contributing editor, The Financial Express, and co-author, with Ankur Choudhary, of Criconomics