THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The government received notice of opposition to the adjournment motion in ADGP Ajith Kumar‘s meetings with the RSS leader became a damp squib there, with managing front members failed to give a clear answer and the last three and a half hours of discussion more like validation of the opposition’s allegations.
Chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s absence, due to physical discomfort, has marred his seriousness from the start.
when IUML leader N Shamsudheen sought leave for the adjournment motion during zero hour, the chief minister responded favorably, hoping that Tuesday’s discussion would not reflect Monday’s situation.
However, when the discussion started at noon, speaker AN Shamseer announced that minister MB Rajesh would reply to the motion for the chief minister.
Congress and IUML leaders hit out at the government, demanding that it protect IPS officers despite serious allegations.
He also accused the CM of tarnishing Malappuram’s image by repeating the “political narrative” of the Sangh Parivar. He said the court’s verdict acquitting BJP state president K Surendran in the Manjeshwaram election case was a move thought by the police to appease the BJP-RSS.
ADGP transfers are routine, Satheesan said
Kerala Congress (J) leader Anoop Jacob said the ADGP transfer order is like a regular transfer order.
IUML leader PK Kunhalikutty said the chief minister was using the same tactics used by the BJP nationally against minority communities, like former CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury, who fought alongside the Congress against the BJP’s use of minority communalism.
However, members of the ruling front denied the allegations and said the government was taking “most appropriate action” against the official considering the allegations against him. They also alleged that UDFwith the support of a section of the media, trying to tarnish the CM with baseless allegations.
CPI MLA E Chandrasekharan defended the chief minister, saying no community has been portrayed negatively. However, he said it was unacceptable that the official LDF the government has met RSS leaders.
KT Jaleel claimed that the Congress had opposed the formation of Malappuram along with the RSS, leading to opposition unrest. His personal attacks on PK Basheer and Basheer’s unparliamentary reply also drew flak.
Leader of Opposition VD Satheesan asked why no action was taken against Ajith Kumar for 16 months even after receiving the special branch report the day after he met the RSS leader. He also said that the transfer of ADGP is routine after completing two years in the post.
He also put the CPM on a tight spot by referring to past incidents. “Did the CPM witness in the case where CPI MLA E Chandrasekharan was attacked by BJP members change his stance? You are stabbing Chandrasekharan, who is now expressing his belief that the communist party will not stand with the RSS behind him,” he said.
Satheesan also referred to Kannur University’s decision to include books by RSS leaders Savarkar, Golwalkar, and Deendayal Upadhyaya in the curriculum when Jaleel was Minister of Higher Education, a meeting between CPM and RSS leaders at Mascot Hotel mediated by Sri M, and Organizing Editor Balashankar. claims that there was an understanding between the CPM and the BJP during the assembly elections.
On the PR agency controversy, Satheesan asked why the chief minister refused to take action against the PR agency that provided additional notes for interviews in English daily without their knowledge.
Responding on behalf of the CM, Rajesh said that the DGP’s investigation report did not find conclusive evidence to support the charges against the official, but also did not provide enough evidence for a complete exoneration.
He said the ADGP had given a statement that the meeting with the RSS leader was a “courtesy call”.
The minister said CPM has historically been a force against communalism and this attempt to rewrite it with media support will not succeed.
He cited the newspaper as apologizing for the PR agency controversy but remained silent when repeatedly asked about the agency in the rejoinder.
The opposition later boycotted the day’s proceedings in protest against the government’s failure to provide a clear response to the issue.
