Union Minister G Kishan Reddy issued a sharp rebuke today in response to AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi’s oath-taking ceremony in Parliament, condemning Owaisi’s inclusion of the slogan ‘Jai Palestine’ as inappropriate and against parliamentary norms.
Speaking to reporters in New Delhi, Reddy expressed strong disapproval of Owaisi’s choice of words during the oath. “The slogan ‘Jai Palestine’ given by AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi in Parliament today is absolutely wrong. This is against the rules of the House,” Reddy asserted, highlighting the perceived breach of decorum within the parliamentary chambers.
Reddy, a senior member of the ruling party, also criticized Owaisi for not uttering ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai,’ a common patriotic slogan in India, during the oath ceremony. “He does not say ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ while living in India,” Reddy remarked, implying Owaisi’s supposed disregard for national sentiments.
Furthermore, Reddy emphasized the importance of adhering to constitutional principles and respecting national symbols while residing in India. “People should understand that he does unconstitutional work while living in the country,” he added, underscoring his belief in upholding the integrity of parliamentary proceedings and national identity.
The incident has sparked controversy and debate across political circles, with contrasting views emerging on the appropriateness of Owaisi’s statements and the boundaries of parliamentary expression.
As political dynamics continue to evolve, Owaisi’s oath-taking ceremony has become a focal point of discussion, reflecting broader concerns over free speech, parliamentary decorum, and the interpretation of national identity within India’s diverse political landscape.
Moving forward, the remarks by Union Minister G Kishan Reddy are likely to fuel further deliberations on the intersection of parliamentary conduct and freedom of expression, underscoring the delicate balance between individual rights and national unity in India’s democratic framework.
The incident serves as a reminder of the complexities inherent in democratic governance, where differing perspectives and interpretations often collide, shaping the discourse on civic responsibilities and national allegiance within the realm of public service and representation.
