News Tamil Nadu

“Leaders Without Ideology Will Only Create Fandom”: Vetrimaaran Takes Dig At Vijay?

November 27, 2024
The Commune

Dravidianist director Vetrimaaran’s Viduthalai Part 2 trailer has sparked significant attention and anticipation, building upon the intense narrative laid out in the first part of the movie. This political thriller cast led by Vijay Sethupathi and Soori, with music composed by the legendary ‘maestro’ Ilaiyaraaja. The film’s trailer was unveiled in Chennai on 26 November 2024, to much fanfare. However, the trailer was not without its controversy, as the Dravidianist director, in his usual subtle propaganda, took a jibe at actor-turned-politician Vijay, leader of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), who has openly criticized the DMK and labelled it as his political adversary.

In the trailer, Vetrimaaran subtly frames Tamil Nadu’s development through the perspective of communist comrades, making apparent references to former Chief Minister Karunanidhi his role in shaping the state, by buttressing the Dravidianists. Towards the end of the trailer, the director delivers a pointed message: “Leaders without ideology will only produce fans, and that will not pave the way for progress.” This statement is being widely interpreted as a critique aimed at Vijay, whose political entry is closely tied to his film career, implying that mere popularity without a solid ideological foundation cannot lead to meaningful political change.

After the trailer’s release, it quickly went viral, sparking widespread debate across social media platforms.

Dravidianist Dir. Vetrimaaran’s Viduthalai – A Selective & Fictitious Portrayal Of A Real-Life Incident

Film director Vetrimaaran’s Viduthalai Part 1, starring Soori and Vijay Sethupathi, was released on 31 March 2023. The film centers around a police constable (Soori) who is tasked with tracking down a Naxal leader named Perumal Vaathyaar (Vijay Sethupathi), the head of an outfit called ‘Makkal Padai’ (People’s Army), which opposes the government system and the exploitation of natural resources by corporates.

Although the filmmakers included a disclaimer stating that all characters and incidents in the movie are fictional, the film is based on B. Jeyamohan’s short story Thunaivan, which draws inspiration from real-life events that occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

One of the key events depicted is the 1987 bombing of the railway track between Ariyalur and Sillakudi at the Marudhaiyar bridge, which caused the Rockfort Express to derail, resulting in 26 deaths and around 140 injuries.

The perpetrators were linked to the Tamil Nadu Viduthalai Padai (Tamil Nadu Liberation Troop), led by a man named Thamizharasan, who had been arrested in 1985 but was released on parole. The TNVP had ties to several Tamil separatist and Naxal groups.

According to a report by India Today, posters found at the site and in Ariyalur criticized the government’s failure to officially recognize Tamil Eelam, as well as the imposition of Hindi, and demanded the release of arrested militants.

Key leaders of the TNVP included Thamizharasan, Kaliapperumal, and Sundaram. The FIR filed by the police listed Thamizharasan (alias Krishnamoorthy), Jegannathan (alias Vayithuvali), Dharmalingam (alias Balu), and seven others as the primary conspirators.

One of the key accused in the Marudhaiyar bridge bombing was TADA Periyasamy, a figure now active in Tamil Nadu politics as a BJP leader. Periyasamy was arrested on April 25, 1987, and initially sent to 15 days of judicial custody. He was charged under the National Security Act and sentenced to death, but was later acquitted by the Madras High Court after spending three years in prison.

Another bombing, similar to the Marudhaiyar incident, took place on October 24, 1992, when the railway track between Palanganatham and Kallagam was blown up. Periyasamy, along with Deivasigamani (alias Lenin), who took over leadership of the TNVP after Thamizharasan’s death, and others, was arrested. Periyasamy was charged under the now-repealed Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, earning him the nickname ‘TADA Periyasamy’. In total, he spent six years in prison due to his involvement in the Tamil separatist movement.

However, Vetrimaaran did not mention TADA Periyasamy in Viduthalai Part 1, while Vijay Sethupathi’s character was clearly based on Thamizharasan.

In response, TADA Periyasamy criticized Vetrimaaran for what he called a “selective and fictitious portrayal.” He condemned the film for attempting to obscure the true political ideas behind the struggles of the time and misrepresenting history.

Vetrimaaran has also been promoting his films through political figures like Naam Tamilar Katchi leader Seeman and VCK’s Thirumavalavan. Periyasamy took issue with this, stating, “It is ridiculous to have people like Thirumavalavan and Seeman watch the film and portray them as rebels. At that time, both of them were not even in the political arena—they were just college students.”

He further argued that Vetrimaaran should have been more careful in his portrayal of the historical events and warned that the movie, as it currently stands, would likely create confusion and misunderstandings about the movement.

“I kindly request that a clear true history be recorded and filmed in the second part of Viduthalai”, TADA Periyasamy said.

Vetrimaaran: A Certified Dravidian Stockist Regurgitating Dravidian Stockist Nonsense

Film director Vetrimaaran, known for his acclaimed works like Visaranai, Aadukalam, Vada Chennai, and Asuran, has earned recognition for his cinematic prowess. However, beyond his filmmaking skills, Vetrimaaran has become a figure of controversy due to his political affiliations and the ideological messages embedded in his work. Many critics have begun to view him not just as a filmmaker, but as a promoter of Dravidianist rhetoric, aligning himself with the political agenda of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), a party historically known for its anti-Hindu stance and commitment to secular, regionalist policies.

