You are mostly sharing your opinion. I am not saying that you are wrong, but stating your opinion has much less weightage than stating the facts where your claims are supported by some data/references.
How do I share "facts" on somethings that are fabrications by the Opposition?
I'll attempt it: let us take the Rafale Deal accusations that was leveled against the Government of India by the Opposition Parties. They could not substantiate it with any evidence whatsoever except to claim that Modi and his Party, along with billionaire Ambani, minted billions of dollars from a defense deal which involved Government of India and the French Government in procurement of Rafale Jets (Dassault Aviation). The Opposition mounted an offensive right before the 2019 elections and even took the case to the Supreme Court of India. There, they could not substantiate any of their claims. And they took the case to the same court 3 times with various appeals. In the end, the Supreme Court got frustrated by the repeated petitions and threw out the case [2].
The reason being that the Government of India, for the first time ever, had inked the deal with the French Government directly instead of going through middlemen (which was the case with Bofors Scandal of the 90s and Augusta Westland scandal of the 2000s). Earlier Governments used middlemen to sign deals so that the monetary exchange happened through these middlemen who would give a kickback to the politicians involved in making the deal happen.
The current Government of India decided not to go through the middlemen route and instead inked a deal directly with the French Government. This obviously did not sit well with the Opposition as it lost a big source of corruption revenue (the Opposition was gunning for Lockheed Martin's F-16 (and subsequently Hybrid F-21 jet) or Eurofighter and wanted it done through middlemen). If Government had gone through this route, there would be huge kickback (to the tune of billions of dollars) that would go straight into the pockets of greedy politicians.
Now since the Government did not take that route, there was no scope for corruption anymore as everything had to be done in black and white (with the French Government having to pay the Indian Government directly which would be received by the Treasury and not some corrupt politician or middleman).
Yet the Opposition cried that there was corruption in the deal by picking clauses out of context (for example, the offset clause in the deal) or randomly accusing the Prime Minister of actually facilitating the deal on behalf of billionaire Anil Ambani. None of these accusations withstood the scrutiny of the Supreme Court of India [1]. But in 2019, it was the biggest election issue. Turned out to be a damp squib.
