Is the DMK Government Practicing Double Standards? Karur Tragedy Blamed on Negligence
Click to start listening
Synopsis
AIADMK leader Edappadi K Palaniswami (EPS) has pointed fingers at the DMK government for its negligence leading to the Karur tragedy. With accusations of dual standards in justice, EPS insists the government is failing the people. What does this mean for Tamil Nadu? Read on to find out more.
Key Takeaways
- Dual standards of justice accused by EPS against DMK government.
- 41 lives lost in the Karur tragedy, attributed to negligence.
- Concerns raised about security measures during the incident.
- Discrepancies in official statements regarding police deployment.
- EPS emphasizes the need for transparency in the commission's operations.
Chennai, Oct 15 (NationPress) AIADMK General Secretary Edappadi K Palaniswami (EPS) on Wednesday criticized the DMK government for practicing dual standards of justice—one for the ruling party and another for the opposition—while claiming that the tragic incident in Karur, which took 41 lives, stemmed from the government's serious negligence.
Addressing the media outside the Tamil Nadu Assembly, EPS, the Leader of Opposition, stated that AIADMK representatives were not granted permission to discuss the Karur incident in the assembly.
"We attempted to share our insights and respond to the government, but our pleas were ignored. If adequate safety protocols had been implemented, the fatalities in Karur could have been prevented," he asserted.
He accused the government of showcasing political favoritism.
"This administration enforces one set of rules for itself and another for the opposition. Regardless of which opposition party it is, the public gathering at Veluchamipuram lacked sufficient security provisions," he noted, emphasizing that the Karur incident was a direct result of the administration's indifference.
EPS raised concerns about the inconsistencies in official reports regarding security arrangements.
"The police reported 500 officers were on duty, while the Chief Minister later mentioned 660 were present. These conflicting accounts raise serious questions. I observed on television that there weren't even 500 officers at the crowded location," he stated.
He further questioned why the government had allocated the disputed land, previously denied to AIADMK, to the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK).
"The public suspects that the land was granted with a hidden agenda. Why was a one-man commission established so hastily? It seems the government is trying to conceal the truth," he alleged.
Palaniswami also claimed that the commission's operations were lacking in transparency and cooperation. "During the public meeting, Thaveka's leader was supposed to speak for just ten minutes - and a shoe fell. If we voice our concerns in the assembly, we're expelled. That's why I'm communicating with the public through the media," he explained.
Dismissing accusations of politicizing the situation, EPS asserted, "We are not exploiting the Karur incident for political gain. We are advocating for the people. Why does the ruling party become anxious whenever Karur is mentioned?"
Point of View
It's essential to approach this matter with impartiality. The tragic loss of lives in Karur raises significant questions about governmental responsibility and public safety. While accusations of political bias are serious, it is crucial to focus on the facts and ensure accountability for the affected families.
NationPress
15/10/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What happened in Karur?
The Karur tragedy resulted in the loss of 41 lives, which AIADMK leader Edappadi K Palaniswami attributes to government negligence.
What are the accusations against the DMK government?
EPS accuses the DMK government of practicing double standards in justice and failing to provide adequate safety measures.
How did the government respond to the tragedy?
The government has faced criticism for its handling of security arrangements during the incident and for perceived inconsistencies in official statements.
What does EPS suggest about the commission formed?
EPS claims the commission lacks transparency and was formed hastily, implying a cover-up.
Is this a political issue?
EPS insists that the matter is not about politics but about speaking for the people affected by the tragedy.
