With just about ten months left until the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, the DMK appears to be strategically recalibrating its caste equations, playing its cards with calculated precision. Facing a growing anti-incumbency wave and a reorganized opposition under the NDA — including a resurgent AIADMK — the ruling party is now pulling out all stops to secure a decisive mandate.
A key move in this political maneuvering is the appointment of Minister M.R.K. Panneerselvam as the DMK’s zonal in-charge for the Cuddalore, Villupuram, and Kanchipuram districts. This appointment is widely interpreted as a follow-up to the sidelining of former Higher Education Minister K. Ponmudi, who had served as a prominent non-Vanniyar Udayar face for the party in northern Tamil Nadu.
Historically, Ponmudi’s presence served as a caste-balancing counterweight in regions where the Vanniyar community, and by extension the PMK, holds sway. The DMK has long depended on such balancing acts, especially since the PMK’s rise. But now, with shifting voter dynamics and emerging challengers like actor Vijay and Naam Tamilar Katchi’s Seeman, the DMK feels compelled to rethink this strategy ahead of 2026.
There is growing concern within the DMK that its Scheduled Caste support base, which shifted from AIADMK in 2021, may not hold firm. These votes, vulnerable to defection, could align with the NDA or gravitate toward charismatic independents. To counter this, the DMK is now setting its sights on winning over Vanniyar voters traditionally opposed to them.
Interestingly, the DMK was the first to float the idea of a possible PMK-DMK alliance. While this was never formally pursued, many saw it as a strategic ploy to rattle VCK chief Thirumavalavan, whose party forms part of the DMK-led alliance. The move appears to have served its purpose as a psychological tactic rather than an actual electoral realignment.
Visuals of PMK MLAs appearing cordial with Chief Minister Stalin, tensions with Tamil nationalist MLA Velmurugan, and visible cracks within PMK ranks — including internal dissent and confusion are all developments that could play in DMK’s favor come election time.
DMK and PMK have not allied since 2011, with PMK supporters developing strong anti-DMK sentiments. This hostility has been a key reason for PMK’s continued alignment with the NDA. The DMK is now aware that unless it softens this resistance, the Vanniyar vote could consolidate against it, strengthening the NDA’s position in northern districts.
Yet, there’s a deeper dilemma. Even if the DMK manages to consolidate non-Vanniyar votes, widespread dissatisfaction from its four years in power may hinder its ability to unify those blocs again. In such a scenario, a strong anti-incumbency sentiment combined with a united Vanniyar base could result in heavy electoral losses in the north.
Thirumavalavan’s recent comments criticizing the DMK and open to make any alliance read as political signaling an attempt to leverage his position amid a volatile alliance landscape.
Considering all these complexities, the DMK’s current posture appears to be one of tactical neutrality: not explicitly opposing the PMK, but not allying with it either. This middle path is seen as a calculated political investment one that echoes the approach once taken by Jayalalithaa, albeit with more subtlety.
By adopting a “soft-PMK” stance, the DMK is aiming to weaken the forces united against it. Even if internal frictions delay or complicate PMK’s alliance with the NDA, the very possibility could undermine their anti-DMK strength. In that, the ruling party’s political sacrifice may indeed become a crown jewel of its 2026 campaign strategy.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
A recent event held at the Pakistan Association Hall (PAD) in Dubai on 25 May has sparked significant controversy and national outrage in India. Organized by “CUBAA-UAE” a group claiming to represent alumni of Cochin University but not officially recognized by the institution the gathering has drawn scrutiny due to the prominent and active presence of Pakistani cricketers Shahid Afridi and Umar Gul. The timing of the event, amid heightened Indo-Pak tensions, has triggered concerns about national security and prompted calls for immediate governmental investigation.
While organisers tried to downplay Afridi’s involvement by claiming he showed up uninvited, video footage and photos present a different story. AKCAF-UAE General Secretary Deepu is clearly seen welcoming Afridi into the hall, halting an ongoing program to bring him on stage, and leading chants of “Boom Boom Afridi” with the audience. Afridi not only addressed the gathering but also praised the people of Kerala and accepted a ceremonial gift, debunking any suggestion that his appearance was unplanned.
In this regard, the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) issued an official statement denying any connection to CUBAA-UAE. The university affirmed that it is unaware of any officially registered alumni body operating under that name abroad, raising serious doubts about the legitimacy and true intent behind the event.
The event’s key organiser, Deepu, has previously been seen alongside several polarising Kerala-based figures. Notably, Fazal Gafoor, chairman of the Muslim Education Society in Kerala — who has been linked with gatherings in Dubai and has made controversial statements in the past, including support for the now-outlawed Popular Front of India (PFI) — is known to associate with some of the same circles. This suggests potential ideological motives behind the gathering.
Pakistan’s Information Campaign At Play?
The event took place shortly after the Pahalgam terror attack and during India’s diplomatic initiative, “Operation Sindoor,” aimed at exposing Pakistan’s involvement in terrorism. On 21 May, a multi-party Indian delegation, led by Shiv Sena MP Dr. Shrikant Shinde, arrived in the UAE to engage international partners. Meanwhile, Pakistan seemed to run a parallel influence campaign using celebrities and social figures including Afridi and Gul known for anti-India rhetoric.
Shahid Afridi’s participation is especially concerning due to his family background. According to multiple reports, his cousin was a member of the terrorist group Harkat-ul-Ansar and was killed by Indian forces in Kashmir in 2003. This connection adds gravity to his presence at an event associated with an Indian-origin group abroad.
