'Tipu Trying to Become Sultan', Says Yogi; Akhilesh Warns 'Bulldozers Will Head to Gorakhpur'

New Delhi: A war of words erupted between Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav over the use of bulldozers to demolish the properties of those accused of crimes. The verbal sparring intensified when Yadav warned that after the 2027 elections, all 'bulldozers' would be sent to Gorakhpur, the stronghold of CM Yogi.

In a pointed response, Adityanath hit back, claiming that not everyone has the courage to handle a bulldozer, such decisive actions require both dil (heart) and dimag (brain). 

His retort was a direct response to Yadav's earlier comments, targeting the bulldozer—a machine that has become synonymous with Adityanath's tough governance style.   

'Now Tipu  is Trying to Become Sultan'

Adityanath said only those with a "bulldozer-like capability" can operate it. "Today these people have come back in a new form to mislead the public. Not everyone's hands can fit on a bulldozer. It requires both 'dil and dimaag'. Only someone who has a bulldozer-like capability and determination can operate it. Those who grovel before the rioters will not be able to stand in front of a bulldozer," he said while addressing an appointment letter distribution event.

The CM also made a pun on Yadav's nickname saying, "Now 'Tipu' is also trying to become a 'Sultan'. He said Yadav's ambition of returning to power in Uttar Pradesh is nothing more than a daydream, and accused the former chief minister and his uncle Shivpal Yadav of indulging in extortion during his rule.

"There used to be a competition between 'chacha-bhatija' in extorting money. Areas between them were divided. I can see that at this time some man-eating wolves are creating havoc in different districts. "More or less the same situation was in the state before the year 2017," Adityanath said.

What Did Akhilesh Say?

Shortly after Yogi Adityanath reiterated his commitment to "bulldozer action," emphasizing that such measures demand both capability and resolve, Akhilesh Yadav responded by stating that a bulldozer lacks intelligence and simply follows the direction of the steering.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision against the use of bulldozers, Yadav said,"The people who used to scare others with bulldozers, used to demolish people's houses in various places, is the map of the Chief Minister's residence approved? Tell us when it was passed, show the papers. You deliberately ran the bulldozer on those from whom you wanted to take revenge, to humiliate them...Yesterday the Supreme Court said that a bulldozer cannot be used. So will the government apologize for the bulldozer operation that was going on till now or not? As far as heart and mind is concerned, I just want to say that there is no brain in a bulldozer, it runs by the steering. The people of Uttar Pradesh can change the steering of someone's bulldozer..."
 
He added, "As soon as the Samajwadi government is formed in 2027, the bulldozers of the entire state will head towards Gorakhpur."

Supreme Court's Observation on Bulldozer Action

Earlier this week, a bench of Justices B R Gavai and KV Viswanathan said, “How can anybody’s house be demolished only because he is an accused? Even if he is a convict, still it can’t be done without following the procedure as prescribed by law.” The court, however, said it would not protect any unauthorised construction or encroachment on public roads. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Uttar Pradesh, referred to an earlier affidavit filed by the state in the matter.

He said the affidavit states that merely because a person was alleged to have been a part of some offence can never be a ground for demolition of his immovable property. Mehta said the state has said that demolition of immovable property can take place “only for violation of and in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the respective applicable municipal law or law governing development authorities of the area”.

He said no immovable property can be demolished solely on the ground that the owner or occupant of such property was involved in a criminal offence. Stressing the need for formulating guidelines on the issue, the bench said it was necessary to ensure that neither an individual takes advantage of a loophole nor authorities rely on lacunae.