We have a comfortable habit in India. When we see a fissure in our society, we instinctively look for a foreign hand. We hunt for the colonial scholar or the missionary. We find a Max Muller or a Robert Caldwell. We pin the blame on them. We tell ourselves that they divided us. We tell ourselves that they manufactured hate where none existed.

This is a convenient lie. It is a great alibi.

Consider the Dravidian movement. The standard critique is well known. Bishop Caldwell fabricated the “Dravidian” race theory. G.U. Pope distorted Tamil texts to sever them from their Vedic roots. The conclusion follows that the visceral anti-Brahmin hate in Tamil Nadu is merely the product of a Christian colonial conspiracy.

This thesis is deeply problematic. It is a half-truth that shields the real culprits. It exonerates the key actors within Tamil society itself. It masks the face of the local elite. The landed gentry. The mercantile aristocracy. The dominant agrarian communities. These were the forces that funded, nurtured, and weaponized this hate for their own administrative dominance. The missionary provided the grammar. But the venom was indigenous.

The Anxiety of the Feudal Elite

To understand the origins of this divide, one must look not at the church pulpit. Look at the ledger of the Zamindar and the warehouse of the merchant. For centuries, social power in the Tamil country rested with the land. The feudal overlords held sway over the village economy. These powerful communities were the “Sons of the Soil.” They were the custodians of the great temples. They were the patrons of the arts.

The Brahmin was a priest, a minister, or a scholar. He possessed ritual status. But his material existence often depended on the grants and patronage of the landholding elite. He was a dependent.

The advent of the British administration fundamentally altered this equation. Power began to shift from the village granary to the urban secretariat. It shifted from the land to the file. The Brahmin community had a long tradition of literacy and scholarship. They adapted to this shift with speed. They entered the civil service. They entered the judiciary. They entered the legal professions in disproportionate numbers. They became the new intermediaries between the state and the subject.

The old feudal elite watched this transformation with acute anxiety. Their traditional dominance was slipping. They were the kings of the soil. But they were becoming subjects of the administration. They faced a new rival. This rival did not owe his position to their patronage. He owed it to his utility in the colonial bureaucracy.

The “Dravidian” racial theory offered the perfect weapon for this elite to strike back. It was not that they blindly accepted a foreign theory. They actively appropriated it. It served a vital political function. By framing the Brahmin as an “Aryan invader,” the indigenous elite could delegitimize his newfound administrative authority. If the Brahmin was a racial alien, he had no right to rule or adjudicate over the “indigenous” populations.

This narrative allowed the powerful land-owning and mercantile castes to cloak their own feudal privilege in the language of victimhood. They focused the anger of the masses on the “Aryan” minority. This successfully deflected attention from their own economic dominance. The peasant was told his enemy was the priest who owned no land. He was told the enemy was not the landlord who owned the village. It was a brilliant, strategic diversion.

These elites were not atheists seeking to dismantle Hinduism from the outside. They were often deeply religious. They maintained the very temples and rituals they claimed to be liberating. They were Janus-faced. In private, they upheld the strictest orthodoxies. In public, they funded the platforms that spewed venom against the Brahmin community. They were the financiers of the movement. They were the patrons of the libraries. They were the organizers of the conferences. The hate did not bubble up from the streets. It trickled down from the palaces and the mansions of the indigenous aristocracy.

A Pioneer in the Wilderness: Reality Check India

Historians and sociologists have often glossed over these uncomfortable truths. They prefer to focus on the “social justice” rhetoric of the movement. There has been a significant gap in analyzing the raw, visceral nature of the hate propaganda itself. In this regard, the commentator/blogger (and of course, Discourse Analyst) known as Reality Check India stands as a pioneer.

It is no exaggeration to say that not a single scholar has ventured into these questions as deeply as he has. Academia has largely sanitized the Dravidian discourse. They treat it as a benign subaltern movement. Reality Check India has painstakingly documented the primary sources. He has dug up the plays, the speeches, and the forgotten pamphlets. These documents reveal the movement’s darker psychological underbelly. He has excavated the cultural production of hate that others have ignored. He provides an analytical framework that is essential for understanding the true nature of this divide.