Despite worsening India-Pakistan relations and a recent terror attack, CUBAA-UAE went ahead with their event at a venue affiliated with the Pakistani Embassy the Pakistan Association Hall which had been booked as early as 5 April. Their decision to retain this location, even after the Pahalgam attack on 11 April and subsequent escalations, has raised red flags.
Moreover, organisers openly acknowledged their longstanding partnership with the Pakistan Association, reinforcing suspicions of an ongoing alliance with entities closely tied to Pakistan’s official channels. The event’s intent now appears far more calculated than merely a cultural gathering — potentially part of a coordinated narrative offensive designed to challenge India’s global stance on terrorism.
In a moment where the entire nation stands in solidarity against Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, the recent incident orchestrated by a covert leftist-Islamist group abroad cannot be overlooked. It demands urgent and exemplary action from the Indian government.
A recently leaked official dossier from Pakistan has revealed that India struck significantly more targets during Operation Sindoor than it publicly acknowledged. The Pakistani dossier, reportedly part of Pakistan’s internal review of its military response — Operation Bunyan un Marsoos — indicates that at least seven to eight additional Pakistani locations were hit during the Indian counterstrikes following the Pahalgam terror attack.
According to the maps included in the dossier, Indian drone and air strikes targeted Peshawar, Jhang, Hyderabad (Sindh), Gujrat (Punjab), Bhawalnagar, Attock, and Chor — locations that were not listed in official briefings by the Indian Air Force (IAF) or the Director General of Military Operations (DGMO).
This revelation offers a new perspective on the scale, depth, and precision of India’s retaliatory operation. It suggests that the Indian strategy may have involved deliberate underreporting of its strikes to prevent escalation, allow Pakistan to disclose the extent of the damage itself, and undercut Islamabad’s narrative of strength.
The Pakistan dossier, which surfaced around 18 May 2025, has been circulated internationally and reviewed by multiple media outlets. A closer examination confirms that strikes on at least eight previously unreported locations occurred between May 7 and May 10. Notably, drone strikes on May 7 and 8 reportedly hit Chor, Gujrat, and Gujranwala, while May 9 and 10 saw attacks on Jhang, Bahawalnagar, Peshawar, and Hyderabad, among others.
Image Source: NDTV
These sites were not mentioned in either of the two detailed press briefings held by the Indian armed forces following Operation Sindoor. The briefings had outlined Indian strikes on terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), specifically naming targets like the Jaish-e-Mohammed headquarters in Bahawalpur, the Lashkar-e-Toiba training centre in Muridke, and camps in Muzaffarabad, Kotli, Rawalakot, Chakswari, Bhimber, Neelum Valley, Jhelum, and Chakwal.
Image Source: NDTV
Additionally, India had launched retaliatory strikes against eleven Pakistani air bases, including those in Nur Khan, Rafiqui, Murid, Sukkur, Sialkot, Pasrur, Chunian, Sargodha, Skardu, Bholari, and Jacobabad. These strikes reportedly caused heavy damage, which likely influenced Pakistan’s urgent request for a ceasefire, effectively ending the three-day military escalation.
India has maintained that its operations exclusively targeted terror camps and military assets in response to the Pahalgam suicide bombing that killed 26 civilians. However, the new evidence presented in Pakistan’s own documentation paints Operation Sindoor as a larger, deeper, and more sophisticated mission than initially revealed.
Analysts suggest that India’s strategic silence on certain targets may have been a tactical decision — forcing Pakistan to either admit the extent of the damage or risk being contradicted by satellite imagery and foreign intelligence. Maxar Technologies had earlier released satellite images confirming precision strikes and structural damage at known terror sites.
The Indian government has emphasized that Operation Sindoor has set a new precedent, asserting that any future terrorist attacks on Indian soil will be viewed as acts of war and responded to with decisive force. As the leaked Pakistani dossier confirms, India’s military capability — both in reach and impact — has been understated by design, reinforcing its strategic doctrine of controlled yet overwhelming retaliation.
BREAKING ⚠️
Pakistan has officially listed 8 targets hit by the IAF that even India has not acknowledged so far—revealing that the scale & depth of Op Sindoor was FAR BIGGER than even India has officially claimed.
A special court in Pune has dismissed an application filed by Congress scion Rahul Gandhi that sought to present a familial connection between Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and Nathuram Godse. The court ruled that such a relationship was irrelevant in determining the defamation case filed against Gandhi for remarks he made in London about Savarkar.
Gandhi had filed the application through his lawyer Milind Pawar, attempting to introduce the maternal lineage of the complainant, Satyaki Savarkar. The claim was that Satyaki had purposefully excluded information about his mother’s side to obscure an alleged link between the Savarkar and Godse families. According to Gandhi, Satyaki is the son of Ashok Savarkar (brother of Vinayak Savarkar) and Himani, who Gandhi alleges is the daughter of Gopal Godse, the brother of Nathuram Godse.
Gandhi’s petition stated that the complainant “deliberately and cleverly avoided disclosing his maternal lineage” to hide a possible blood connection between the two prominent historical figures. He contended that this omission was crucial, as it could establish a direct familial tie and impact the complainant’s credibility.
