SP, BJP in war of words over alleged beating of protesters

Lucknow, June 13 (IANS) The Samajwadi Party (SP) and the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) in Uttar Pradesh are locked in a war of words over a purported video which shows Uttar Pradesh Police brutally beating up alleged protestors inside a police station.

SP president Akhilesh Yadav had tweeted the video questioning the action of the cops. "Hawalat par sawalat," he said.

"Questions should be raised on police action otherwise justice will lose its credibility. Uttar Pradesh is number one in custodial deaths, in violation of human rights and harassment of Dalits," he stated.

The video, to which the attention was drawn initially by BJP MLA Shalabh Mani Tripathi who tweeted it saying it was a "return gift" to rioters, was retweeted by Akhilesh.

The two Deputy Chief Ministers, Keshav Prasad Maurya and Brajesh Pathak, have now accused the SP of "supporting rioters".

Maurya asked why Akhilesh was speaking in support of the accused, saying: "Action is taken against rioters and stone-pelters but Akhilesh Yadav feels its pain. What is the reason behind this?"

Pathak said the SP chief was upset when the Yogi Adityanath government demolished "illegal" properties of stone-pelters in Prayagraj and Kanpur.

"When some terrorists carried out bomb blasts in Varanasi, Ayodhya and Lucknow, then SP even went to the high court to claim that they were innocent. The convict in the Varanasi blast, who was recently given the death penalty by the sessions court, was also innocent for SP. If you remember, the court had then commented on the government asking whether they would give these people a Padma Bhushan as well," he said.

Pathak added that a party which used to support rioters when it was in power, was now talking of justice.

"There is no place for rioters under the BJP government. The government is working on zero tolerance policy to ensure that no culprit is spared," he said.

The Minister added that action being taken by the government was on legal grounds but since SP had only practiced appeasement politics, it would never understand that.