On Jamia Shooter, Akhilesh Yadav’s PUBG Twist

Akhilesh Yadav said this is a direct consequence of the hate speech being delivered by BJP leaders (File)

New Delhi:

Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav on Friday wondered if the teenager, who fired at a Delhi protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) yesterday, was an ardent follower of the popular mobile game, PUBG.

“The boy had not told any member of his family where he was going, and whether he was in possession of a gun. What if he was an ardent follower of the Internet game, PUBG? What if he had a bigger gun in his hand? What if he had sprayed bullets on the supporters with a bigger gun?” Mr Yadav told NDTV.

As the students of Delhi’s Jamia Millia Islamia were taking out a march against the contentious law on Thursday, the attacker, later found to be a 17-year-old Uttar Pradesh schoolboy, took out a gun from his pocket and threatened the protesters. When a college student tried to pacify the boy, he opened fire. The Jamia student sustained a pellet injury in his hand.

The boy then, walking backwards, flashed his gun as the police stood frozen a few meters away. After some tense moments, a policeman stepped forward and overpowered the attacker.

The police, in a clarification later, said the entire episode took place in split seconds.

Mr Yadav, a fierce critic of the BJP and the central government, has blamed the party for the boy’s action.

“This is a direct consequence of the hate speech being delivered by leader after leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party. ‘Goli‘ (bullet) and ‘bandook‘ (gun) were heard in Yogi Adityanath’s Uttar Pradesh. This government’s achievement is that it has brought the same to the national capital as well,” he added.

The opposition has slammed the BJP over the attack. Senior Congress leader Rahul Gandhi today said: “Who paid the Jamia shooter?”

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, for the first time, makes religion the test of citizenship in India. The government says it will help minorities from three Muslim-dominated countries to get citizenship if they fled to India because of religious persecution. Critics say it is designed to discriminate against Muslims and violates the secular principles of the constitution.