However, Judge Amol Shinde ruled against this argument. In his detailed order dated 28 May 2025, the court clarified that the case solely pertained to the alleged defamatory remarks made by Rahul Gandhi during his speech in London about Savarkar. The judge noted that Satyaki, being the grandson of one of Vinayak Savarkar’s brothers, meets the legal requirement under Section 199(1) of the CrPC as an “aggrieved person” who can initiate a defamation suit.
Judge Shinde firmly stated that the maternal background of Satyaki was irrelevant to the central issue of the case. “This matter has nothing to do with Himani Ashok Savarkar’s family tree. There is no substance in the application, and no need for further investigation,” the court ruled, calling the plea meritless.
The court also highlighted that the complainant carries the burden of proof. If he fails to establish defamation, Gandhi will be acquitted accordingly.
In his plea, Gandhi also delved into several historical aspects. He claimed that Savarkar was not only ideologically aligned with Godse but had once been a co-accused in the Mahatma Gandhi assassination trial. Although Savarkar was acquitted due to lack of evidence, Gandhi argued that his ideological sympathies with Godse were evident.
According to Gandhi, both Savarkar and Godse were strong proponents of a Hindu Rashtra (Hindu nation) and believed that Muslims and Christians were misfits in Indian society. The petition alleged that they shared common views and even collaborated in conspiring to assassinate Mahatma Gandhi, whom they viewed as overly accommodating to Muslims during the Partition.
The application further cited historical research and writings, claiming that Savarkar had articulated the two-nation theory even before Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Gandhi argued that Savarkar, in speeches from 1937 and writings from 1943, laid out a vision of Hindus and Muslims as two separate nations, contributing ideologically to the eventual division of India.
Gandhi’s team also highlighted excerpts from Savarkar’s post-prison writings, which, according to them, advocated anti-Muslim sentiments. The petition alleged that Savarkar promoted reducing the number of Muslims in government, military, and munitions industries, and treated them as potential traitors.
Citing his 1963 book Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History, Gandhi alleged that Savarkar viewed Muslims and Christians as existential threats to Hinduism. The petition included a disturbing claim that Savarkar condoned rape as a political weapon, suggesting Muslim women should be captured and converted as trophies for Maratha warriors, just as Tipu Sultan had allegedly distributed Hindu women.
Gandhi’s legal team asserted that these historical details were necessary to refute the claim that his comments defamed Savarkar. They argued that Gandhi had merely quoted from Savarkar’s own published works.
The defamation case itself arises from a speech Gandhi delivered in London, where he allegedly stated that Savarkar had written in his book about how he and his friends “enjoyed” physically assaulting a Muslim boy. Satyaki Savarkar, identifying himself as a direct descendant, filed a complaint in Pune, claiming that the remarks were defamatory.
Now that the court has rejected Gandhi’s attempt to bring up the maternal side of the complainant’s family, the trial will focus exclusively on the main legal question: whether or not Rahul Gandhi’s speech in London amounts to criminal defamation of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
As soon as the DMK, on 28 May 2025, announced A. Rokkaiah Malik, known by her pen name Salma, for a Rajya Sabha seat, it triggered widespread anger among the Muslim community. Though not officially labeled, it was widely interpreted as an attempt to offer token representation to the Muslim minority. But the announcement has sparked outrage with critics accusing the DMK of pushing a fake feminist and controversial figure who has insulted religious values and misrepresented the community for years.
At the center of the backlash is Salma’s notorious novel, “Irandam Jaamankalin Kathai” (The Hour Past Midnight), published in 2004. The book is known not for literary excellence, but for its graphic sexual content, presented under the pretext of exploring Muslim women’s lives. Salma filled the novel with explicit scenes, vulgar analogies, and passages that many consider deeply offensive to Islamic beliefs and cultural norms.
One particularly condemned passage allegedly links sexual activity with Islamic devotional acts, which the community labeled blasphemous. Critics argue that Salma has used literature not to uplift, but to mock the values of the very community she claims to represent.
Now, the DMK’s move to elevate her to Parliament has been seen by many as a calculated insult. Social media is flooded with anger, with people questioning why the party chose someone whose main claim to fame is writing sex-laced fiction under the banner of feminism.
Gems From Salma’s Book
The first controversy stems from a story in which a lower-caste boy is demeaned for eloping with a Muslim woman. The narrative includes derogatory remarks that appear to mock both his caste and his relationship with the woman, ‘Muslim wretch! She seduced my son and ran away with him. May she get ruined! May she fall into a hell-hole!’ In broad daylight, Murugan’s mother stood in the street, screaming in anger, scooping up the dust and flinging it about. Sherifa watched from her window. In reply, Nuramma shouted from within her house, in her weak voice, ‘Useless wretch, is that all she could just get some low-caste Pallar boy’s d*ck? She couldn’t even get a Muslim?’
Another controversial moment arises when the character talks about an elderly man planning to marry for the fourth time, while still maintaining an active sexual life. In a surprising conversation, a group of women discuss Abdulla, a wealthy and elderly business associate from Singapore. Known for having already married three times, Abdulla is now returning to marry for the fourth time, which astonishes and amuses everyone. One woman jokes that he’s as strong as ever—like he’s drunk some magical elixir—while others react with disbelief and laughter. The scene captures a mix of shock, gossip, and humor, highlighting both curiosity and admiration for the old man’s enduring vitality.