The “Criminal Passion”

Drawing on the framework of Jean-Paul Sartre, Reality Check India characterizes this phenomenon not as a mere political opinion. He calls it a “criminal passion.” The anti-Brahminism of the Dravidian movement shares the psychological structure of classic anti-Semitism.

It is a hate that is not based on experience. It shapes experience. It is a choice. The hater chooses to be impenetrable to reason. When confronted with logic or facts, they do not engage. They sneer. They intimidate. Or they retreat into a “passionate” silence. This passion was cultivated in the drawing rooms of the “second-hand haters.” These were the elite who found that this hate gave them a distinct personality. It was a way to distinguish themselves from the “Aryan” rival who was competing for the same government posts and legal influence. And most importantly, it gave them the platform for rallying the “lower” and more backward castes on their side while simultaneously retaining their ‘apex’ status in the Tamil society’s hierarchy.

The Cultural Production of Hate

The hate was not abstract. It was manufactured and distributed through specific cultural products funded by the elite. Reality Check India provides a compelling analysis of the plays that shaped this consciousness. They were not artistic endeavors. They were strategic instruments of division.

Consider the 1930 play Pankajam allathu Paarpana Kodumai (“Pankajam or the Brahmin Atrocity”). As Reality Check India notes, this was a masterclass in driving a wedge between the communities. The play depicts Brahmins not as priests. It depicts them as leeches exploiting the generosity of wealthy mercantile patrons. Specifically, the Nattukottai Chettiars. It portrays Brahmin agents cheating patrons of their land. It shows them scheming to keep other groups in poverty. This was a strategic narrative. It was designed to sever the traditional financial patronage that these wealthy groups extended to Brahmins.

Then came Iraniyan Allathu Inayattra Veeran (“Hiranyakashipu, the Matchless Hero”) in 1934. Here, the “Colonial Conspiracy” theory falls flat. This was a homegrown distortion. The play rewrites the Narasimha Avatar. It turns the demon king Hiranyakashipu into a Dravidian hero. It turns the Avatar into a fraud.

The subtext is highlighted by Reality Check India. It introduced fictional narratives involving the use of Brahmin women to entrap Dravidian men (the sexualisation of the Brahmin female and the emasculation of the Brahmin male in Dravidian folklore is something we shall delve into in the future as it is outside the remit of this particular essay). It deployed vile stereotypes to characterize the community as cunning and treacherous. This was not the language of social justice. This was the language of elimination. And it was funded, staged, and applauded by the local elite.

The Glorification of Violence

This ideology did not stop at words. It created a culture where violence against the specific community was not just tolerated. It was celebrated.

A stark example cited by Reality Check India is the case of “Acid” Thiagarajan. This was a man who threw acid on a Brahmin lawyer. In a normal society, such an act would be universally condemned. In the Dravidian ecosystem, he was celebrated. He was given a platform at conferences and honored.

The metaphors used to rally support for such figures were not calls to the proletariat. They were signals to the cadre that violence had the sanction of the leadership. The message was clear. The “Aryan” is not a citizen with rights. He is a target.

The Blindness of the Hindutva Lens

This brings us to a critical error made by modern observers. This is particularly true for those looking from the North or through the lens of Hindutva. There is a tendency to view the Dravidian movement through a simplistic binary of “Hindu vs. Anti-Hindu.” The assumption is that because the movement attacked Brahmins and Sanskrit, it must have been an atheist, anti-religious project. They assume it was driven by forces external to Hinduism.

This lens is not just inadequate. It is blinding. It renders the observer incapable of understanding the complexity of Tamil society. The uncomfortable reality is that the staunches of Hindus among the Tamils were the very creators of the Dravidian movement. The patrons of the anti-Brahmin discourse were often the same men who endowed the great temples. They funded the festivals. They maintained the strictest caste rituals.

These were not rootless atheists. They were the feudal dominant caste elites. They viewed themselves as the true custodians of the religion. They were protecting it from what they termed “Aryan corruption.” To view them as merely “anti-Hindu” is to misunderstand the nature of the power struggle. It was a civil war within the fold. It was a battle for the control of the sacred and the secular assets of the land. The Hindutva lens reduces this 120-year-old project to a simple case of “atheism.” It fails to see that the rot originated from the pious, not the profane.

