Meerut: A controversy had erupted in the city after a local BJP leader complained about the migration of 125 families from Prahlad Nagar claiming that the families moved because of harassment of women by Muslims in the area.
The Additional Director General (ADG) of Meerut, Prashant Kumar, today refuted the claims saying that the migration is not due to fear.
“There are traffic, pollution and eve-teasing related problems in the area. Police-picket has been established and CCTV cameras are being installed in the area,” said Kumar.
Bhavesh Mehta, the local BJP leader and resident of Prahlad Nagar, had lodged a complaint on NaMo app on June 11 claiming that anti-social elements were trying to create unrest in the area.
“Due to this many people have moved from here. I had urged PM to direct administration to take appropriate steps in this regard,” read the complaint.
The controversy is similar to the one that had hit Kairana in 2016.
The complaint was sent on the NaMo app and the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), on the same day, forwarded the complaint to the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO).
According to the complainant, Prahlad Nagar, that comes under the Lisadi Gate police circle, is a Muslim dominated locality. The area has about 425 Hindu families, of which 125 have migrated to ‘safer’ localities after selling their property.
However, a senior police official denied such claims and said that the migration had taken place over a period of five to six years.
“When people start earning more, they prefer to move to bigger houses. There has been no panic in the area and complaints of harassment of women have been dealt with strictly,” the official in the rank of an ASP had said.
The women in Prahlad Nagar, however, admitted that eve-teasing and harassment of females was a ‘routine’ matter in the area.
In June 2016, the then BJP MP Hukum Singh had raised the issue of migration of Hindu families in Kairana. He had stated that 346 families had migrated due to “pressures” from the Muslim community. Later, however, he said that the migration was not due to “communal reasons”.
(With Inputs from Agencies)