Stalin Accuses AIADMK of Silence on Controversial FCRA Amendment Bill
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin launched a sharp critique against AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K Palaniswami during a campaign meeting in Kanyakumari district on Saturday. Stalin highlighted what he termed as a glaring contradiction in Palaniswami's political stance, pointing out that while the AIADMK leader frequently speaks about protecting minority communities, he has remained conspicuously silent on the Union government's Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill.
FCRA Bill Labeled as Attack on Religious Freedom
Addressing a gathering in Nagercoil to rally support for DMK and alliance candidates, Stalin asserted that the FCRA Amendment Bill represents a direct assault on religious freedom in India. He explained that the legislation could be used to cancel the registration of Christian organizations over minor delays in document submission or other trivial reasons. According to Stalin, this would pave the way for the government to seize funds and properties belonging to these groups, including vital institutions like hospitals and schools.
"I was the first to raise my voice against the FCRA Amendment Bill, and I recently wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi urging him to withdraw it," Stalin declared. He suggested that the BJP has temporarily stepped back from aggressively pushing the bill due to upcoming elections in states with significant Christian populations, such as Kerala and Assam. However, Stalin warned that the ruling party plans to convene a special session of Parliament to pass the bill, which he believes will cause "indelible damage" to India's global reputation.
Allegations of AIADMK Subservience to BJP
Stalin did not mince words when discussing Palaniswami's position, accusing him of becoming "subservient to the BJP" merely to retain his title as AIADMK general secretary. "EPS says he would protect minorities, but remains silent on the FCRA Bill. This silence speaks volumes about his priorities," Stalin remarked, emphasizing the perceived hypocrisy in AIADMK's claims of safeguarding minority rights.
Criticism of Modi Government's Foreign and Domestic Policies
Expanding his critique to the national level, Stalin accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of creating a situation where India has lost influence even with its smaller neighbors. He specifically cited the ongoing attacks by the Sri Lankan navy on Tamil Nadu fishermen as evidence of the BJP government's neglect. "Since the BJP government does not care about fishermen from Tamil Nadu, there has been a continuous assault by the Sri Lankan navy on them," he stated.
Stalin recalled that when the Congress was in power, Modi had criticized then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as weak for similar incidents. "Such attacks on fishermen still continue. Will PM Modi now accept that he is a weak PM?" Stalin questioned, challenging the Prime Minister's earlier assertions.
New Welfare Promises for Fishermen
In contrast to what he described as BJP's failures, Stalin highlighted the achievements of the Dravidian model government under his leadership. He announced two new promises aimed at enhancing welfare for fishermen:
- Raising the age limit for enrolment in the Fishermen Welfare Board from 65 to 70 years.
- Providing a monthly pension to board members aged between 70 and 75 years.
Campaign Trail Continues with Strong Rhetoric
Later in the evening, Stalin participated in another campaign meeting at Sankarankovil in Tenkasi district, where he continued his attack on both AIADMK and BJP. He questioned what tangible benefits these parties have brought to Tamil Nadu and its people, citing issues like delays in LPG cylinder distribution under Modi's administration.
Stalin alleged that Tamil Nadu has suffered significant destruction over the past four years under what he called "BJP's proxy rule" in the name of EPS. "In this election, we are not fighting just for the victory of DMK but for the victory of Tamil Nadu," he asserted, framing the upcoming polls as a crucial battle for the state's future against what he perceives as harmful central policies and local complicity.