The Conspiracy Exonerates the Criminals Involved

Why then does the “Christian Colonial Conspiracy” theory persist with such tenacity? Why do so many who claim to fight for Dharma today cling to the idea that Bishop Caldwell or the Church are solely responsible for the Dravidian divide? The answer lies in the psychological need for absolution.

For the modern descendants of the non-Brahmin elite, the “Christian Conspiracy” is a convenient laundry service. It washes away the sins of their ancestors. Many of these descendants now wish to align with nationalistic or Hindutva politics. This theory allows them to construct a narrative of victimhood. It suggests their forefathers were merely innocent dupes. They were tricked by cunning white missionaries into hating their Brahmin brethren. This is a grand act of exoneration. It scrubs the blood off the hands of the indigenous elite.

If the hatred was purely a colonial injection, then the grandfather who funded the anti-Brahmin printing press is not guilty. He was just misled. If the division was purely a missionary plot, then the community that ostracized the Brahmin is not complicit. They were just brainwashed. It effectively absolves them of the responsibility for birthing, sustaining, and propelling this hatred for over a century.

By pointing the finger at the foreigner, they avoid looking in the mirror. They avoid the painful admission that the “Dravidian” movement was not an imposition from London or Rome. It was a strategy hatched in the verandas of Thanjavur and Chettinad. It allows them to pretend that they were always the defenders of the faith. It hides the fact that they were the financiers of the very movement that tore the social fabric apart.

Conclusion

We must stop hiding behind the “Christian Conspiracy.” Yes, the colonial scholars planted the seeds of distortion. But the tree was watered by local hands. The fruit was harvested by local leaders.

The hate that permeates the political discourse of Tamil Nadu is not a foreign import. It is a homegrown product. It was manufactured by the indigenous elite to preserve their feudal hold on power against an administrative rival.

As long as we blame the outsider, we will never confront the truth. The rot is not in the history books written by the British. It is in the politics practiced by our own. One can even go to the extent of saying that it is in the very soul of the Tamil Society.

Yours truthfully,

Nishkala

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

The post The Dark Truth Of Dravidianism: How Tamil Nadu’s Feudal Elite Engineered A Century Of Anti-Brahmin Hate appeared first on The Commune.

When the Non-Brahmin Manifesto was published on December 20, 1916, it was framed as a corrective—an attempt to address the perceived imbalance of Brahmin dominance in government jobs, educational institutions, and political representation in the Madras Presidency. But over the next century, the document mutated far beyond its original context. What began as a political negotiation with the British soon became the foundational myth of Dravidianist politics, providing the intellectual scaffolding for a sustained narrative of Brahmins as oppressors and non-Brahmins as victims. This framework has shaped the rhetoric, policies, cultural attitudes, and political posturing of the Justice Party, EVR’s Self-Respect Movement, the DK, the DMK, and much of Tamil Nadu’s contemporary political ecosystem.

This is the story of how a colonial-era pamphlet—grounded in selective grievance and sweeping generalisations—gradually evolved into the core doctrine of anti-Brahmin mobilisation that continues to influence identity politics in Tamil Nadu today.

A Document Built on Flawed Foundations

The Non-Brahmin Manifesto made one central claim: that Brahmins, despite being a small minority, had disproportionately benefited from English education and held a monopoly on administrative positions. Instead of viewing this phenomenon through the lens of access to early education, urban proximity, or colonial recruitment patterns, the manifesto chose a more emotionally compelling narrative—collective blame.

It flattened the diversity among Brahmins and reduced an entire community into a singular political enemy class. In doing so, the document created a simplistic binary:

Brahmins vs. Everyone Else

This framing was politically convenient but intellectually dishonest. It ignored:

Variation among Brahmin sub-sects (many of whom were poor, rural, and not literate).

The role of British favouritism in employment patterns.

Socioeconomic and geographic factors that influenced access to schools.

The fact that the majority of Brahmins were not elites but middle-class professionals or temple workers.