‘Yes, Zohra. She has written to us.’ Nafiza said to Mumtaz, ‘But how is it possible? Can he even get it up? Isn’t it surprising?’ She made a face of extreme astonishment. ‘Why else is he getting married? You don’t have to be so surprised,’ Mumtaz assured her. Wahida was squirming with embarrassment. Rahima realized this and sent her away from there, saying, ‘You go to your room now, dear. if you sit up like that for such a long time, your waist will ache.’
Another controversy, “‘I came here just before Ramzan, intending to stay a few days with my mother. There seems to be some problem between him and my brother, so he refused to come. Where can he go, after all? Let him come or otherwise not. If he does come, in the end it will only be harmful to my samaan (p**sy). He’ll surely turn up of his own accord in the urge. He’s only in the next street. Does he even have to catch a bus to get here? If he doesn’t sleep with me for a week, his ‘thing’ will throb with pain like a whitlow; then there’s no other way, he’s got to come.’ Having said all this, Najima turned and looked towards Rahima.”
Another controversy arose when author Salma made a provocative comparison involving Islamic practice. She referenced tasbih—a form of devotional remembrance in Islam that typically involves repeating phrases like “Subhanallah” (Glory to God) using a string of prayer beads (misbaha). However, Salma drew a connection between this sacred ritual and a sexual act, which many found deeply offensive and inappropriate.
The story reads, “The woman who had teased Mumtaz, now leaned over Nafiza’s shoulder and whispered, ‘You were clever to stop at two. But look at me, four in seven years! I’ve spent all my time just lying and bearing.’ Having complained bitterly, she then went on with a smile and a wink, ‘Tell me, are you breast-feeding your children or not? Looking at the state of your palkova (bre*st), you didn’t!’ Nafiza turned sideways and asked archly, ‘Umm? How does it seem to you? As if I didn’t?’ She carried an expression of overflowing pride.
The woman repeated, ‘It definitely looks as if you didn’t. Just see the state of me. If I undo my blouse, they go all over the direction, like calves which have been let loose.’ Rahima could hear the regret in her voice, over and above the teasing. ‘Too true… I didn’t breast feed… my children,’ Nafiza dragged out. ‘But as for you, if you had only breast fed your children, would it be in this state? You must have fed your husband as well. He must have rolled tasbih all night. That’s why yours have drooped like that.’”
Another controversy involving author Salma stemmed from a disturbing and offensive anecdote in her book. In one passage, a village headman is described as making a crude remark by acharacter, joking that women should urinate in front of him so he could judge their fertility.
The book reads, “She felt deeply uncomfortable when she considered how the women of her community were treated by the men of this village. These men were never content to eat and stay quietly at home. They had any amount of money, besides. So, one man wants this woman today: the other, tomorrow.
And can she refuse him? And how many women became pregnant and had to go to Rosie Nurse to get rid of the child! She sighed profoundly at the thought.
She recalled something that Karim told her once. The village headman, Moosa, had the habit of asking the woman whom he fancied to a secluded place and urinate in standing position. He would like to have s*x with only those women whose urine fell at a distance. If it fell close by, he would taunt the woman of having had too many children and grown old and would drive her away. Karim fell about laughing as he recounted this. He will laugh as his friend Ismail had told him this story.”
Another scene narrated, “Nafiza was not satisfied with this, however. ‘Just because she’s young, it doesn’t mean she doesn’t know how to sleep with. You’re a fine one! Listen, Wahida, if you have any doubts about anything, don’t hesitate to ask us, we’ll teach you everything. Mumtaz even has a cassette; if you ask her, she’ll show you. The bridegroom will see to what’s left,’ she declared. Wahida’s fair complexion blushed blood red as she rose to her feet in haste and fled from there.”
Another controversy emerged from a scene in which a character boasts arrogantly, saying, “Do you know how many women wanted to sleep with me just because of my looks back in the day? Is your husband even handsome? Ask Sabia what I was like. So many women used to follow me around even she knows it. I could tell you more, but they’re all relatives.” Then, suddenly lowering his voice to whisper and brought his face toward her, he added, “Don’t tell anyone… I’ve even tasted Amina.”
Another controversy in the book arises as the character recalls, “It was her mother’s warning that always stayed with her, holding her back ‘Don’t go if your father (Attha) asks you to sleep near him. You never know when your skirt or davani might slip off while you’re asleep; it would be shameful in front of your father.’” She often wondered, “Was what Amma saying, correct?” Reflecting further, she thought, “Didn’t we have enough games during the day? But look at me now all alone, locked up like this. Maybe it wouldn’t feel so lonely if I were with Attha.” Yet, she firmly pushed that thought aside. Despite the special affection both her father and Periamma had shown her, it was her mother whom she missed with a deep, aching longing as if she had been utterly abandoned.”
Actor and DMK stooge Kamal Haasan has issued a detailed response to the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) after the body announced a ban on the release of his upcoming film Thug Life in Karnataka. The controversy stems from remarks Haasan made at the film’s audio launch in Chennai, where he said, “Kannada is born out of Tamil”—a statement that sparked backlash from Kannada groups and political leaders.
In a letter addressed to the KFCC President, Haasan expressed regret over the misunderstanding and reaffirmed his respect for the people of Karnataka and their language. “I acknowledge your letter dated 30/05/2025. Out of deep respect for the people of Karnataka, I offer the following with sincerity. It pains me that my statement at the Thug Life audio launch — spoken out of genuine affection for the legendary Dr. Rajkumar’s family, especially Shiva Rajkumar — has been misunderstood and taken out of context. My words were intended only to convey that we are all one and from the same family and not to diminish Kannada in any way,” Haasan wrote.
