Is RJD a Party of Convicts? BJP's Shehzad Poonawalla Critiques Tejashwi's Remarks on PM Modi
Click to start listening
Synopsis
BJP's Shehzad Poonawalla fiercely counters RJD's Tejashwi Yadav, branding the party as a hub for convicts and challenging their integrity. With pointed remarks about dynastic politics, the debate intensifies over the ethical grounds of political criticism in India.
Key Takeaways
- Poonawalla critiques RJD's integrity.
- Dynastic politics questioned by BJP.
- Mockery of PM Modi sparks controversy.
- Accusations of crowd manipulation at rallies.
- Election Commission's role debated.
New Delhi, June 21 (NationPress) - The national spokesperson for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Shehzad Poonawalla, delivered a fierce rebuttal against RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav on Saturday, following Yadav's derisive comments aimed at Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Poonawalla described the RJD as a party filled with scam convicts, stating, “The party with a legacy steeped in fodder scams, whose leader has a conviction, and whose family is embroiled in the land-for-jobs scandal, lacks any ethical basis to criticize others.”
He added, “When such individuals, motivated by arrogance and a feudal mindset, make fun of a Prime Minister who began his journey selling tea on railway platforms, their true elitist mentality is laid bare.”
Poonawalla further criticized the RJD's inclination towards dynastic politics, accusing them of prioritizing family over constitutional integrity.
“This reflects a mindset where familial ties are valued more than constitutional roles. Their history includes disrespecting Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s image by placing it at their feet. To them, family is above all, including the Constitution and the nation,” he remarked.
His comments followed Tejashwi Yadav's press interaction on Friday, where he dismissed the Prime Minister’s rally in Siwan as manipulated.
Yadav claimed, “The administration needed to intervene to amass the crowd. The public showed no interest, necessitating forced attendance.”
He further stated, “Neither PM Modi nor Nitish Kumar can be classified as genuine mass leaders. If Lalu Ji simply stands on the road, countless people will gather spontaneously.”
Tejashwi also accused the BJP of exploiting state resources, asserting, “They have squandered vast sums from Bihar's government funds over several days and still failed to attract a crowd, leading to officials being used to fill the seats.”
Poonawalla also took a jab at Rahul Gandhi saying, “Within the INDIA Alliance and the Congress Party, no one gives serious consideration to Rahul Gandhi. He operates under the assumption that his family’s dominance supersedes constitutional laws. When they secure victories in Karnataka, Telangana, or Himachal, the Election Commission receives accolades. However, losses in Maharashtra or Haryana lead them to blame the Commission.”
Point of View
It's crucial to acknowledge the evolving landscape of political discourse in India, where personal attacks often overshadow substantive policy debates. The exchange between BJP and RJD reflects broader issues of accountability and the public's demand for ethical governance.
NationPress
21/06/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Shehzad Poonawalla say about Tejashwi Yadav?
Poonawalla criticized Yadav's comments about PM Modi, labeling the RJD as a party of scam convicts and questioning their moral authority to criticize.
What are the major accusations made by Tejashwi Yadav?
Yadav accused the BJP of manipulating crowds at PM Modi's rally and claimed that neither Modi nor Nitish Kumar are genuine mass leaders.
How does Poonawalla view dynastic politics?
Poonawalla condemned dynastic politics, asserting that the RJD places family interests above constitutional integrity.
What is the significance of this political exchange?
This exchange highlights ongoing tensions in Indian politics regarding ethics, accountability, and the role of personal attacks in political discourse.
What role does the Election Commission play in political disputes?
The Election Commission is often referenced in political disputes regarding fairness and integrity in elections, with parties blaming it for losses or praising it for victories.
