Chennai: The ongoing war of words between the DMK and the AIADMK turned fiercer on Tuesday with state Urban Administration Minister KN Nehru calling opposition leader Edappadi K Palaniswami a ‘coward’ in personal barbs and hits below the belt. And AIADMK HQ Secretary SP Velumani responded to the insulting allegations.
It all started with Palaniswami’s aggressive speech at the AIADMK General Council meeting on Sunday when he assured not only the DMK but also his workers of a ‘friendly’ alliance as a party that has lost popularity and will lose the 2026 assembly elections. , which was also interpreted as Vijay’s joining hands with Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam and a return to the BJP. layer
In his response, state law minister S Regupathi on Monday asked Palaniswami to speak the truth in the state assembly instead of raising his voice and making gestures, in which the AIADMK immediately called former minister and senior leader RB Udayakumar the DMK government. On the back foot when direct questions were raised on the tungsten mining dispute in the Assembly.
Udayakumar asked why it took ten months for the DMK government to raise objections to tungsten mining after the contract was awarded to Hindustan Zinc Limited and local villagers were up in arms against the project. He also pointed out that the DMK did not oppose the amendment to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act when it was introduced.
Taking the DMK government’s side, state Municipal Administration Minister KN Nehru in a statement on Tuesday accused Palaniswami of being intimidated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister Amit Shah, Enforcement Directorate, CBI, Income Tax Department. Governor and raider.
Nehru said that Palaniswami’s phobia spread like the Great Wall of China as the AIADMK supported the bill in Parliament that introduced the CAA, the amendment to the Mines and Minerals Act that led to tungsten exploration in Madurai and became almost a reality and national food security. The bill was vehemently opposed by her former party chief, the late J Jayalalithaa.
Even now, the AIADMK did not sign the memorandum seeking the removal of Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Kumar for his anti-Muslim speech and remained silent when the BJP went against the provisions of the Places of Worship Act 1991 and placed it under several disputed premises. Investigation, he said
The AIADMK did not oppose the One Nation One Election Act planned by the BJP and never spoke against the hike in petrol and diesel prices, he said.
Responding to Nehru, Velumani said that it was Nehru who was terrorized for 10 years after the assassination of his brother Ramazyam, which even the DMK government could not break in its three-and-a-half-year tenure, and not Bahadur Palaniswami, whose lexicon. Fear is not a word.
Velumani challenged Nehru on various issues such as disclosing the names of DMK figures known to have been defrauded of Rs 30,000 crore by former state finance minister Palanivel Thiaga Rajan, and to come out with his source of income which enabled him to pay the family debt. Running up to crores of rupees.
In other words, both the DMK and the AIADMK were not only aggressive and aggressive in defending themselves and lashing out at the other through a string of personal attacks, but both were playing the blame game and trying to expose the other’s faults.