Speaking in a function at Nalasopara on February 2, BJP MLA Ashish Shelar stoked a controversy by allegedly referring to Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray’s father in a derogatory manner. Shelar was speaking in the context of Thackeray’s alleged unwillingness to implement the Citizenship Amendment Act. Moreover, he mocked Shiv Sena by saying that even a chameleon would commit suicide on the party’s u-turns. Shelar asserted that no state could oppose the CAA as it was Central legislation.
Ashish Shelar remarked, “Today, I saw on TV that Shiv Sena has changed its position. If we start talking about Shiv Sena’s changing stance, even the chameleon will commit suicide. (He) is saying that CAA will not be implemented in the state. Is this the rule of your father? This is the law of the Centre. They cannot say that the law won’t be implemented.”
NCP MLA and Maharashtra Housing Minister Jitendra Awhad hit out at Shelar for his contentious remark. He contended that there was a tradition in Maharashtra to consider the common man as the “father”. Moreover, Awhad took a sharp jibe at Shelar advising him not to search for the “father figure” in Gujarat. This can be seen as a reference to BJP’s admiration for Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, both of whom hail from Gujarat.
उद्धव च्या बापाचे राज्य आहे का ... असे जाहीर निवेदन करणे @ShelarAshish ह्यांना शोभत नाही ..— Dr.Jitendra Awhad (@Awhadspeaks) February 3, 2020
मराठी माती ला आई आणि मराठी माणसाला बाप मानण्याची आमची संस्कृती आहे ...
आम्ही गुजरात मध्ये बापाचा शोध घेणाऱ्यातले नाही ....
The CAA seeks to provide citizenship to the minority communities namely Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. This will be applicable to the members of these communities having arrived in India on or before December 31, 2014. Moreover, they will not be considered as illegal migrants. Additionally, the mandatory residence period for naturalised citizenship for these communities has been reduced to five years. The opposition contends that the Act discriminates on the basis of religion.