The Tamil Nadu police once again arrested well-known YouTuber Savukku Shankar from his residence located on the Pallavaram–Thoraipakkam Radial Road on Saturday (13 December 2025).

‘Savukku’ Shankar who runs a YouTube channel is known for his no-holds barred attack on the ruling DMK government.

So far, the city police have not made any official statement clarifying the grounds or the specific case under which he was arrested.

The arrest followed several hours of tense scenes that began in the morning. Shankar, who lives with his elderly mother, refused to open the door of his apartment, insisting that the police first explain the reasons for his arrest to his legal counsel.

Videos shared by Shankar from inside his flat, along with footage posted by one of his lawyers or supporters from outside, showed that although a group of advocates had reached the spot, the police maintained that they would disclose the details of the arrest only after Shankar opened the door, and that too in the presence of his lawyers.

Police personnel from the Meenambakkam and Madipakkam police stations arrived at the apartment complex early in the day to carry out the arrest. According to police, Shankar initially refused to open the door, insisting that officers explain the grounds for his arrest first to his lawyers. Videos circulating on social media showed discussions between the police and advocates at the entrance, with officers saying they were ready to show the warrant and provide details if requested through proper legal channels.

As the deadlock dragged on, the city police sought the help of the Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services to force open the main door. Shankar was finally taken into custody at around 2.15 pm, following which a search was conducted inside the apartment.

Earlier, Shankar had posted a video claiming the legal action was based on a “false” complaint, saying he had responded in writing to police summons issued in late October and denied the allegations that he and his team assaulted the complainant or demanded money.

He also suggested the arrest was linked to a UPI transaction of ₹94,000 received by an employee

He stated that neither he nor his team knew the sender of the money and were attempting to trace its source. However, the police, he alleged, had registered a case based on a complaint from an individual who claimed they were threatened by Shankar and his associates into transferring the amount.

BJP Condemns Arrest

BJP Tamil Nadu President Nainar Nagenthran in an X post said that the fascist DMK government is strangling freedom of expression.

“At a time when predators who endanger women’s safety, drug traffickers, and hardened anti-social elements continue to operate freely across Tamil Nadu, what extraordinary urgency justified arresting a media spokesperson with the theatrics reserved for terrorists? The DMK government appears less interested in tackling real threats to public safety and more focused on targeting and intimidating media voices that question those in power. A regime that treats dissent as a crime and seeks to suffocate freedom of expression will ultimately collapse under the weight of its own fascist impulses.”, Nainar Nagenthran said.

கருத்து சுதந்திரத்தின் கழுத்தை நெறிக்கும் பாசிச திமுக அரசு!

கடப்பாறையை வைத்து வீட்டின் கதவை உடைத்து ஊடகவியலாளர் திரு. @SavukkuOfficial அவர்களைத் திமுக அரசின் ஏவல்துறை கைது செய்துள்ளது மிகுந்த கண்டனத்திற்குரியது.

பெண்களின் பாதுகாப்பை வேட்டையாடிய மனித மிருகங்களும், போதை கடத்தல்…

— Nainar Nagenthran (@NainarBJP) December 13, 2025

Source: Deccan Herald

The post YouTuber Savukku Shankar Arrested By TN Police Again After His Employee Allegedly “Receives” UPI Transaction Of ₹94,000; BJP Slams Fascist DMK Govt For Strangling Freedom Of Speech appeared first on The Commune.

A week ago, the self-styled champion of the rights of the downtrodden, The News Minute, published its report on SRM University’s action against a staff member over her comments during Operation Sindoor.

The university had first placed the staff member under suspension and, in December 2025, proceeded to dismiss her following an internal inquiry. But the manner in which The News Minute chose to report this development is telling.

TNM headlined its story as “SRM Uni dismisses Dalit Christian professor targeted by right-wing for anti-war views”, framing the dismissal entirely as a case of caste- and religion-based persecution.

The headline itself suggests that the professor was removed because she was a Dalit Christian and because she expressed anti-war views, with the university portrayed as either complicit in, or cowed by, “right-wing” pressure.

Throughout the report, SRM University is presented largely as a reactive institution acting under external pressure, rather than as a private employer enforcing its own code of conduct following a formal disciplinary process.

What SRMIST Said And What TNM Acknowledged

According to the suspension order dated 8 May 2025, signed by SRMIST Registrar Dr S. Ponnusamy, Lora Santhakumar was placed under suspension “with immediate effect, pending enquiry” for “unethical activities.” The institute subsequently conducted an internal inquiry between 15 July 2025 and 26 September 2025 at its Kattankulathur campus.

TNM itself reported that the inquiry committee, headed by the Director of Student Affairs, with the Deputy Director of Student Affairs as presenting officer, found all five charges framed against her to be proved. These included allegations that her social media posts amounted to unethical remarks against India’s armed forces, actions against national interests, disruption of the institution’s environment, and involvement in what the committee characterised as antisocial and “criminal” activities.

The termination order accessed by TNM stated that she was “unfit to continue her job in the institution” and dismissed her from service with immediate effect, while also granting her the right to appeal to the Vice-Chancellor within 30 days.

