New Delhi (National Times): Home Minister Amit Shah has strongly criticized the opposition for resisting the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, accusing them of attempting to protect corrupt leaders and questioning their moral credibility.
In an interview with ANI, Shah alleged that the opposition wants to create an arrangement where leaders facing jail terms can continue to govern from prison. “They want to convert jail into a Chief Minister’s or Prime Minister’s residence, where senior officers like the DGP and Cabinet Secretary would be forced to take instructions from behind bars. This is the level of politics they are pursuing,” he remarked.
Rahul Gandhi Under Fire
Shah also revisited Rahul Gandhi’s controversial decision to publicly tear down an ordinance introduced by former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that was designed to protect Lalu Prasad Yadav from disqualification. “If morality mattered then, why doesn’t it matter now? Or has morality been abandoned simply because Congress has faced three consecutive defeats?” he asked.
The Home Minister expressed confidence that the amendment will eventually pass with broad support, stating, “There are many in the opposition who will stand by principle rather than political expediency.”
“Communication With People Matters More Than Event Management”
Shah further emphasized that governance requires genuine connection with citizens, not just political optics. “There is a vast difference between organizing programs and actually communicating with the people,” he pointed out.
On Jagdeep Dhankhar’s Resignation
Responding to speculation around former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s sudden resignation, Shah urged restraint. “Dhankhar ji fulfilled his constitutional responsibilities with dignity. His resignation was due to health reasons. Attempts to read more into it are baseless,” he clarified.
With the BJP determined to push the constitutional amendment forward, Shah’s remarks set the stage for another heated parliamentary session, while also underlining the ruling party’s efforts to frame the debate as one of morality versus opportunism.
