BJP slams ‘confused’ MVA govt in Maha as it completes 100 days
MUMBAI: Training guns at the ruling Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) in Maharashtra as it completed 100 days of formation, the BJP on Friday labelled the Shiv Sena-led government as confused and one which stayed works the previous dispensation had undertaken.
Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly and BJP legislator Devendra Fadnavis alleged MVA constituents Shiv Sena, the NCP and the Congress do not trust each other and that their government is the one which makes announcements only to retreat later.
Shiv Sena president Uddhav Thackeray was sworn-in as chief minister on November 28, 2019, along with six ministers.
The three-party government was formed after the Shiv Sena snapped ties with the BJP and joined hands with the NCP and the Congress, both its ideological opponents.
“There is absolutely no coordination among the ruling parties. Their ministers make announcements which come to their mind, while the chief minister says nothing such (with regard to ministers announcements) has been decided,” said Fadnavis.
“It is a government which just makes announcements and then retreats on it later,” he told reporters outside the state legislature building complex in south Mumbai.
To drive home his point, the former chief minister said the MVA first announced complete farm loan waiver, free electricity up to 100 units usage and 100 per cent scholarship, but l ater retreated.
He also referred to minority affairs minister Nawab Malik announcing giving 5% quota to Muslims, while Thackeray saying no decision has been taken yet on the issue.
“They are not in unison over
CAA and NPR. So, it is a confused government. They have no trust among themselves,” he said.
“They only talk about trust, but there is none. It is a government which must have given 100 stays within its 100 days of formation, he added.
Meanwhile, Maharashtra deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar said the first budget of the MVA government presented by him was inclusive in nature and for the common man of the state. He called it the “budget of commoners given by a government of commoners”.