Identity Versus Conduct

While TNM repeatedly highlighted Lora Santhakumar’s identity as a Dalit Christian, the report also makes clear, without reconciling the contradiction, that SRMIST had no hesitation in hiring her, retaining her for over 11 years, and placing her in a sensitive role at its Career Development Centre. The institution’s actions, as per the official records quoted, were tied to the content and nature of her posts during a live military operation, not to her caste or religion.

The charge memo and inquiry findings, as reported by TNM itself, did not cite identity as a factor. Instead, they focused on whether her statements, particularly those alleging civilian casualties and accusing the Indian military of “cowardice”, constituted conduct unbecoming of a faculty member and actions against the interests of the nation.

The WhatsApp Status and the Context

Screenshots of Lora’s WhatsApp status that circulated widely online included statements accusing India of killing a child in Pakistan and describing military action as driven by “bloodlust” and “election stunts.” These messages emerged in the immediate aftermath of Operation Sindoor, which the Government of India described as a targeted, precision strike against terrorist infrastructure.

Have you suspended her yet @SRM_Univ ? pic.twitter.com/NA2tVODP10

— Squint Neon (@TheSquind) May 8, 2025

Students and faculty reportedly complained that the posts were misleading, inflammatory, and insulting to the armed forces. It was following these internal complaints that SRMIST initiated disciplinary proceedings.

TNM’s Editorial Emphasis

TNM’s report framed the inquiry as an “eyewash” based largely on Lora Santhakumar’s rebuttals, while downplaying the fact that the inquiry committee accepted the charges as proved. It also foregrounded alleged right-wing targeting while giving comparatively limited weight to the institutional finding that her conduct amounted to major misconduct.

Notably, TNM did not contest that the university followed a formal inquiry process, issued a charge memo, conducted hearings over several weeks, and passed a reasoned order—facts that complicate the narrative of arbitrary dismissal.

A Selective Use of Sympathy

The report devotes considerable space to Santhakumar’s claims that the inquiry was an “eyewash”, that screenshots lacked timestamps, and that her targeting by online actors was not addressed by the committee. These are her assertions, reproduced extensively.

By contrast, the university’s perspective is largely reduced to excerpts from the termination order, without any attempt to contextualise why SRM might consider such conduct unacceptable or why it chose dismissal rather than a lesser penalty.

By leading with caste and religion, emphasising alleged “right-wing” targeting, and minimising the seriousness of the charges upheld by an internal inquiry, The News Minute’s report effectively shifts the debate from professional conduct to identity politics.

What is left unasked is whether a faculty member’s socio-religious background excuses behaviour that an employer—rightly or wrongly—has concluded to be “criminal” and “against the national interests”, using the university’s own disciplinary framework.

Institutional Autonomy and Precedent

As a private university, SRMIST retains the right to enforce codes of conduct for its faculty, particularly during periods of national security sensitivity. SRMIST’s decision, based on its inquiry findings, signals that the university was unwilling to tolerate what it concluded was gross misconduct, irrespective of the employee’s caste or religion – an aspect largely overshadowed in TNM’s coverage.

However, for The News Minute, facts don’t matter – it is always about the identity of the person “persecuted” according to their beliefs. Would they have reported in a similar manner had the person in question been from the so-called upper caste Hindu community? Well, it was a rhetorical question, we know what TNM would have done (or not) – just a passing report or not even that – because it is not newsworthy.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post SRM Dismisses Professor For Anti-India Comments On Operation Sindoor; The News Minute Shifts Focus From Conduct To Her ‘Dalit Christian’ Identity appeared first on The Commune.

DMK Rajya Sabha MP Tiruchi Siva while speaking in the Parliament questioned what he described as the neglect of Tamil freedom fighters in North India, framing it as a historical injustice.

Raising the issue, he asked whether there were roads or streets in North India named after Tamil icons such as VO Chidambaram Pillai or Mahakavi Subramania Bharati. He further questioned whether people outside Tamil Nadu even knew who Veerapandiya Kattabomman was. Tiruchi Siva also claimed that Tamils were ignored despite their contributions to the freedom struggle and asserted that it was a Tamil, Chempakaraman, who first coined the slogan “Jai Hind.”

He said, “Is there anywhere in North India a VO Chidambaranar Road? Is there a Bharatiyar Street? Does anyone there even know who Veerapandiya Kattabomman is? Please tell me, why were we ignored? The question to ask is this: we were the ones who first coined the slogan “Jai Hind” – it was Chempakaraman who did that.”

கேள்விக்கென்ன பதில் ?! pic.twitter.com/N4CCAvoxVR

— Ashvathaman Allimuthu (@asuvathaman) December 12, 2025

The remarks were projected as a defence of Tamil pride and a call for national recognition of Tamil freedom fighters.

The Record The DMK Does Not Mention

While Tiruchi Siva’s questions drew attention in Parliament, they have also prompted scrutiny of the DMK’s own actions in Tamil Nadu, particularly when it had full control over naming public institutions, erecting statues, and institutionalising remembrance.

VO Chidambaram Pillai And The Tirunelveli Bus Stand

There is no dispute anywhere in India about VO Chidambaram Pillai’s stature. He is widely recognised as a pioneering leader of the Swadeshi movement and a central figure in Tamil Nadu’s freedom struggle. Tirunelveli, in particular, is inseparably associated with him, he practised law there, organised labour there, and it was there that public protests erupted after his arrest.

