Chennai, Sept 7:
Chief Minister Vijay launched a broadside against the DMK during his reply to the debate on the police department’s demands in the Assembly on Monday, accusing the previous regime of abandoning welfare schemes, failing to act promptly in cases involving ruling-party functionaries and indulging in political vendetta, while invoking the legacy of Anna, MGR, NTR and former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa.
Vijay said his government’s priority was to ensure that people could live without fear and that the administration remained free from corruption. He said the government would examine the issues raised by MLAs during the Budget session and take action on them based on priority.
Taking aim at the DMK, Vijay said several welfare schemes introduced during the AIADMK regime were discontinued after the DMK came to power. He specifically referred to Amma Mini Clinics, the Thaalikku Thangam scheme, Amma two-wheelers and schemes providing goats and cows, arguing that the list of programmes discontinued by the DMK government was extensive.
He also alleged that laptops were not distributed to students for four years under the DMK regime and that the Jayalalithaa University was closed. According to Vijay, people had remembered these decisions and delivered their verdict against the DMK in the election.
“After Anna, MGR and NTR, it is Vijay,” the Chief Minister declared, expressing confidence that his government would continue to focus on people’s welfare and asserting that God and nature would always be on its side.
Vijay also hit back at Opposition criticism that he had not been speaking enough in the Assembly. He said it was not necessary for a Chief Minister to personally respond to every question raised by every member and pointed out that ministers responding on behalf of the Chief Minister was a practice followed by governments.
A substantial portion of his speech was devoted to law and order and the alleged political interference in policing during the previous regime.
Vijay alleged that there had been delays in registering FIRs in cases involving the ruling party during the DMK regime and claimed that political intervention had resulted in functionaries being protected. He cited the alleged harassment of a woman police officer during a DMK public meeting in Virugambakkam in 2022, claiming that pressure was subsequently exerted on her to withdraw her complaint and that a case was registered only in 2023.
He also referred to the death of a worker at a cashew processing unit linked to DMK MP Ramesh, alleging that the incident had initially been portrayed as a suicide. Vijay said there was a larger list of cases in which he alleged delays had occurred when ruling-party functionaries were involved.
In contrast, he said, the TVK government had ensured immediate legal action irrespective of whether the accused belonged to the ruling party or the Opposition.
“The progress of a State is ultimately reflected in the safety of its citizens,” Vijay said, adding that even criticism directed at his government would be considered responsibly if it concerned public safety. He said his government would not indulge in the practice of deciding whom to blame before examining an issue.
Vijay also made a pointed reference to Jayalalithaa while speaking about political discourse and the treatment of women in public life.
He said freedom of speech and expression should not be used as a justification for making degrading or double-meaning remarks against women and political opponents. Describing the recent political atmosphere in Tamil Nadu as being filled with abusive and violent rhetoric, he warned that women were watching such statements.
He said politicians should remember that the women being spoken about were part of their own families as well. Vijay attributed the political position he had attained, both in the past and at present, to the support of women.
He then invoked Jayalalithaa, saying that people were aware of the humiliations she had faced in the same Assembly at the hands of the same Opposition party. He said such incidents should not be repeated against women in the future and warned that the law would take its course if women were subjected to defamatory or indecent remarks.