The manifesto thus began with a misdiagnosis: it treated outcomes as evidence of intentional oppression. This flawed premise would later be weaponised extensively.

The Justice Party: From Representation Demand to Identity Mobilisation

The Justice Party emerged as the political organ built upon the manifesto’s worldview. Its leaders positioned themselves as champions of “non-Brahmin” identity—a catch-all term that lumped together dozens of castes, communities, and social groups with nothing in common except their non-Brahmin status.

This political framing provided extraordinary utility:

It created a permanent villain (Brahmins).

It generated a stable political identity uniting disparate communities.

It allowed leaders to present themselves as liberators from “Brahmin domination.”

Even though the Justice Party struggled to build mass support and often depended on the British for power, it helped institutionalise the vocabulary of Brahmin culpability. Its newspapers, speeches, and propaganda reinforced a single idea: that Brahmins were historically responsible for the backwardness of all non-Brahmin groups.

The political problem was no longer governance; it was a community.

EVR: The Radical Amplification

Anti-Hindu bigot EV Ramasamy Naicker (hailed as ‘Periyar’ by his followers) did not merely inherit the Non-Brahmin Manifesto’s worldview—he amplified it into a full-blown ideological crusade. For EVR, Brahmins were no longer a privileged class needing checks; they became:

“snakes,”

“parasites,”

“thieves,”

“Aryan invaders,”

“enemies of Tamils,”

“the root of all social evil.”

He transformed administrative grievances into a racial theory, portraying Brahmins as outsiders who had colonised Tamil society. This rhetorical escalation had three lasting consequences:

1. It created a moral justification for hostility.

EVR reframed anti-Brahminism from political competition into moral duty. In his narrative, opposing Brahmins was synonymous with fighting injustice.

2. It turned social resentment into a political resource.

Vilifying a small, unorganised community gave him an endless supply of mobilisation energy.

3. It pushed Brahmins into socio-political invisibility.

By delegitimising their cultural role and demonising their identity, he ensured that Brahmins would become marginalised in public institutions for decades.

Importantly, EVR’s language—whether one frames it as “rationalism,” “anti-caste activism” or hatred—embodied the exact spirit of hostility that the Non-Brahmin Manifesto had implicitly planted.

The manifesto lit the spark. EVR created the wildfire.

DMK and the Institutionalisation of Anti-Brahmin Politics

If EVR weaponised anti-Brahminism, the DMK institutionalised it. The party absorbed EVR’s worldview but repackaged it in a more politically palatable form.

1. Cinema as a vehicle of prejudice

DMK scriptwriters—Karunanidhi, Anna, Murasoli Maran—used Tamil cinema to encode anti-Brahmin stereotypes:

the manipulative priest,

the scheming pundit,

the crooked Acharya,

the cowardly, effeminate Brahmin villain.

What EVR said on stage, the DMK broadcast on screen to millions.

2. Cultural narratives were rewritten

The DMK expanded the manifesto’s administrative grievances into cultural resentment. Anything associated with Brahmin identity—Sanskrit, temples, rituals, traditional dress—was reframed as oppressive, “Aryan,” or anti-Tamil.

3. Policies reinforced the narrative

Over decades, DMK governments embedded a system of:

extreme caste-based reservations,

suppression of Sanskrit learning,

exclusion of Brahmins from temple administration,

marginalisation in education and employment.

While these policies were defended as “social justice,” they were rooted in the same foundational narrative:
Brahmins must be kept away from positions of influence.

Thus, the Non-Brahmin Manifesto’s political agenda became the official doctrine of state power.

The Creation of a Permanent Grievance Economy

One of the unintended outcomes of the manifesto was that it created a permanent grievance economy—a political ecosystem that needed a villain to survive. A narrative built on historic injustice cannot self-correct. It must continuously produce:

new grievances,

new enemies,

new proof of oppression.

Even after:

Brahmins lost educational dominance,

lost government representation,

migrated out of the state,

became one of the least empowered castes in Tamil Nadu,
the rhetoric did not change.

Why?