Yet, when a new modern bus stand was constructed in Tirunelveli under the Centre-funded Smart City scheme, the DMK government chose to name it the Periyar Bus Stand, after E.V. Ramasamy.

This decision was taken despite public demands that the bus stand be named after VO Chidambaram Pillai.

The choice raised an obvious question: what historical or personal connection did EV Ramasamy have with Tirunelveli district that outweighed that of VOC? The DMK has never provided a convincing answer.

Tirunelveli’s Freedom Struggle Legacy

Tirunelveli occupies a distinct place in the freedom movement. During protests following VOC’s arrest, Sub-Collector Ashe ordered firing on demonstrators, killing four people. In retaliation, revolutionary Vanchinathan assassinated Ashe. This episode is central to Tamil revolutionary history in the Indian national movement.

Despite this legacy, the most prominent modern public infrastructure in Tirunelveli was named not after VOC, but after EV Ramasamy Naicker (hailed as ‘Periyar’ by his followers) highlighting a pattern where Dravidian ideological icons are prioritised over freedom fighters.

Jai Hind Chempakaraman: Invoked, But Not Honoured

Tiruchi Siva’s reference to “Jai Hind” being coined by Chempakaraman has also drawn attention to another contradiction. If Jaihind Chempakaraman is indeed as significant as claimed, having influenced Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and participated in revolutionary activities, then the obvious question arises: where is his public memorialisation in Tamil Nadu?

Across the State, statues of EV Ramasamy are ubiquitous – at junctions, traffic circles, and public spaces, you name it! By contrast, Jai Hind Chempakaraman has just one statue, located near the Gandhi Mandapam complex in Chennai, an area where statues are placed away from every day public visibility.

But such a great warrior – who, during the Second World War, brought the ship Emden from Germany, carried out a surgical strike here, attacked only the British and made them tremble, is forgotten.

Even at the Chennai High Court complex, near the spot where Chempakaraman threw a bomb during the freedom struggle, there exists only a small memorial stone. There is no prominent statue that would prompt public curiosity or historical awareness.

Demands have been raised for a statue to be installed at that very site so that people can learn why that location matters. That demand, too, has not been acted upon.

A Pattern, Not An Accident

The pattern extends beyond individuals. Tamil freedom fighters such as VO Chidambaram Pillai, Jaihind Chempakaraman, Kuyili, and Mahakavi Bharatiyar travelled across India, worked with leaders from other regions, and grounded their struggle in Indian nationalism.

Yet the ideological framework the DMK promotes, Dravidianism, has historically distanced itself from Indian nationalism. EV Ramasamy himself opposed the freedom movement and rejected the idea of Indian independence as unnecessary.

This contradiction becomes sharper when DMK leaders speak of honouring freedom fighters while continuing to centre public memory around a figure who openly rejected the freedom struggle.

Recognition Outside Tamil Nadu Vs Silence Within

Contrary to the impression suggested in Parliament, Mahakavi Bharathiyar has been honoured outside Tamil Nadu, including street names in Delhi and academic chairs in universities abroad, sponsored with central support. Tamil names appear on signage in several parts of North India, and Bharathiyar’s legacy is acknowledged nationally.

The more uncomfortable question, however, is why Tamil Nadu itself, under decades of DMK rule, has failed to consistently honour its own freedom fighters in prominent public spaces.

A Question That Turns Inward

Tiruchi Siva asked Parliament why Tamil freedom fighters were ignored elsewhere. The record suggests a more immediate question: why have they been marginalised at home?

If the DMK had named major institutions after VO Chidambaram Pillai, erected visible statues of Jaihind Chempakaraman, and foregrounded nationalist freedom fighters rather than ideological icons, its moral authority on this issue would have been stronger.

Instead, the contrast remains stark. Tamil freedom fighters are invoked rhetorically, but Dravidian ideologues dominate Tamil Nadu’s public landscape.

And that contradiction, more than anything said in Parliament, continues to define the debate.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post DMK Cries ‘Tamil Freedom Fighters Ignored’ In Parliament, But Ignores Them At Home appeared first on The Commune.

Temple activist group Aalayam Kaappom have raised serious questions over the utilisation of temple funds at the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundram, after information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act revealed that more than ₹1.23 crore was spent over five financial years on what was described as “ecological park maintenance”.

According to RTI details pertaining to the administration of the temple under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, funds were diverted from the temple’s accounts during the financial years 2017–18 to 2021–22 for “சுற்றுச்சூழல் பூங்கா பராமரிப்பு” (environmental/ecological park maintenance).

The year-wise expenditure disclosed under RTI is as follows:

• 2017–18: ₹23.68 lakh
• 2018–19: ₹23.82 lakh
• 2019–20: ₹19.90 lakh
• 2020–21: ₹23.82 lakh
• 2021–22: ₹32.39 lakh

The total amount spent over these five years comes to ₹123.61 lakh (₹1.23 crore).

