Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge, who triggered a massive political controversy by referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi as “a terrorist”, has issued a clarification, saying he meant the Prime Minister was “trying to silence people” and didn’t intend to call him a terrorist literally.
“I did not speak against the PM. The PM is terrorising politicians, candidates and regarding this, I said that tax terrorism is happening, ED is conducting raids, Income Tax Dept is conducting raids, and CBI is conducting raids. This terrorism is being facilitated by the PM. I did not call him a terrorist; he is facilitating terrorism to scare people. He is trying to silence people through raids and attempting to defeat them in elections. This is what I said in Chennai,” Kharge told reporters in Karnataka’s Kalaburagi.
His clarification came after BJP criticised the Congress chief over his “terrorist” remark against PM Modi. Union Minister Piyush Goyal slammed the Congress and DMK alliance for insulting the democratically elected PM of India.
“The entire nation feels ashamed today as the Congress and DMK stoop to insulting the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, who was democratically elected by the people of India,” Goyal said.
He termed Kharge’s remarks a “disgraceful attack” on the dignity of the Prime Minister’s office and the mandate of 140 crore Indians.
“Mallikarjun Kharge calling him a “terrorist” is a disgraceful attack not just on an individual, but on the dignity of the Prime Minister’s office and the mandate of 140 crore Indians,” he added.
BJP moves ECI against Kharge
Meanwhile, the BJP has moved the Election Commission of India (ECI), complaining about Kharge’s remarks.
“Describing the country’s tallest political leader and leader of the world’s largest party and candidate for electoral purposes as a “terrorist” is a form of extreme personal vilification wholly inconsistent with the standards of General Conduct, and is a gross violation of the MCC,” the BJP wrote in a letter to the ECI.
The saffron party also claimed that the remarks amounted to an offence under BNS Section 175, prima facie undue interference with free electoral choice under Sections 171 and 174, and prima facie defamation under BNS Section 356(1).