On Friday, Hyderabad DCC President Sameer Waliullah called for unity against the Modi Government’s alleged suppression of dissent and corruption. As part of the AICC’s nationwide initiative, Waliullah held a press conference at the historic Charminar accompanied by other leaders, including Charminar Incharge Advocate Mujeeb Ullah Shareef and TPCC General Secretary C Srinivas.
Waliullah condemned the Modi Government for allegedly attempting to silence dissent through the manipulation of government agencies such as the ED, CBI, and UAPA. He provided examples of opposition leaders, activists, and journalists being targeted with fabricated cases and intimidation tactics, arguing that this was part of a broader strategy to safeguard the government’s interests and conceal its misdeeds.
Citing media reports, he stated that over half of the FDI into Gautam Adani’s conglomerate originated from offshore entities connected to his family. He challenged the BJP Government to address Rahul Gandhi’s questions regarding the source of funding for Rs. 23,000 crores. He suggested that the Modi Government’s relationship with Adani may be more intricate than it seems.
Waliullah defended Rahul Gandhi’s advocacy for farmers and marginalized communities, dismissing accusations of casteism as baseless. He referenced Gandhi’s efforts to safeguard farmers’ rights through the 2013 Land Acquisition Act and his opposition to the Modi government’s amendments to the same legislation. Additionally, he emphasized Gandhi’s support for tribal rights in Niyamgiri, Odisha.
The DCC president encouraged opposition parties to join forces against the Modi government’s purported corruption, authoritarianism, and undermining of democracy. He drew parallels between the British Raj’s suppression of Indian freedom fighters and the Modi government’s tactics against opposition leaders like Rahul Gandhi.
Waliullah expressed legal concerns regarding the criminal defamation case against Rahul Gandhi, questioning its jurisdiction, the lack of a preliminary inquiry, and the absence of a specific, identifiable group being defamed. He maintained that the case serves to stifle dissent and divert public attention from critical issues such as inflation, unemployment, and social polarization.