திருப்பரங்குன்றம் சுப்ரமணிய சுவாமி திருக்கோயில் @tnhrcedept அ.நி. துறை நிர்வாகம் 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 வருடங்களில் கோயில் நிதியிலிருந்து தாரை வார்த்தது முறையே 23.68, 23.82, 19.90, 23.82, 32.39 ரூ. லட்சங்கள், ஆக மொத்தம் 123.61 ரூ. லட்சங்கள் சுற்றுச் சுழல்… pic.twitter.com/ZS7MDt1bkz

— Aalayam Kaappom / ஆலயம் காப்போம் (@AalayamKaappom) December 12, 2025

Now based on the information received, it is not clear where exactly this “ecological park” is located and what specific area is being maintained using temple funds. It is important to note that the Subramaniya Swamy Temple is not a corporate entity responsible for maintaining public parks in Madurai city.

It is argued that if the expenditure is being claimed for maintenance of forest areas on the Thirupparankundram hill, such areas cannot be categorised as “parks”. Even if forest maintenance were to be cited as justification, one can question whether temple funds can legally be diverted for such purposes.

Activists alleged that the accounting head used “சுற்றுச்சூழல் சுழல்” (environmental cycle/ecological rotation) itself indicates repeated circulation of funds and questioned whether this amounted to misappropriation of temple money through inflated or fictitious expense entries.

They also stated that, based on ground-level observation, there is no visible evidence of systematic maintenance of the Thirupparankundram hill area corresponding to the magnitude of expenditure shown in the accounts.

Temple Funds vs Hilltop Deepam Dispute

The issue has gained additional significance in the context of the ongoing dispute over lighting the Karthigai Deepam on the Deepathoon (stone lamp pillar) at the hilltop of Thirupparankundram.

It is alleged that while large sums from temple funds were being spent annually under the head of environmental or park maintenance as revealed in the RTI, the same authorities have vehemently resisted permitting the lighting of the traditional Deepam on the hilltop lamp pillar, which is considered a significant cultural and religious symbol.

They accused the authorities of effectively “hiding” or neglecting the Deepathoon, while continuing to assert administrative control over the hilltop area.

It is noteworthy that Justice Swaminathan had noted concerns regarding the failure to protect temple property, including the upper portions of the Thirupparankundram hill, which are traditionally associated with the deity Murugan (Subramaniya Swamy) and regarded as part of the temple’s heritage.

The activists questioned the authority of the HR&CE Department to file appeals against judicial directions aimed at safeguarding temple property and restoring traditional practices, particularly when, according to them, the department itself had failed to protect the Deepathoon and the hilltop area.

Activists of the organisation have demanded accountability from the HR&CE Department over the expenditure of temple funds, calling for clarity on the exact location and nature of the “ecological park” allegedly maintained, detailed break-up of works executed under each financial year, legal justification for using temple funds for such purposes, and the reasons for denying permission for traditional religious practices at the hilltop despite continued financial outflows.

They have asserted that the hill belongs to Thirupparankundram Murugan and that temple funds must be used strictly for purposes aligned with the temple’s religious, cultural, and heritage obligations.

It is noteworthy that the Madras High Court as well as the Himachal Pradesh High Court and the Supreme Court have issued judgements preventing the use of temple funds for activities that are not related to the temple.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post RTI Reveals HR&CE Dept Spent ₹1.23 Crore From Thirupparankundram Temple Funds On ‘Ecological Park Maintenance’ appeared first on The Commune.

Residents of Thirupparankundram village have announced that they will hold a peaceful hunger strike on 13 December 2025, demanding permission to light the lamp on the Deepathoon at the hilltop, citing a High Court order obtained after their request was rejected by the local administration.

Explaining the background, a representative of the villagers said, “We had submitted a petition in Thirupparankundram village, urging the government to allow the lighting of the lamp on top of the Thirupparankundram hill peak, and to observe a peaceful hunger strike for that demand. Based on the rejection of that petition, we approached the High Court and obtained an order.”

He said the fast would be undertaken on behalf of village families and would involve the general public without any caste, religious, or political affiliation. “Tomorrow, on the 13th, on behalf of the Thirupparankundram families, without any caste or religious discrimination and without party affiliation, the general public of the village have decided to hold a hunger strike,” he said, appealing to residents of Thirupparankundram town to participate.

On participation, he said, “It is the village people, the general public. They have said that all the villages around Thirupparankundram will come fully.” He added that the protest would strictly adhere to judicial directions, stating, “The High Court has also given us certain conditions, and we have decided to organise a gathering in a way that does not violate, or goes only up to the limit of, those conditions.”

He said women would play a leading role in the protest. “Women will definitely participate in this, and in fact women are the first,” he said.

Stating the core demand, he said, “The main demand is that the lamp must be lit in the Deepathoon at the top of the hill. That is our primary demand.”

The villagers also alleged that a misleading narrative had been circulated on social media. “Until now, on social media, a wrong narrative has been spread. They claim that at the Uchi Pillaiyar temple, the lamp has been lit for more than 100 years. As far as we know, it is not even 20 years,” he said.

He further alleged that lighting the lamp at the Uchchi Pillaiyar temple was introduced to divert attention from a long-standing agitation. “Some movements have been continuously protesting for nearly 60 years that the lamp should be lit in the deepa pillar on top of the hill. To divert that struggle, only for that diversionary purpose, the practice of lighting the lamp at the Uchi Pillaiyar temple was started,” he claimed.

