Fact Check: Political heavyweights didn't discuss WB polls 8 months before announcement as viral claim suggests
A group photograph of Home Minister Amit Shah dining with Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, Bihar Chief Minister...
By Newsmeter Network Published on 21 Nov 2020 5:00 AM GMT
Hyderabad: A group photograph of Home Minister Amit Shah dining with Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and Odisha Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik has gone viral on social media with the claim that the image was taken during a recent meeting to discuss the upcoming elections in West Bengal.
The caption upon translation read, "Bengal elections being discussed over breakfast."
Click here to view the archive and here for a similar claim.
FACT CHECK:
The claim that Bengal elections were discussed at their meeting as seen in the photograph is FALSE.
NewsMeter performed a reverse image search and found several reports from February 2020 that carried the same image. All these reports stated that Amit Shah, Nitish Kumar, and Mamata Banerjee had lunch together at Naveen Patnaik's house in Bhubaneshwar in February.
According to reports by Hindustan Times, Times of India, Times Now, Asian Net News and Republic World, the lunch was hosted after the Eastern Zonal Council Meeting in February. Although it isn't clear what was being discussed during the luncheon, none of the reports made any mention of a discussion about the upcoming elections in West Bengal as the image is over eight months old.
This same photo was also tweeted by Naveen Patnaik on 28 February 2020. He wrote, "Such a pleasure having the company of Union Home Minister @AmitShah ji, my colleague CMs, @MamataOfficial, @NitishKumar ji & Union Minister @dpradhanbjp ji at Naveen Niwas. Had a wonderfully interactive time over some home cooked #Odia delicacies. (sic)"
It is clear that Bengal elections were not the focus of discussion among these political leaders at their lunch meeting as the picture predates any news about the upcoming elections. Hence, the claim is FALSE.