Family Ties With DMK

Vetrimaaran’s familial connections to the DMK are well-known. His maternal uncle, Ela. Pugazhendi, was a three-time DMK MLA from Cuddalore, and his family has deep roots in the party’s history, stretching back to Vetrimaaran’s grandfather, Ere. Elamvazhuthi, a former DMK MLA. The legacy of DMK allegiance in Vetrimaaran’s family has long shaped his worldview, influencing his approach to both filmmaking and political discourse. His family’s close association with the DMK, along with the ideological influence of figures like E.V. Ramasamy Naicker (Periyar) and Karunanidhi, has imbued Vetrimaaran with a strong Dravidianist outlook, which many see reflected in his films.

Propaganda Through Cinema

Critics argue that Vetrimaaran’s films are not just works of fiction, but vehicles for promoting Dravidian ideology. In works like Asuran and Vada Chennai, Vetrimaaran has woven themes of caste oppression, linguistic chauvinism, and regional identity into the fabric of his storytelling. While these films are praised for their gritty realism and powerful narratives, the author of this critique suggests that they are also laced with political undertones that support the Dravidianist cause.

For example, in Asuran, the protagonist Sivasaami, played by Dhanush, is subjected to caste-based violence and discrimination. The narrative strongly critiques the caste system and the inequities faced by the lower castes, but it also implicitly reflects the Dravidianist view of North-South dichotomy — where the “North” is portrayed as oppressive and the “South” as victimized. Similarly, the film hints at the influence of E.V. Ramasamy Naicker’s Dravida Kazhagam (DK), a political party founded on the idea of caste-based separation and anti-Hindu sentiments, furthering the argument that Vetrimaaran is using his platform to advocate for the ideologies that the DMK and its allies espouse.

In Vada Chennai, the director touches upon issues of urban development, caste tensions, and socio-political struggles, themes which align with the DMK’s rhetoric against central government policies and the corporate sector. The film was released at a time when the DMK was taking a strong stand against various development projects, and Vetrimaaran’s portrayal of these issues echoed the party’s stance against economic and infrastructural growth that they viewed as detrimental to the people of Tamil Nadu.

Political Affiliations And Public Statements

Beyond his films, Vetrimaaran has publicly supported the DMK and its leaders. He has aligned himself with figures like Seeman of the Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) and Thirumavalavan of the VCK, both of whom are known for their Dravidianist views. Vetrimaaran’s public statements have often mirrored the political rhetoric of the DMK, such as his involvement in campaigns against Hindi imposition and his criticisms of the Indian government’s policies on education and governance.

Vetrimaaran has also made controversial comments regarding the treatment of Tamils within India, drawing parallels between Tamil struggles and those of other regions, like Kashmir. These statements have been seen by critics as attempts to foster division and champion a separatist agenda, positioning Tamil identity against the Indian state. His comments about his experiences at airports in India, where he alleged discrimination because of his Tamil language skills, are cited as further evidence of his alignment with the DMK’s linguistic chauvinism, which seeks to assert Tamil as a distinct cultural and political entity, separate from the rest of India.

Hypocrisy In The Name Of Art

One of the most pointed criticisms against Vetrimaaran is his claim that art should reflect the “real” society and that filmmakers have a responsibility to “politicize” cinema. While he has called for a responsible portrayal of identities in art, some critics argue that his own films, particularly Vada Chennai, misrepresent certain communities for the sake of sensationalism and political messaging. For instance, in Vada Chennai, the Meenavar fishing community, which has a rich history in maritime trade and naval service, is depicted as involved in piracy and crime. Critics argue that this portrayal distorts the community’s true cultural and historical significance to suit the film’s narrative, which aligns with the Dravidianist view of victimhood.

Selective Representation Of History

Vetrimaaran’s films often present a one-sided view of Tamil history, focusing on caste oppression and regional grievances. However, critics argue that he selectively omits or downplays crucial historical events that would complicate the narrative. For instance, in Asuran, there is no mention of the Keezhvenmani massacre, where 44 Dalit farmworkers were burned alive in 1968 in Tamil Nadu — an event that was widely attributed to the apathy of the then DMK government. By not addressing such events, Vetrimaaran is accused of selectively shaping history to serve a particular political agenda, while overlooking the darker aspects of the very party he aligns himself with.

Moreover, Vetrimaaran’s reluctance to tackle the role of the DMK in various political and social injustices, such as caste-based violence or corruption within the state, has led some to label him a “coward” who is unwilling to confront uncomfortable truths about Tamil Nadu’s political past. The question remains: will Vetrimaaran ever make a film addressing these real-life issues, or is he more comfortable promoting the narrative that suits his political affiliations?

A Divider Of Unity

The Dravidianist ideology, which Vetrimaaran seems to champion, has long been a divisive force in Tamil Nadu politics. While it has been successful in mobilizing certain sections of society, it has also led to the fragmentation of Tamil identity, pitting caste, language, and regional loyalties against one another. Vetrimaaran’s work, both as a filmmaker and public figure, continues to fuel this division. By consistently aligning himself with the DMK’s anti-Hindu and pro-separatist stance, he is seen by critics as contributing to the fragmentation of Indian unity.

A Political Filmmaker?

While Vetrimaaran’s talent as a filmmaker is unquestioned, his increasing involvement in political rhetoric and the ideological underpinnings of his work have raised concerns about his role in shaping public discourse. His films are no longer seen as just works of art but as vehicles for advancing a particular political agenda — one that aligns with the Dravidianist movement and the DMK’s political objectives.

In the end, Vetrimaaran’s work exemplifies the complex intersection of art, politics, and identity in contemporary Tamil cinema. For some, he is a visionary storyteller; for others, a propagandist peddling divisive ideologies. Whether his films will continue to be celebrated as pieces of artistic expression or condemned as political tools remains to be seen.

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