Questioning the practice, he said, “This Uchi Pillaiyar temple is actually a place meant for lighting the moksha deepam. In our custom, if there has been a death in a house, during the Karthigai month we do not light lamps in that house. In such a situation, how is it right that in a place where the moksha lamp is lit daily, we go and light a Karthigai Deepam?”

Responding to why the issue had gained momentum now, he said, “Until now, they only violated tradition, and we remained silent. Movements were fighting; we, the general public, stayed quiet. Now they have violated the law as well. When they violate the law and sovereignty, we are compelled to question it.”

He added that there will be someone or the other lighting a moksha deepam at that spot almost every other day.

Reiterating the villagers’ position, he said, “Lighting the Karthigai Deepam on top of the Uchchi Pillaiyar Temple is a recent practice. Not for a hundred years. What has been lit there is the Moksha Deepam alone.”

Concluding, he said that the protest would proceed in view of what they described as non-compliance with the law. “Even though this struggle has been going on for many days, now due to the refusal to respect the law itself, tomorrow, without caste or religious distinctions and without political affiliations, the people of Thirupparankundram will undertake a fast for lighting the lamp on the deepathoon at the hilltop,” he said.

“உச்சிப்பிள்ளையார் கோவிலின் மேல் கார்த்திகை தீபம் ஏற்றுவது அண்மையில் ஏற்பட்ட வழக்கம். நூறு வருடங்களாக அல்ல. அங்கே ஏற்றப்பட்டு வந்தது மோட்சதீபம் தான்”- இதைச் சொன்னா !

இந்தப் போராட்டம் நீண்ட நாட்களாக நடந்துவந்தாலும் இப்போது சட்டத்தையே மதிக்காததால், மலை உச்சியில் தீபத்தூணில்… pic.twitter.com/EqCdk8RYyW

— 𑀓𑀺𑀭𑀼𑀱𑁆𑀡𑀷𑁆 (@tskrishnan) December 12, 2025

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “Lighting Deepam At Uchchi Pillayar Temple Is A Recent Practice”, Thirupparankundram Villagers Announce Hunger Strike Demanding Permission To Light Karthigai Deepam At Deepathoon appeared first on The Commune.

In a fiery, wide-ranging speech delivered on Mahakavi Subramania Bharathi’s birth anniversary, Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) chief Seeman made a bold historical claim, asserting that it was the revered poet Bharathiyar, and not former Chief Minister C.N. Annadurai (“Anna”), who named the state of Tamil Nadu.

The speech, laden with sharp political and cultural commentary, directly contrasted Bharathiyar’s poetic reverence for the Tamil language with the historical criticisms of Dravidian stalwart ‘Periyar’ EV Ramasamy Naicker (EVR).

Crediting the “Poet Who Created Time”

“These people didn’t name it Tamil Nadu,” Seeman told the audience. “India hadn’t gained independence; he achieved it. States weren’t divided; he divided them. They hadn’t named it Tamil Nadu; he named it.” Framing Bharathiyar as a visionary figure, Seeman asked rhetorically, “Therefore, who is he? The poet who created time. The seer. The avatar. He is the one man in the world.”

Seeman supported his argument by quoting Bharathiyar’s own verses exalting the Tamil language and land. He recited, “Among the languages we know, the Tamil language is the sweetest, nowhere to be seen” and “Worship the auspicious Tamil country as our mother, Paapa (child), it is sweeter than nectar, Paapa. It is the land of our wise ancestors (aanrōrgal), Paapa.”

Direct Contrast with EVR’s Stance

The NTK leader used these quotes to launch a pointed attack on Periyar’s historical views. He juxtaposed Bharathiyar’s praise with EVR’s characterization of Tamil. “He (EVR) calls it a barbarian language. He calls it the land where barbarians live,” Seeman said. “But he (Bharathi) says, ‘It is the land of wise ancestors, Paapa. The word that is high is the Tamil (uyarcchol); bow to it and read it, Paapa.'”

Seeman challenged the audience to consider this contrast: “Who is he? Who is that man? He is not a barbarian. Is this man a barbarian?”

Seeman recounted Bharathi’s writings: “Go to Ceylon, Burma, Java, and many islands, and see our fish flag and tiger flag standing firm”, and asked rhetorically, “Who is he? Who is that man? He is not a barbarian. Is this man a barbarian?”

He continued that the naming of Tamil Nadu preceded independence-era politics. “You shouldn’t name the auspicious Tamil Nadu as ‘Tamil Nadu,’ brother. Pay close attention. These people didn’t name it Tamil Nadu. India hadn’t gained independence; he (Bharathi) achieved it. States weren’t divided; he (Bharathi) divided them. They hadn’t named it Tamil Nadu; he named it already,” Seeman said, describing Bharathi as “the poet who created time,” “the seer,” and “the avatar.”

Seeman continued, “He (Bharathi) is the one man in the world. He decides. He didn’t know that Sankara Linganar will come. He will fight for 79 days. He will die. Then the great man Arignar Anna will come. He will name it Tamil Nadu. Without knowing all that, he did it.” He intended to mean that Bharathiyar had already conceived the identity conceptually.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “Tamil Nadu Was Already Named By Bharathi, Much Before Arignar Anna”, Says NTK Chief Seeman appeared first on The Commune.