The veteran actor and producer, who is also the founder of Raajkamal Film International, underlined his admiration for the Kannada language and culture. “There is no dispute or debate on the rich legacy of the Kannada language. Like Tamil, Kannada has a proud literary and cultural tradition that I have long admired. Throughout my career, I have cherished the warmth and affection extended to me by the Kannada-speaking community, and I say this with a clear conscience and conviction: my love for the language is genuine, and I have great respect for the love that Kannadigas have for their mother tongue,” he added.
Haasan reiterated his long-standing commitment to linguistic harmony across India, writing: “My bond with Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam — and all languages of this land — is abiding and heartfelt. I have always stood for the equal dignity of all Indian languages and remain opposed to the dominance of any one language over another, as such imbalance undermines the linguistic fabric of the Union of India.”
Addressing the core of the controversy, the actor explained that his remarks were meant to foster cultural unity, not provoke division. “I know and speak the language of Cinema. Cinema is a universal language that knows only love and bonding. My statement was also only to establish that bond and unity amongst all of us. It is this love and bond that my seniors taught me, which I wanted to share. It is out of this love and bond that Shivanna attended the audio launch event. I regret that Shivanna had to go through such embarrassment on account of this. But I’m sure our true love and respect for each other will always remain and get firmer now.”
He concluded the letter by urging for reconciliation and reaffirming his faith in cinema as a unifying medium: “Cinema must remain a bridge between people — never a wall that divides them. This was the intent of my statement, and I have never been nor would ever want to give any room for public unrest and animosity. I sincerely hope my words are received in the spirit they were intended, and that my enduring affection for Karnataka, its people, and their language is recognised in its true light. I earnestly believe that this misunderstanding is temporary and an opportunity to reiterate our mutual love and respect.”
Image Source: TOI
Image Source: Nabila Jamal X handle
Meanwhile, the Karnataka High Court on 3 June 2025 began hearing petitions filed by Raajkamal Film Ventures, seeking to restrain authorities, including the KFCC, from preventing the screening or release of Thug Life in Karnataka. During the hearing, the court sharply criticised Kamal Haasan over his remark suggesting Kannada originated from Tamil, calling it hurtful to public sentiment. Justice M. Nagaprasanna questioned Haasan’s authority to make such statements and said public figures must act responsibly. The court found Haasan’s clarification lacking, noting it lacked an apology, and emphasised that freedom of speech cannot justify offending linguistic sentiments. Highlighting the unrest caused, the judge advised Haasan to apologise, stating, “You want to earn from here.” The court adjourned the matter, urging discretion and reminding that “you cannot unscramble a scrambled egg.”
The Karnataka High Court on 3 June 2025 strongly criticised actor Kamal Haasan for a remark made during the audio launch of his upcoming film Thug Life, suggesting that the Kannada language is derived from Tamil. The court orally advised the actor to issue a public apology, noting that sentiments of the people of Karnataka had been hurt.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the matter, watched a video clip from the event and expressed concern about the nature and implications of the actor’s statement.
“He has said that Kannada language is born out of Tamil language,” the judge observed during proceedings.
The bench was hearing a plea filed by Raajkamal Films International, seeking protection and directions against potential disruptions to the film’s release in Karnataka. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa argued that the statement was made in a different context and that the remarks had been misinterpreted.
“Please see the context in which the statement was made,” Chinnappa submitted, adding, “Superstar of the Kannada film industry was also present during that event. The statement made cannot be taken outside and say that he is saying something against Kannada language.” He also submitted a written clarification by Kamal Haasan in response to the controversy.
However, the court found the response lacking. “There is no apology in it. You may be Kamal Haasan or anybody, you cannot hurt the sentiments of the masses,” Justice Nagaprasanna remarked. “The division of this country is on linguistic lines. A public figure cannot make such statements. What has happened because of it is unrest, disharmony. People of Karnataka only asked for an apology. Now you come here seeking protection.”
The judge further questioned Haasan’s qualifications to make such assertions. “On what basis have you made the statement, are you a historian, linguist? On what basis did you speak?”
Drawing a historical parallel, the court referred to a similar situation from 75 years ago. “After 75 years, a similar statement was made and then Shri Rajgopal had apologised. Now you are seeking protection for the release of your film. An apology would have done.”
Raajkamal Films’ plea also noted the significance of Thug Life, calling it a “work-of-art painstakingly crafted over several years” and the second collaboration between Kamal Haasan and director Mani Ratnam since Nayagan (1987).
However, the court responded, “You know the importance of the film saying it is made by Mani Ratnam, but you cannot make a statement (Apology).” It added, “For your own creation you want police machinery to support now. Language is a sentiment attached to the people. You are not an ordinary man, you are a public figure. People writing on social media are also being investigated.”
Further emphasising the responsibility of public figures, the court said, “Now you want the film to be run in Karnataka, leave it. Fundamental right of speech and expression cannot be stretched to hurt sentiments of masses.” It added, “You apologise, you want to earn from here.”
The judge urged the actor’s legal team to consider the broader impact of the remarks, stating, “Discretion is the best part of valour, we will not permit anybody’s sentiments to be taken for a ride. Mistakes happen, you must know what to do when mistakes happen.”
