Shah's speech on Tamil Nadu ‘blatant lies': A Raja
Amit Shah is trying to disturb the peace in a harmonious state like Tamil Nadu, said DMK's A Raja on Monday while emphasising that the Union home minister's speech attacking them a day ago were'blatant lies'.
'His speech was three things — disgusting, blatant lies without evidence and divisive,' Raja said in a press conference. Shah in Madurai on Sunday launched a scathing attack on the MK Stalin-led DMK government for 'rising corruption, crimes against women and drug mafia' over the last four years and said that the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) would form the government in Tamil Nadu in the 2026 assembly elections.
'Their communal politics does not work here. People of Tamil Nadu have repeatedly shown the BJP that their politics will not be accepted here,' Raja said. He added that they are not afraid of Shah and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. ' We are not afraid of Shah and Modi. Afterall, they are ordinary people. Why are they not able to win here? Because we have an ideology that is an alternative to theirs. As long as Dravidian ideology exists, they cannot gain a foothold here. We are not Delhi, Maharashtra and Haryana. We are Tamil Nadu, we are Dravidam, they (BJP) cannot come here.'
Raja rebutted Shah's speech point by point and listed chief minister MK Stalin's achievement while adding that the BJP-led Union government is creating confusion over the delimitation process. On Shah urging people to participate in large numbers on June 22 for BJP's conference on Lord Murugan in Madurai, Raja said that the people know that it is to whip up communal sentiments. 'You are not conducting this for the unity of Hindus but to bring in religious divide by going against Islam, Christianity and marginalised people,' the Lok Sabha MP said.
Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) chief S Seeman too said that the BJP should not politicise Tamil deity Lord Murugan. 'There is a value for Murugan in the state. Why didn't BJP speak of his glory all these days,' Seeman told reporters. 'You take up Rama in Uttar Pradesh, Puri Jagannath in Odisha, Aiyyappa in Kerala, and then Murugan here. Do you think people here will be deceived?'
In response, the BJP said Shah ensured that the BJP forms the government in Haryana, Maharashtra and Delhi. 'He has come to Tamil Nadu to pack off the DMK in the 2026 assembly elections,' BJP's Tamil Nadu chief Nainar Nagendran said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
30 minutes ago
- The Hindu
U.P. govt suppressed Maha Kumbh death toll, says Rahul Gandhi, cites BBC report
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday (June 11, 2025) cited a BBC report to allege that the number of people who died in stampedes during the Maha Kumbh was suppressed by the Uttar Pradesh government and accused the BJP of having no accountability. "BBC report reveals that figures of deaths in Kumbh Mela stampede were hidden. Like in COVID, the bodies of the poor were erased from the statistics. Like after every major railway accident the truth is suppressed," he said in a post on X. "This is the BJP model - if there is no counting of the poor, then there is no accountability either!" the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha said. On Tuesday, Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav cited the same media report to accuse the Uttar Pradesh government of lying about the death toll in the January 29 Maha Kumbh stampede and said that those who provide "false statistics" are not worthy of public trust. Mr. Yadav made the remarks in a post on X, citing a BBC report which claimed that 82 people died in the stampede. The toll is significantly higher than the official figure of 37.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Dear Editor, I disagree: Not all speech is free
The constitutional right to free speech — a fundamental democratic principle — is often misinterpreted. The editorial ('Whose free speech?', IE, June 3) circumvents the context, intent and impact of free speech by defending Sharmistha Panoli's inflammatory social media post, targeting Islam and the Prophet, as a legitimate exercise of free expression. An important disclaimer: My disagreement with the editorial is not a defence or endorsement of the carceral state. Rather, beyond the over-simplistic binaries, the focus here is on recognising hate speech as a form of violence. While the editorial rightly criticises the overzealous police action in arresting the 22-year-old law student — she was later released on bail — it ignores the context that enabled Panoli's remarks and fails to acknowledge the target of her outburst. Panoli's words are far from being an act of reckless indiscretion; they feed into the volatile environment, increasingly marginalising, vilifying, and disproportionately targeting Muslims. The editorial, too, acknowledges that Panoli's post echoed 'some of the most hurtful anti-minority tropes in circulation'. However, more than the troubling content of Panoli's post, one should be wary of the political sentiments that consider Muslims to be demographic threats. Condemning arrests for online posts is crucial, but one must differentiate between freedom of expression and provocative speech that perpetuates targeted hatred against marginalised communities. The editorial failed to realise the essence of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015). The judgment upholds freedom of speech but doesn't