The Tamil Nadu government on Friday, 12 December 2025, informed the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) that devotees who approached the court seeking permission to light the Karthigai Deepam lamp at the Thirupparankundram Hills “cannot claim such lighting as a legal right,” arguing that Article 226 powers cannot be invoked to change a longstanding religious custom.

A Division Bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan heard a batch of appeals challenging the single judge’s order directing temple authorities to light the lamp at the stone pillar (‘Deepathoon’) on the hill.

The State Authorities have also filed an appeal challenging the single judge’s December 4 order in a contempt petition, which had quashed a prohibitory order under Section 144 CrPC. Another group of appeals challenged the December 9 contempt order directing the appearance of the Chief Secretary, ADGP, DCP, and even impleading the Union Home Secretary.

AG: Devotees Do Not Have a Legal Right to Demand Lamp Lighting at Deepathoon

Appearing for the State, Advocate General (AG) P.S. Raman submitted that the appeals arise from a common order in five writ petitions filed by devotees of the ancient Thirupparankundram Murugan Temple.

He explained that the temple sits at the foothill of a 500-foot hill that also houses a dargah; that traditionally, the Karthigai Deepam lamp has been lit at the Uchi Pillaiyar temple, including this year and that a devotee, Rama Ravikumar, requested that either the temple authorities or he himself be permitted to light the lamp at a different site, now called Deepathoon, located near the dargah.

Calling it a private interest litigation, the AG said the writ court must confine itself to the petitioner’s individual rights and the statutory duties of temple authorities. “Any other issue need not be dragged into the four corners of this room. It’s for another battlefield,” he said.

After Ravikumar’s initial request was rejected, a fresh petition sought a direction either to allow him or to compel temple authorities to light the lamp at Deepathoon.

AG: No Evidence Deepathoon Was Ever a Traditional Site

AG Raman questioned the historical basis of Deepathoon. He pointed out that since the 1920 litigation, there has been no mention of Deepathoon, that devotees must establish that lamp-lighting at Deepathoon was a customary practice. He added that in the 1920 trial court ruling, part of the hill was held to belong to the Devasthanam and another part to the dargah. This was reversed on appeal. He also said that a 1994 PIL seeking a similar relief was rejected because the lamp was traditionally lit elsewhere and in 2014, the court again refused to shift the location; the order was upheld by a Division Bench.

The AG said the single judge nonetheless directed authorities to light the lamp at Deepathoon, which “he described as the correct place,” and added that the lamp could still be lit at the traditional site. This reasoning, the AG said, is now under challenge.

He argued that four courts had already applied their minds and upheld the traditional site.

“Any devotee does not have a legal right to demand that the lamp be lit in addition to the place where it is being lit,” he said.

AG: Article 226 Cannot Be Used to Change an Established Custom

The AG stressed that Article 226 is not meant to create or alter religious customs.

While acknowledging that the structure included a stone pillar, he questioned whether it was indeed a stone lamp pillar.

He argued, “If some historically acceptable evidence was placed before the court that before 1920 it used to be lit there… and if such practice was changed, the court could examine if a constitutional right was affected. But Article 226 is not intended to change a custom by creating a new custom.”

He noted that no one challenged the temple’s property rights and that the issue is not ownership but creation of a new religious custom. He added that there was “not a scrap of paper” before the single judge to identify the structure as Deepathoon.

He claimed that the only expert evidence before the court was the priests’ opinion that Agamas require lighting the lamp at Uchi Pillaiyar temple. “This finding (of the single judge) is without any factual basis,” the AG stated, calling for “greatest restraint.”

Senior Counsel Masilamani: A Vague Representation Used to Secure a Mandamus

Senior Advocate G. Masilamani, representing the Executive Officer of the temple, said the petitioner had no right to demand lighting of lamps at Deepathoon.

He warned that allowing such petitions would open a Pandora’s box, with devotees across the state seeking similar directions, making temple administration impossible.

Masilamani noted that the petitioner addressed his representation to the Executive Officer, not the Joint Commissioner of HR&CE, and the EO rightly replied. He stated that the representation never explicitly requested lighting the lamp near the stone pillar; it only sought permission to light the lamp “on the hills,” which includes Uchi Pillaiyar.

Calling it a “camouflage to secure an order of mandamus,” Masilamani said the petition sought reliefs beyond what the representation demanded.

‘Non-Practice for 175 Years Has Become Custom’

Masilamani stressed that customs are proved by longstanding practice, “From 1862 to 2025, there is no evidence to show that Deepathoon was where the Karthigai Deepam was lit. Long practice of non-practice becomes the custom.”

He also argued that the Deepathoon is not at the hilltop, the dargah is at one peak, Uchi Pillaiyar temple at another and that the Deepathoon lies 15 metres from the dargah.

He said the single judge incorrectly described the location and failed to follow established judicial precedents. If he disagreed with prior rulings, he should have referred the matter to a larger bench.

Court Seeks Permanent Resolution; State Declines to Commit

Justice Jayachandran observed, “This matter is perpetually going on from 1920. If we’re able to have a permanent resolution or solution… one day a year at a particular point in the hill, how far can a person’s claim go, without harming harmony? It is for the community to come together.”

However, the AG said the issue had been unnecessarily escalated.