In response to the petitioner’s claim that the film’s viewers’ rights were being infringed, the court remarked, “Let them come before the court, that I want to watch Thug Life.” Justice Nagaprasanna further commented, “Due to slip of tongue anything can happen. Spoken words cannot be taken back but it can be apologised. You cannot unscramble a scrambled egg.”
Following a break, the court reassembled at 2.30 PM the same day and adjourned the hearing on the plea seeking police protection for Kamal Haasan’s film Thug Life to June 10 at 3:30 PM. The court noted that Kamal Haasan’s letter to the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) expressing love for Kannada lacked an explicit apology, which KFCC had demanded. The court said, “The lead senior counsel would add that KFCC had demanded apology, the letter that is quoted is in response to the demand in response to apology but the word apology is not found in it. On all these factors that and on statement of counsel that screening would not be made in Karnataka till dialogue happens.”
HC: The ld sr counsel would add that KFCC had demanded apology, the letter that is quoted is in response to the demand in response to apology but the word apology is not found in it. On all these factors that and on statement of counsel that screening would not be made in…
However, Haasan’s counsel stated the actor is not currently seeking to release the film in Karnataka and wishes to engage in dialogue with the Film Chamber. The court emphasized that discretion is “the best part of valour” and encouraged resolution through dialogue before proceeding further.
In yet another instance highlighting the failures of the so-called “Dravidian model,” students at a government school in Manakavalam Pillai Nagar, Tirunelveli, continue to suffer due to the lack of basic infrastructure. Despite demolishing the original school building and issuing a tender three years ago to construct a new facility, no meaningful progress has been made.
As the new academic year begins, frustration has reached a boiling point. Ironically, a DMK councillor from the area, Indira, has herself led a protest against the DMK government, demanding swift completion of the long-stalled project.
Currently, the Corporation Middle School is operating out of a temporary rented house. Hundreds of students are forced to share inadequate facilities, with only one restroom available for everyone—a situation described by parents and locals as unhygienic and unacceptable.
The original building was razed three years ago with plans to replace it with a modern structure. Though a tender worth ₹1 crore was issued, work came to a halt after the Tirunelveli Corporation failed to release the necessary funds. While a small part of the building enough for a single classroom (Grade 8)—has been completed, the remaining students continue to study in makeshift conditions.
As reopening day approached for schools across Tamil Nadu, DMK Councillor Indira took a rare step by openly criticizing her own party. Joined by local residents and her husband, Mani, who distributed laddus in an act of satirical protest, the councillor demanded that the government stop neglecting the education of children and resume construction immediately.
Speaking to the media, Mani said, “This is Palayamkottai zone, Ward 7. A tender was issued for a school here, and it’s been nearly three years since then. We’ve been protesting every year. Each time we protest, an FIR is filed against us. Just look at this – it’s the third year of this ‘achievement’. Take a look at this accomplishment! We met the authorities day before yesterday, and they will come, drop the rods and go. All that needs to be built is four classrooms. And it’s already taken three years. So, at this pace, it’ll take another year to complete. To celebrate this track record, we’re distributing laddu to mark this ‘achievement’. This is our way of highlighting this third-year milestone. We are distributing it for not constructing the school. It’s shameful. They’ll only give it once for the opening but since the school is still lying in ruins after three years, we’re handing out sweets. Just imagine how disgraceful this is. We’ve submitted a petition to the Commissioner, but instead, we got three FIRs filed against us. That’s all the councillor got – three FIRs. They file cases precisely for raising our voices, but the actual work still hasn’t started. To this day, there’s only one shared restroom. Boys and girls use the same toilet. This is our third year raising the same demand. See the ‘achievement’ of this Corporation – we’re giving out laddus (sweets) to mock the situation. How pathetic is this? Everyone else gives sweets for achievements. But here, it’s for disgrace.”
DMK councillor M Indira, her husband and residents of Manakavalam Pillai Nagar alleged that boys and girls of Tirunelveli corporation middle school were forced to use the same toilet and that there was a delay in classroom construction. They staged a novel protest by distributing… https://t.co/zOXIQdpao6pic.twitter.com/by3OoGUd6u
This protest brings renewed attention to how political promises often stall when it comes to delivering basic public infrastructure, especially in the education sector.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
Maulana Abdul Aziz, a senior member of the Pakistan-based terror group Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), has been found dead under mysterious circumstances in Bahawalpur, Pakistan. Aziz had made headlines last month after threatening India with “Balkanization”, invoking the disintegration of the Soviet Union as a warning.
Security agencies monitoring JeM activities confirmed that Aziz’s death was first reported by multiple social media handles affiliated with the terror outfit, though no official cause has been disclosed. According to sources, his namaz-e-janaza (funeral prayer) was held recently in Bahawalpur, the same city that houses JeM’s headquarters — a site previously targeted by Indian precision airstrikes.
The most Notorious Jaish-E-Mohammad senior leader (Terrorist) Maulana Abdul Aziz Esar is dead (02-06-2025)
He was from Ashrafwala, Kallur Kot, Bhakkar District in the Punjab Province of Pakistan
According to JeM sources he died of a heart attack (No confirmation on his death… pic.twitter.com/3Mwgrc9X1a
Despite his public prominence, especially in radicalizing youth and organizing rallies in Bahawalpur, Rawalpindi, and nearby regions, JeM has withheld key details regarding the circumstances of his death. Intelligence officials say there is a possibility Aziz may have succumbed to injuries sustained during Indian airstrikes, though this remains unconfirmed. Another theory suggests he may have been targeted in an internal power struggle or eliminated due to operational liabilities.