Because the political architecture designed around the manifesto cannot function without a villain. Without the imagery of Brahmin domination, the ideological purpose of Dravidianism collapses.

Thus, anti-Brahminism became not just historical rhetoric but a sustained source of political identity.

Modern Tamil Nadu: Prejudice Normalised

Today, Tamil Nadu exhibits a paradox. It is celebrated as a progressive state with high literacy and social development, yet it harbours some of the most normalised ethnic stereotyping in India—directed almost exclusively at Brahmins.

On social media, Brahmin identity is mockingly reduced to:

“Paapaattis,”

“Parpan,”

“Panju Gandhi,”

“Iyer/Iyengar privilege,”

“Aryan invaders.”

In popular culture, Brahmins are routinely portrayed as:

villains,

hypocrites,

manipulators,

elitists,

anti-Tamil conspirators.

Offline, Brahmin priests have been attacked in temples; Brahmin students face casual harassment in colleges; Brahmin cuisine and rituals are mocked publicly.

All of this is justified under the umbrella of “historic correction,” but the intellectual root of this prejudice lies in that early narrative that:
Brahmins were the cause of everyone else’s suffering.

The Non-Brahmin Manifesto did not explicitly call for hatred. But it laid the foundation for a worldview where Brahmins were not seen as individuals, but as a collective historical wrong.

Once that idea became normalised, prejudice could flourish without guilt.

An Inherited Mythology, Not History

The modern Dravidianist stance on Brahmins is not based on contemporary reality but on a mythology inherited from 1916:

that Brahmins have power (they don’t),

that they dominate administration (they don’t),

that they suppress Tamil culture (they can’t),

that they are Aryan outsiders (a pseudo-anthropological myth).

This manufactured history allows present-day Dravidian parties to justify:

outdated policies,

extreme rhetoric,

divisive identity politics,

and the continued exclusion of a small minority from public platforms.

The manifesto’s original errors—morally ambiguous then—have become damaging now.

A Document that Outlived Its Purpose and Legitimised Prejudice

The Non-Brahmin Manifesto belongs to a time when political discourse was defined by colonial structures and social upheaval. But the tragedy of Tamil Nadu is that instead of outgrowing its rhetoric, the state doubled down on it.

The document transformed from:

a political petition
into

a worldview
and finally

a dogma.

Its legacy is not merely academic. It shaped:

the speeches of EVR,

the films of the DMK,

the policies of successive governments,

the identity politics of the state,

and the cultural hostility that persists today.

If social justice was the intention, the result has too often been social hostility.
If representation was the goal, the outcome has been retribution.
If equality was the aspiration, the legacy has been division.

The Non-Brahmin Manifesto may have sought fairness, but what it ultimately produced was a political apparatus that thrived by keeping a century-old resentment alive and turning a community into a perpetual symbol of villainy.

Until Tamil Nadu finally moves beyond the ghost of 1916, it will remain trapped in the politics of grievance rather than the politics of growth.

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

The post Congress Ally DMK CM MK Stalin Says Dravidian Model Govt Is Based On “Non-Brahmin Manifesto”, The Ideological Blueprint For Anti-Brahmin Hate Politics In Tamil Nadu appeared first on The Commune.

In yet another controversial move targeting the Brahmin community and Hindu religious traditions, the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) has come under fire for featuring children in a politically charged skit at the recent Ranipet Resolution Public Meeting. Critics have condemned the act as a blatant use of minors in political and religious propaganda, raising serious ethical and legal questions.

The skit, presented under the theme “Hindu Religion Is Our Own Religion”, sought to promote a Dravidianist reinterpretation of Hindu deities by portraying them as rebranded forms of the Buddha. It began with children chanting Buddhist mantras such as “Buddham Saranam Gachhami”, followed by Islamic slogans declaring religious and linguistic identity, “My mother and father are not from an Arab country. We are not strangers. Allah is formless to us. Tamil is our mother tongue, and we are Indians. Allahu Akbar.”

The skit then shifted to a dramatized depiction of Hindu caste discrimination. A saffron-clad child, adorned with sacred ash (vibhuti), a janeu (sacred thread), and portraying a Brahmin priest, was shown addressing others with derogatory remarks, “Hey, abhishtu get lost, go away! Come near me only when I call you. Don’t rush forward like a cashew nut!”