Later, Senior Advocate R. Shunmugasundaram for the HR&CE department told the court that the Devasthanam alone must decide.

Justice Jayachandran asked whether the authorities would at least consider a fresh representation. Shunmugasundaram replied, “Let the authorities decide. I can’t give a word… It is the position of law.”

The court has listed the matter for 15 December 2025.

Source: LiveLaw

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “No Legal Right For Devotees To Light Deepam At Deepathoon”, Says DMK Govt, Continues To Oppose Lighting Deepam Atop Thirupparankundram appeared first on The Commune.

Several girl students from a government school in Sulur, Kallapalayam, have accused their Headmistress, identified as Deva Kiruba Jayakrishnan, of religious discrimination, physical assault, and enforcing bans on Hindu cultural practices.

In detailed testimonies recorded on video by Dinamalar, the girls alleged that the Christian HM repeatedly ordered Hindu students to remove their bindis, kumkum, sandal paste, and flowers before entering class. One student said, “If we come wearing a bindi, she makes us wash our faces. She beats us a lot unnecessarily.”

Another Class 11 student claimed she was hospitalised due to the assault. She stated the HM beat her inside the staff room for returning late from the restroom, despite the school having only one usable toilet for around 150 girls.

Parents also alleged harassment and humiliation. One mother said her daughter returned home with her forehead forcibly washed clean, while another claimed the HM confiscated a student’s slippers and made her walk barefoot.

Another student stated, “I study at the Government Higher Secondary School, Kallapalayam, Sulur, Coimbatore. There are about 150 girls, but only four toilets. Out of those, three are always unclean. We all use one. So when we return late, even by five minutes, the HM calls us and beats us.”

She added, “She asked why we were late by five minutes. We have special class at 7 AM. After the class, when we go to eat, she asks, ‘What do you achieve by eating?’ If we cry after being beaten, she tells us not to tell at home, ‘Don’t make small issues big,’ she said.”

The students have submitted a formal complaint to the District Collector demanding the removal of the HM, citing untouchability-like treatment, repeated physical assault, and religious coercion.

Authorities have not yet released an official statement.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “No Kumkum, No Chandan, No Bindi, No Flowers”: Coimbatore Govt School Students Allege Harassment By Christian Headmistress, Girls Reportedly Assaulted For Minor Delays appeared first on The Commune.

BJP Tamil Nadu Youth Wing President Dr SG Suryah staged a symbolic protest on Friday, 12 December 2025, by arriving at the party’s youth-wing office-bearers’ meeting in Pollachi on a bullock cart, mocking the DMK government for failing to reduce petrol and diesel prices as promised during the 2021 Assembly election campaign.

Suryah questioned the ruling party’s unkept assurances, asking, “Why hasn’t the DMK reduced petrol and diesel prices as per its election pledge?” The dramatic entry drew attention from locals and party workers, who viewed the act as a pointed critique of the government’s economic governance.

He accused the DMK of betraying voters’ trust and said the protest was intended to highlight how rising fuel prices continue to burden ordinary citizens.

Condemning the DMK government for failing to cut fuel prices as promised, I registered my strong protest in Pollachi today by arriving at the @BJYMinTN office bearers’ meeting on a bullock cart.

தேர்தல் வாக்குறுதிப்படி பெட்ரோல், டீசல் விலையை இன்னும் குறைக்காதது ஏன்?… pic.twitter.com/nZttIoeW7c

— Dr.SG Suryah (@SuryahSG) December 12, 2025

The event, held as part of the BJP Youth Wing’s administrative meeting, gained traction online after images of Suryah’s bullock-cart arrival circulated widely on social media.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post BJP Leader SG Suryah Mocks DMK Govt With Bullock Cart Protest For Unfulfilled Promise Of Reducing Petrol Diesel Price appeared first on The Commune.

In a fiery, wide-ranging speech delivered on Mahakavi Subramania Bharathi’s birth anniversary, Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) chief Seeman launched a profound ideological offensive. Positioning himself as the sole true inheritor of Bharathi’s vision, he systematically sought to dismantle the intellectual foundations of the Dravidian movement, attack its icon EV Ramasamy Naicker (Periyar) and redefine Tamil nationalism within a framework of Indian unity.

‘Bharathi Praised Tamil While EVR Denigrated The Language’

Seeman framed his entire speech as a corrective to historical betrayal, painting a picture of a society that neglected its greatest poet while elevating a figure he portrays as contemptuous of Tamil itself.

He began with a raw emotional charge: “This is indeed a cruel country. That Bharatham starved Bharathi… and the children of the beautiful Tamil race should not forget this.” He directly addressed the ridicule he faces for claiming Bharathi as an ancestor: “When I said Bharathi was my ancestor, they criticized it… ‘Bharathi has become Seeman’s ancestor, hasn’t he?’ everyone questioned.”

His counter-argument was pointed: “When someone who called Tamil ‘misfortune’ (saniyan) is considered my father, why shouldn’t Bharathi, who sang about the sweetness of Tamil, be considered an ancestor?”