legitimise hate speech. On the contrary, the SC has clearly defined the boundaries between protected free expression and punishable hate speech. In Shreya Singhal, the court established a crucial framework by distinguishing three categories of speech: Discussion, advocacy, and incitement. It held that 'mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause, howsoever unpopular, is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution', and is therefore protected. However, as the court noted, once such speech crosses the line into incitement — particularly incitement to violence, hatred, or public disorder — Article 19(2) applies, and restrictions become constitutionally valid. By drawing this line, Shreya Singhal underscores a crucial principle: The right to free speech does not encompass a right to incite harm or hatred against others. Many judicial precedents affirm this critical distinction. Notably, in three rulings in 2018 — Tehseen Poonawalla vs Union of India, Kodungallur Film Society vs Union of India, and Shakti Vahini vs Union of India, the SC went a step further, laying down guidelines to prevent and address hate speech and vigilante violence. However, these directives have largely remained on paper, with little to no meaningful implementation. The antidote to overzealous state action cannot be universal impunity. The editorial rightly points out that young Muslims have often been arrested for social media posts and labelled 'anti-national' or 'pro-Pakistan', often with little evidence of real harm. But to use that injustice to suggest that no one should be held accountable for incendiary speech is a fallacy. The discourse on free speech must be shaped by consistent legal principles, not by selective outrage and the use of legal machinery by those in power. The solution to the wicked problem of protecting free speech lies in equal and principled application of the law, not in abandoning accountability altogether. In a system that disproportionately targets minority voices while mostly excusing and sometimes even celebrating those who vilify them, the overwhelming defence from all political cadres for free expression is amusing. The double standard is made evident through the ruling party's sudden invocation of the principle of freedom of speech and expression, championing Panoli's right to free speech while silencing dissenting voices from marginalised communities — the latest, the arrest of Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, is a case in point. Defending insidious speech on the grounds of constitutional liberty risks defending the right to hate, a right not promised by the Constitution. The writer teaches law at Jamia Hamdard
India Gazette
an hour ago
- India Gazette
BJP opposed earlier caste census report citing data inconsistency, why is it opposing a re-survey now: K'taka Dy CM
New Delhi [India], June 12 (ANI): Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar on Wednesday questioned the BJP's intention in questioning the state government's decision to re-conduct the caste census. 'The BJP was opposed to the earlier caste census, citing data sanctity issues. We have announced a redo of the census, but the BJP is still opposing this too,' he said, while speaking to reporters here. Asked about BJP criticising the decision to reconduct the caste census, he said, 'The BJP did not accept the earlier caste census report, why the opposition now when we are trying to address the concerns? We are not rejecting the earlier census, we are only trying to correct the shortcomings of the earlier survey in order to allay concerns of several communities.' Asked if the survey would be conducted in a scientific manner this time, he said, 'The modalities would be discussed in the Cabinet meeting. Several communities, including Lambanis, Jains, Bestha communities had met me and raised concerns on the earlier survey. The previous survey was also done scientifically through door-to-door visits, but some of the people were hesitant to share their caste details. Our national leaders have given us certain guidelines. The AICC President too has given us many suggestions. The CM will discuss this in the Cabinet meeting and make a decision.' To a question of whether the government gave in to the pressure from powerful communities, he said, 'We have yielded to the pressures from all communities. We have yielded to the pressure from the media too.' When pointed out that the Veerashaiva community has welcomed the government's decision to redo the caste census, he said, 'Seers from Veerashaiva and Vokkaliga communities called me up and welcomed the decision. I appeal to all the seers to nudge their community members to participate in the survey and provide correct details.' Asked if it was D K Shivakumar's victory in convincing the High Command for a resurvey, he said there was no winner or loser in this matter. When questioned if there was a need for the state to reconduct the caste census when the Centre has announced a caste census along with the general census, he said, 'This is our Party's agenda, the BJP has copied it. Rahul Gandhi has always been advocating proportionate representation for the backwards classes.' Replying to a question on ED raids on Congress MLAs and MPs in the alleged Valmiki Corporation corruption case, he said, 'There is no link between our MLAs and Valmiki Corporation scam. Our leaders have not used the money in any election. As much as 90% of the money misused by the officials has been recovered.' (ANI)