Other children were showcased asking, “Saamy! aren’t we Hindus?” claiming to represent the various varna groups Shudra, Vaishya, Kshatriya, and Panchama (Dalits) asserting that they too are Hindus. Then a scene builds a narrative to depict resistance against Brahminical authority, as Dalits. One child portraying a Dalit character challenges the priest’s authority, saying, “Why swamy should we always be at the back? Why should we always stand at back? Test our devotion if you must!”

The priest responds, “What? You want me to test your devotion? Fine, now you’ll understand why I told you to stand at the back. Repeat after me—Om Namo Narayana! Om Namo Narayana! Jai Shri Ram!” All the other varna groups depicted as following his lead and chant as instructed. However, when he turns to the Panchamar girl and asks her to repeat “Om Namo Narayana,” she instead chants, “Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhasa,” a Buddhist mantra.

The priest, taken aback, shouts, “Stop! What are you saying? I told you to chant something else. Fine, repeat this instead Jai Shri Ram!” She firmly replies, “Jai Bhim! Jai Bhim!”

The priest then tries to explain that chanting “Namo Narayana” grants one a place in Vaikuntha (the Hindu heavenly abode) and chanting “Jai Shri Ram” grants moksha. But she responds, “Making me stand at the front or back depends on my actions and character, not your permission. Rather than live as a submissive slave just for a place in Vaikuntha, we choose to live freely, even if poor, as the original people of this land as Buddhists! Jai Bhim! Jai Bhim! Jai Bhim! Jai Bhim!”

The skit goes further, making a veiled reference to Union Minister L. Murugan and President Droupadi Murmu, both from marginalized communities, stating that while someone from their background may become a minister or even the president, they can never become a Shankaracharya.

This narrative distorts Hindu traditions. Being born a Brahmin does not automatically grant access to temple sanctums (garbha griha) or ritual authority—such roles are governed by temple Agamas (scriptural codes). Even senior religious figures like Shankaracharyas are not permitted to enter certain temples based on traditional rules.

Observers view the skit as an attempt to reinforce long-debunked Dravidianist propaganda aimed at vilifying Hindu practices and customs, while emotionally manipulating young minds to serve political ends.

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

The post DMK-Congress Ally VCK Uses Children In A Skit Mocking Hindu Traditions And Targeting Brahmins, Veiled Digs Made At President Murmu And Union Minister L. Murugan appeared first on The Commune.

Whenever the Dravidianist ecosystem comes together under one roof, one thing becomes glaringly obvious – truth takes a backseat to propaganda. Their so-called intellectual gatherings often become echo chambers of revisionism, where facts are bent to suit an ideological narrative. The recent Abolition of Caste conference hosted by the YouTube channel The Debate was a textbook example.

Instead of honest engagement with the realities of caste, what unfolded was an ideological theatre. Periyarists and Dravidianists who participated had little meaningful to say about caste realities – only rehashed fables, conspiracy theories, and anti-Hindu diatribes. Leading the charge was VCK State Deputy General Secretary Vanni Arasu, who, in typical fashion, took every detour possible to avoid grounded caste analysis and instead peddled a cocktail of mythology, misinformation, and political scapegoating.

He began his talk on a serious note, narrating the tragic story of a man named Pachamalai Devar, who, due to societal pressure, murdered his own daughter in Madurai for marrying outside her caste. Arasu linked this incident to the case of Kavin Selvaganesh, a Scheduled Caste youth murdered in Tirunelveli, and rightly noted how societal norms often push people to commit such heinous acts even when they internally accept the relationship.

But any intellectual honesty ended there.

Rather than expanding on real solutions or structural issues, Arasu quickly pivoted to pure fiction and ideological sermonizing. He bizarrely claimed that the roots of honor killings lie in the Ramayana, particularly in the story of Shambuka, where Lord Rama allegedly kills a lower-caste man for performing penance. This narrative already discredited and widely understood as a later interpolation was served up as historical truth, used to indict Hinduism itself as the foundational cause of caste-based violence.