Abdul Aziz had sparked outrage in India in May 2025 by warning that India would be divided like the USSR. According to Indian intelligence agencies, he was a prominent radicaliser and rally organiser for JeM in Punjab province, including areas such as Bahawalpur and Rawalpindi.
Abdul Aziz was considered a key recruiter and radicalizer for JeM in Pakistan’s Punjab province, instrumental in mobilizing local youth against India. His death is seen as a significant setback to the terror group’s influence in the region, especially in and around Bahawalpur — a key hub for extremist activity.
Security agencies in India continue to monitor developments closely, viewing Aziz’s death as a potential disruption in JeM’s propaganda and recruitment machinery.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
Former Tamil Nadu BJP President K. Annamalai has welcomed the Women’s Court’s recent verdict sentencing DMK sympathizer Gnanasekaran to 30 years in prison in connection with the sexual assault case involving a student from Anna University. However, in a video posted on his official X account, Annamalai raised a series of pointed questions, alleging serious discrepancies and attempts at a cover-up in the investigation.
Annamalai provided a detailed timeline of events, using Call Detail Records (CDR) to support his claims. He alleged that senior DMK functionaries may have worked behind the scenes to shield a high-profile party member from legal consequences.
Annamalai via his official x account stated, “It is commendable that the Honorable Madras High Court has sentenced DMK functionary Gnanasekaran to 30 years of imprisonment in the sexual assault case involving an Anna University student. #SaveOurGirls_NotYourSir However, many unanswered questions related to this case still remain. Whom is this DMK government trying to protect? Some answers, many questions! #AnnaUniversity #CDR”
அண்ணா பல்கலைக்கழக மாணவி மீதான பாலியல் தாக்குதல் வழக்கில், திமுக நிர்வாகி ஞானசேகரனுக்கு, மாண்புமிகு சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் 30 ஆண்டுகள் சிறைத் தண்டனை விதித்திருப்பது வரவேற்கத்தக்கது. #SaveOurGirls_NotYourSir
According to Annamalai, on 24 December 2024—just a day after the alleged crime—Gnanasekaran’s mobile phone came out of flight mode at 8:52 PM. By 8:55 PM, he had placed a call to a police officer of Inspector rank. Just minutes later, at 9:01 PM, the officer called him back. Annamalai questioned the nature of these calls and whether this communication was investigated by authorities or included in the charge sheet.
“Why would the first person he calls after committing a crime be a police officer? What did they discuss?” Annamalai asked, adding that such interactions raise questions about police involvement or negligence.
He also pointed out that CBCID filed a second FIR against Gnanasekaran on 16 May, for another alleged offense. This, he claims, was kept under wraps. “What is the status of the 16 May case? Why was it hidden from the public?”
Involvement of DMK Functionaries
Annamalai revealed that Gnanasekaran had multiple conversations with DMK 120th Ward Circle Secretary Kottur Shanmugam on 24 December—the day he was taken to the Kotturpuram Police Station. Their first call began at 7:27 AM, followed by five more throughout the day. Notably, there was a communication gap during Gnanasekaran’s time at the police station, but he called Shanmugam again immediately after being released.
“Why was he taken to the police station and let go? Was it to delete videos, tamper with call records, or destroy other evidence?” Annamalai asked.
He further alleged that after Gnanasekaran’s release, Shanmugam spoke to Tamil Nadu Health Minister Ma. Subramanian at 8:30 PM and again at 8:32 PM, suggesting a coordinated effort. Additionally, a university staff member named Natarajan, who allegedly controls gate access at Anna University, was also in frequent contact with both Shanmugam and Gnanasekaran over the course of four days—making 13 calls in total.
Alleged Police Involvement And Lingering Questions
Annamalai alleged that Kottur Shanmugam, the DMK ward secretary, was in contact with a senior Tamil Nadu police officer on 24 December—first at 8:59 PM and again at 9:07 PM. While he refrained from disclosing the officer’s identity out of respect for the police force, Annamalai questioned why such communication occurred so soon after the alleged crime. “Why did the accused and a key DMK figure contact a top police officer immediately after the incident? What was discussed?” he asked.
He further noted that one of the charges filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) against Gnanasekaran includes tampering with evidence, a serious allegation that supports his broader claims of interference. “The very next day, on December 25, the police stated that the CCTV cameras at Anna University were not functioning. What happened to the phone records? Were any files or data deleted?” Annamalai questioned.
Adding to the controversy, Annamalai revealed that a second sexual assault complaint against Gnanasekaran came to light only on 14 May—months after the initial incident. “Why was this not disclosed earlier? Is this how a government committed to justice handles such serious cases?” he asked.
He also raised concerns about Shanmugam being summoned by the SIT, emphasizing the need to understand why a local DMK functionary was involved at all. “What role did Shanmugam play? Why did investigators need to question him?” Annamalai demanded.
He drew further attention to unusual activities on 24 December 2024. According to him, two police officers were seen purchasing a uniform on that same day—a day when a student was allegedly taken into custody. “What were they preparing for? Such actions raise serious red flags and must not be dismissed as coincidence,” he said.
Annamalai stressed that access to Call Detail Records (CDRs) has revealed a complex web of communication between political figures and individuals tied to the case. While the contents of the calls remain unknown, the timing and frequency suggest deliberate coordination. “This isn’t speculation—the data is real and verifiable,” he added.