This contrast became the core of his attack. He juxtaposed Bharathi’s verse – “‘Among the languages we know, the Tamil language is the sweetest, nowhere to be seen’… ‘Long live the powerful language that measured all that the sky measured’” – with EVR’s statement that “Tamil is a barbarian language (kāttumirāndi mozhi).” Seeman turned this into a searing question for the audience: “If Tamil is a barbarian language, who spoke Tamil?… Who is the barbarian? Is he (EVR) the barbarian? Am I the barbarian? Are you all barbarians?”

Seeman also contrasted Bharathi’s patriotism with what he characterised as anti-Tamil statements by others, asking rhetorically: “If Tamil is a barbarian language, who spoke Tamil? Who is the barbarian?” and rebutting that the poet’s vision of Tamil was universal: “Bharathi sings, ‘Worship the auspicious Tamil country as our mother… It is the land of our wise ancestors.’”

He extended this critique to social reform, arguing Bharathi preceded and surpassed the Dravidian movement. “They say that feminism (penniyam) was spoken about only after the respected Ayya EVR started… But look at Bharathi – he finished singing long before they came to speak.” He quoted extensively: Bharathi’s call to “set fire to the foolishness that degrades women (maadharathamai),” his demand for equality in chastity (“If chastity… is what they want to talk about, let us place it common to both parties”), and his declaration that “Woman is not inferior to man in intellect.”

Seeman then presented a powerful visual argument for Bharathi’s lived feminism, referencing a famous photograph. “Go and look at the picture of our grandfather. Our grandfather will be sitting like this. Our grandmother will be standing behind like this. But in Tamil Nadu, there is only one photograph… Go and look at Bharathi’s house. Chellamma is sitting. Bharathi is standing. Only one picture. Hey, he made Chellamma sit in the chair, and he stood. Feminism stood up.”

He elaborated on this act as a revolutionary, public statement: “In public, they shouldn’t put their hand on a woman’s shoulder. ‘Come, Chellamma,’ he calls, and walks with his hand on Chellamma’s shoulder, majestically.” For Seeman, this was not just poetry but practiced philosophy. “If you want to break an existing principle… and build a new one. The courage to establish that principle… requires more bravery and nerve than a warrior… Our ancestor Bharathi is the great man who shattered the existing tradition and established a new principle.” He concluded this point with a defining praise: “Bharathi is the great man whose writing and life had no gap.”

Redefining “Paarpaan,” Exposing “Brahmin Antagonism” as Political Tool

Perhaps the most provocative segment was Seeman’s address of caste and his redefinition of the term “Brahmin.” He focused on Bharathi’s radical egalitarian line: “There are no castes, Paapa. To speak of high or low birth is a sin.”

He then identified what he called a “great betrayal”: “They taught us that the one who sang ‘There are no castes, Paapa’ was a Brahmin (paarppan).” Seeman offered a stunning reinterpretation: “Bharathi is a Brahmin (paarpaan) because he did not differentiate between high and low birth and treated everyone equally. Now, will anyone call Bharathi a Brahmin?”

He argued that the Dravidian movement’s politics relied on a manufactured enemy. “The same Brahmin antagonism (Brahmana Ethirppu) you used to establish Dravidian presence. I am using that Brahmin crowbar to break down this dilapidated building, ancestor.” He claimed this political need required suppressing Tamil giants like Bharathi: “There should be no identity or greatness for Tamils in history. What is the problem if you praise Bharathi?… Tamil is the problem. His Tamil is the problem.”

Seeman also listed non-Brahmin Tamil scholars and Vaidyanatha Iyer social reformers who championed Tamil and temple entry, questioning EVR’s unique claim as a social revolutionary.

“Not Hindi Ozhiga, But Tamil Vaazhga” – A New Tamil-Indian Nationalism

Moving to linguistic politics, Seeman articulated a principle meant to transcend the traditional anti-Hindi agitations of Dravidian politics. “Our principle is not ‘Let Hindi perish’ (Hindi Ozhiga). It is ‘Let Tamil live long, flourish, and win’ (Tamil Vaazhga).”

He elaborated a vision of mutually respectful linguistic federalism: “I don’t have the right to destroy another person’s mother tongue. I praise, love, and respect his mother tongue. Likewise, I praise, respect, and love my mother tongue. I should be a Tamilian on this land. He should be a Telugu on that land… If everyone is well, India will be well.”

He grounded this inclusive patriotism firmly in Bharathi’s own verses, quoting him at length: “‘Sing praises daily of Hindustan, filled with wealth, Paapa’… ‘We will say Vande Mataram, we will worship our State Mother’… ‘This is the country where my father and mother lived and played happily… Shall I not worship it, saying Vande Mataram, Vande Mataram?’”

Seeman concluded by elevating Bharathi to a divine, timeless figure: “He is the poet who created time. The time-seer (kālagnāni). The seer. The avatar. He is the one man in the world… Tell me something he didn’t sing about.” By declaring himself the “ideological heir” to this comprehensive legacy encompassing Tamil pride, social justice, rationalism, and Indian nationalism, Seeman’s speech was not merely a tribute, but a bold manifesto aimed at supplanting Dravidianism as the dominant political ideology of Tamil Nadu.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “Who Is The Real Barbarian? Man Who Called Tamil ‘Saniyan’ Is Hailed By Few As Thanthai”: NTK Chief Seeman Slams EVR, Says Bharathi Was Called ‘Paarpaan’ Only Because He Treated All As Equal appeared first on The Commune.