'Way Of Protest': Congress Leader Defends Slogans Against PM At JNU

"It is a way of registering protest. It is political language, it should not be taken literally," Raj said.

Advertisement
Read Time: 4 mins
BJP leaders hit out at the alleged sloganeering and claimed opposition parties support such people.

Adding fuel to the controversy over slogans against Prime Minister Narendra Modi allegedly being raised at the JNU campus in Delhi, Congress leader Udit Raj has appeared to justify the sloganeering, describing it as a way of expressing resentment.

Sources had said that, during a protest on Monday against bail being denied to activists and former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) students Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, some students had raised objectionable slogans. These slogans allegedly included direct threats against Prime Minister Modi.

Appearing to defend the slogans on Tuesday, Raj said in Hindi, "It is a way of registering protest. It is political language, it should not be taken literally. There is anger in the JNU because they (Khalid and Imam) are being treated the way they are because they are Muslims. Injustice has been done to them and the Supreme Court order has been unfortunate."

RJD MP Manoj Jha condemned the alleged slogans, saying he was against personal attacks. 

"I am against even saying 'murdabad'. Such slogans have no place in a civilised democracy. But what is this selective outrage?" he asked.

"It is also troubling that someone is kept in jail for years so that it can be considered a test of endurance when it comes to incarceration," the MP added.

BJP leaders also hit out at the alleged sloganeering and claimed opposition parties support such people. 

"These are separatist people. Raising such slogans against the Prime Minister and Home minister is extremely shameful. The AAP and Congress have always supported such people," Delhi Environment Minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa said. 

"What has happened in JNU, where Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid have been supported... is condemnable and against the nation. You can fight over policy matters, but there is no place for violence in democracy," Sirsa's colleague Ashish Sood said.

The strongest remarks, however, came from Union Minister Giriraj Singh, who said such people were part of the 'tukde tukde' (anti-national) gang. 

"It (JNU) has turned into a camp office of this group, and the country will not tolerate it indefinitely. If court verdicts are also not respected, it becomes a serious issue. Those who talk about dividing India and think along the lines of Pakistan have no place in this country. This is the government of Narendra Modi and Amit Shah. Just as extremists and Naxalites are being eliminated, the 'tukde-tukde gang' will also be eradicated," Singh was quoted as saying by news agency IANS.

ABVP's Claims

The ABVP claimed that JNU Students' Union (JNUSU) office bearers, including the president and vice president, were present during the sloganeering.

JNUSU President Aditi Mishra said students hold a protest every year to condemn the violence which occurred on the campus on January 5, 2020, and no personal attacks were made. 

Advertisement

"All of the slogans raised in the protest were ideological and do not attack anyone personally. They were not directed towards anyone," Mishra was quoted as saying by news agency PTI.

Bail Order

On Monday, the Supreme Court denied bail to Khalid and Imam, who have been in jail for over five years in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots case.

The court said it was satisfied there was enough material to indicate their involvement in the criminal conspiracy. 

The bench did, however, grant the relief to five others named in the case -  activists Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed - stating that they were not on equal footing with Khalid and Imam. 

Advertisement

"Those alleged to have conceived, directed, or steered unlawful activity or terrorist activity stand on a different legal footing from those whose alleged involvement is confined to facilitation or participation at a different level. To disregard such distinctions would itself result in arbitrariness," the bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria said.

Featured Video Of The Day
On Camera, 2 Men On Scooter Assault Zepto Rider In Bengaluru After Collision
Topics mentioned in this article