Site icon The Commune

Like Grandfather, Like Grandson: The Duplicity Of Karunanidhi & Udhayanidhi On Their Hindus And Hinduism Remarks

The Commune

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin was in the news for the past few weeks for his “eradicating Sanathana Dharma” remarks at a conference organised by a Dravidianist group in Chennai. He equated Sanathana Dharma to corona, dengue, malaria and said that just like how these diseases cannot be merely opposed but eradicated, Sanatana Dharma too should be eradicated.

Following the massive backlash, MK Stalin himself had asked his party leaders to refrain from making anymore statements on Sanatana Dharma. However, Udhayanidhi Stalin did not to heed his father’s advice. He had reiterated that the party (DMK) was formed with the goal of eradicating Sanathana Dharma and will continue to work towards achieving it.

He also asserted that whether the government lost power or whether he lost his minister post or his MLA post, he would have it eradicated and that DMK’s goal was to eradicate Sanathana Dharma.

A quo warranto petition was filed against him, DMK Minister Sekar Babu and DMK leader A. Raja asking on what basis they continued to be in office after hurting the sentiments of a particular community by calling for the eradication of Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism). In a hearing this week, Udhayanidhi Stalin did a U-turn and said, he made those comments on a personal capacity and not as a minister.

In an affidavit submitted to the Madras High Court court, the DMK scion said that he made the remarks in “personal capacity” and not as a Minister.

Calling out the duplicity of Udhayanidhi Stalin, Secretary of State, Tamil Nadu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in a TV debate, SG Suryah recalled the U-turn done by Udhayanidhi’s grandfather, Karunanidhi too.

To refresh our memory, during his tenure as the leader of the DMK, Karunanidhi made several controversial statements regarding Hindus and Hinduism. One such remark in 2002, Karunanidhi referred to Hindus as ‘thieves’.

At that time, the late AIADMK supremo J. Jayalalithaa was the Chief Minister and had passed the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion Act 2002.

On 24 October 2002, Karunanidhi, the then Opposition leader attended a meeting held at the Andrew’s Church in Egmore, Chennai against the ban on forced religious conversion. It was during this meeting that Karunanidhi called Hindus as thieves.

When a case was filed against him, his counter affidavit argued that the allegations were an “afterthought” and driven by political opponents, as the petitioner had initially filed the complaint in 2002 but only approached the High Court in 2005. One lawyer named R. Premnath filed a case against Karunanidhi in Egmore 14th Magistrate Court. Permission to prosecute him was also obtained from the Tamil Nadu government. The case was filed on 14 November 2003 in the XIV Municipal Magistrate Court. The case was subsequently adjourned for the hearing of witnesses.

At that time, Karunanidhi argued that all he said was that even those who supported the Hindu religion interpret the word Hindu as thief. “Maybe it means someone who steals the heart.”, he had said during the controversy.

The case was adjourned several times whenever it came up for trial. When the DMK government took office in 2006, an order was issued on 27 May 2006 to withdraw the case. After that, an appeal was filed in the Magistrate’s Court and the case was quietly dismissed.

It was later revealed that Karunanidhi was acquitted from the case and the judgment was given on 17 August 2006. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to appear and argue and no proper reason was given for the same.

Balasubramanian, identifying himself as Mr. Premnath’s legal representative, discovered on 21 May 21, 2007, that the case had been withdrawn on 17 August 2006, based on a memorandum filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor without affording the complainant or his counsel an opportunity for a hearing.

Subsequently Balasubramanian subsequently filed a petition with the High Court, contending that the case had been withdrawn without notifying the complainant.

He emphasized that no justification had been provided for the withdrawal of the charges against Karunanidhi and requested the reinstatement of the case.

But this time too, the petitioners couldn’t appear for hearing as they were not notified. The High Court dismissed the petition on 2 October 2009, saying that the counsel did not appear. Balasubramanian, seeking to revive the petition, attempted to submit a miscellaneous petition to request a 25-day delay exemption, but the court declined the request.

Years later in 2013 when a petition was filed to direct the police to investigate the FIR on the controversial speech, Karunanidhi clarified in his counter affidavit saying that that he did not speak ill of any religious faith. In the speech in question, he mentioned that the word “Hindu” had been defined as a thief by a supporter of the religion itself.

However, he explained that he interpreted it not as an ordinary thief but as someone who “stole” the hearts of the people. He alleged that the complainant had linked it to a “truncated version” of the speech in certain newspapers, omitting the full context.

Critics question the value of grandstanding in speeches by both the grandfather and grandson, as they tend to adopt a diametrically opposite approach in legal proceedings.

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

Exit mobile version