He also called for scrutiny of Tamil Nadu Health Minister Ma. Subramanian’s role, urging Chief Minister M.K. Stalin to ensure a transparent investigation, especially considering the involvement of senior DMK members.
Another troubling detail: after the flurry of activity on December 24, there was an abrupt silence. “Those who were in constant contact suddenly went quiet for six days. That’s not normal, especially among politically connected individuals,” Annamalai observed.
He concluded by stating that 24 December appears to be the turning point in this entire case—a day marked by suspicious phone activity, unexplained police behavior, and possible evidence tampering. He said, “Who all from the ruling party are involved? Who misused their official positions? Who tied the hands of the police department? Who were complicit in bringing Gnanasekaran out on the 24th and helped in destroying crucial evidence? As far as I am concerned, they are also guilty. That is exactly where that ‘sir’ is hidden.”
Excerpts from Annamalai speech, “After Gnanasekaran’s phone was out of the flight mode after 8:52 PM. He made his first phone call at 8:55 PM to a police officer. After the incident happened, we don’t know if he was inside the campus or he was outside the gate. The phone call was made to a police officer in rank of a SHO, sub-Inspector, Inspector at 8:55 PM Everyone knows the respect I have for Police officers. I am not going to reveal the name, designation and phone number of the officer. Let me wait for 48 hours until the government comes up with an answer. Why was his first phone call made to a police officer at 8:55 PM? Why did the same police officer had called back to Gnanasekaran at 9:01 PM? So, the accused after executing a crime had called first a police officer. Did you investigate about this? What is Gnanasekaran reporting to the police officer after indulging in a crime? Has it been included in the charge sheet? Is there any connection between the police officer and him? why am I insisting this again and again because CBCID has registered the second FIR on Gnanasekaran on 16 May. First FIR was for 23 December offence. Are the more victims? are there multiple cases like this in Anna University? Did he use the same modus operandi?”
Annamalai asked, “So what did the government do they kept the FIR registered on 16 May, a secret, they did not reveal it to us. Nobody knows the status of the case registered on 16 May. by the CBCID that is the reason I ask this question. There is an important fact in this What did Gnanasekaran do on 24 December, a day after indulging in the crime? What is his behavior according to the CDR? Kottur Shanmugam is an important leader in the DMK belonging to 120th ward circle secretary of Gnanasekaran’s area. They both spoke to each other for six times on 24 December You may say they are politicians, and they could talk but the pattern of their phone calls a week earlier and a week later differs. The first call between them started at 7:27 AM on December 24. They spoke for five times after that till 4:01 PM After that Gnanasekaran was taken to the Kotturpuram Police Station There was no conversation for four hours between them when he was in the police station. After he came out of the police station, he again spoke to Kottur Shanmugam. So why did the Kotturpuram Police take him to the police station on the 24th and release him? Is it to destroy the evidence? Is it to destroy cellphone records? Is it to delete the videos in the cell phone? or is it to remove all the functional cameras fixed in Anna university? Why was Gnanasekaran who was taken to the police station released on December 24?”
"கைது செய்த பின்பு 24-ம் தேதி ஏன் ஞானசேகரன் வெளியே சென்றான்"
He added, “At this point of time, there is another very important fact, after Gnanasekaran came out of Kotturpuram Police Station after 8:30 PM Health Minister, Ma.Subramaniam and Kottur Shanmugam spoke to each other. This is the behavioral pattern of Kottur Shanmugam after Gnanasekaran came out of the police station. They spoke at 8:30 PM. At 8:32 PM Ma.Subramaniam and Kottur Shanmugam spoke again. We need to understand all this, why are they so much desperate to protect somebody? There is a person named Natarajan in Anna University who controls the gates, and these details are to be given by the TN Police it is not my job. Let us talk about Natarajan after 48 hours. That Natarajan from Anna university and Kottur Shanmugam spoke on 23 December. They spoke on 24 December as well and on 25 and 26 December. In four days, Kottur Shanmugam and Natarajan spoke for 13 times. As I told you earlier, Gnanasekaran and Kottur Shanmugam spoke at 8:34 PM after coming out of the police station. Kottur Shanmugam did not stop with this after talking to Gnanasekaran at 8:34 PM. He spoke to another higher official of the TN Police Since I respect the police force, I’m not going to reveal his name, he called the police officer at 8:59 PM. Again at 9:07 PM, Kottur Shanmugam called the Police Officer. All this happened on the night of December 24. People have thought about this, the restlessness on 24 December, Gnanasekaran was taken to the police station, and they were talking since morning. Ma Subramaniam was contacted who is the health minister of Tamil Nadu. Police higher official was contacted. An employee of Anna University was contacted. The 24th night is the most crucial night because the evidence was destroyed.
Evidence was destroyed after Gnanasekaran went to the police station and came out because of all the 11 sections under which he was booked. I am not creating any stories. Out of the 11 sections registered by the SIT, one of the sections is for destroying the evidence, so what evidence was destroyed? After that on December 25, the police said that the CCTV in the Univ did not work. We do not know about the cell phone. Only on May 14, they said that another sexual assault case has been registered against Gnanasekaran until then nobody talked about it”
"அமைச்சர் மா. சுப்பிரமணியம்-யிடம் SIT விசாரணை செய்தார்களா?"
