Tamil Nadu CM accuses DMK of deceiving people over CAA
Tamil Nadu CM accuses DMK of deceiving people over CAA
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister K Palaniswami on Tuesday accused the DMK of deceiving the people over the CAA and dared it to explain "which minority" community has been affected by the law in the state.
Edited by: PTIChennaiUpdated on: February 19, 2020 16:18 IST
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister K Palaniswami on Tuesday accused the DMK of deceiving the people over the CAA and dared it to explain "which minority" community has been affected by the law in the state. Making an intervention in the state assembly when a DMK member batted for a House resolution opposing the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, he slammed the principal opposition party and said it was deceiving the people on the issue.
The assembly, debating the 2020-21 budget, witnessed exchanges over the controversial law even as protests by Muslims against it continued for the fifth day at Old Washermanpet in Chennai.
Speaking on the budget, DMK MLA T Mano Thangaraj favoured an anti-CAA resolution in the House. Intervening, Palaniswami, who had been maintaining that the government will not allow anything that may affect the minorities, sought to turn the tables on the DMK and asked it to give details about those affected by the citizenship act.
"Which minority is affected in Tamil Nadu? We are not acting (deceiving) like you (DMK)," he said.
When Thangaraj, defended his position and pointed to resolutions against the CAA in some states, the Chief Minister said the law related to Citizenship came under the domain of the Central government and not the state.
IUML member KAM Muhammed Abubacker too spoke and pointed to apprehensions vis-a-vis the CAA. Responding, Revenue Minister R B Udhaya Kumar said the Chief Minister had even said (previously) that the government would own responsibility if any Muslim had been affected in the past three decades in Tamil Nadu, an apparent reference to the AIADMK rule for a major part of the period. Kumar said the matter (CAA) was in the Supreme Court and also no rules had been framed under the law yet.