Vanni Arasu said, “A very important story in the Ramayana, where is Ram is his palace hall, and let we keep the King is in the palace. A Brahmin from outside brings his child and lays him outside, saying, ‘Ram, injustice is happening in your rule.’ Ram comes out and asks what the injustice is. He says, ‘The era has become corrupt; people are fully working against our Varnasrama.’ ‘What is it?’ he asks. ‘A man is performing penance. He is not of the caste to perform penance.’ Ram asks, ‘Oh, who is he?’ The Brahmin says, ‘Go and see.’ ‘Because of that, my son died,’ he said. What he said was this: ‘A man is doing penance against the Varna and caste rules. This is against Varnasrama. Therefore, the era has become corrupt, and my son died because of that,’ he said.

As soon as he said that, Ram got on his horse and searched. The readers of Ramayana know that a man was upside down. The revolutionary Ambedkar has written about this extensively in his book, ‘Riddles in Hinduism.’ ‘Who are you?’ Ram asks. ‘My name is Shambuka,’ he replies. ‘What is your caste?’ ‘I am from a different community, a tribal community,’ he says. ‘You are doing penance. Is performing penance a principle of your caste? Is this what you should be doing?’ he asks. ‘I am doing it,’ Shambuka says. ‘It is wrong for you to do this against the principles of Varna and caste. It is unacceptable for you to act like a different caste, based on Varnasrama.’ With that, he takes his sword and cuts off his head. The story told in the Ramayana is that the blood from that cut splashed on the child, and the child came back to life.

Now, why did Ram cut off Shambuka’s head? Today, people say ‘Jai Shri Ram.’ They build such big temples for Ram. They worship Ram so much. From Modi to Amit Shah, they put forth the slogan ‘Jai Shri Ram’ all over India. As educated people, how can we listen to this story of Rama and justify such an act? So, to protect Varnasrama, whose Varnasrama? For whose benefit does Ram commit murder? He commits murder for the benefit of a Brahmin. This is what we have to understand from all this. So, if he commits murder for someone performing penance against caste to protect Varnasrama, justifying that is why honor killings for inter-caste marriages happen all through history even today. This is the continuation of the Ramayana that is happening today. The Ramayana is celebrated today. If you take any television channel, there are news stories about the Ramayana. There are movies. Big directors like Rajamouli say he is making the Ramayana in different forms. The stance of protecting Varnasrama or protecting Sanatana Dharma is being attempted to be established today on cultural, political, and judicial fronts. A government is in power to sit and decide how all this should be done. Even in movies, many films that talk about caste pride and community pride have come out today.”

To suggest that modern honor killings are a direct consequence of a disputed mythological occurrence is not only ahistorical and absurd, but also deeply intellectually dishonest. This is not activism it’s narrative building, tailor-made to appease anti-Hindu sympathizers who treat mythology as a convenient punching bag while ignoring present-day social reform within Hindu society.

As if equating Lord Ram to a symbol of caste violence wasn’t enough, Arasu escalated the rhetoric into a full-blown anti-Brahmin tirade. He dragged in the Gandhi assassination, claiming that the entire plot was orchestrated by Brahmins, and even attempted to indict Veer Savarkar, despite his acquittal. The narrative was stitched together with old tropes: Brahmins as oppressors, RSS as murderers, and Sanatana Dharma as a violent, supremacist ideology.

What followed was a long, revisionist retelling of Nathuram Godse’s trial, presented not for historical understanding, but to paint Hindutva as inherently violent. Arasu insinuated that the judiciary was complicit in letting Savarkar off, selectively quoting Godse’s 93-page courtroom statement as though it were a holy text conveniently ignoring the complexities of the case and the absence of legal proof against Savarkar.

His broader point? That there is an ongoing conspiracy to turn India into a Hindu Rashtra, driven by a supposed Brahminical class and RSS ideology. Ironically, while crying wolf about oppression, Arasu himself seemed quite comfortable promoting communal stereotyping and collective guilt precisely the kind of thinking that has fueled violence throughout history.

Then came the predictable Muslim appeasement. Arasu claimed that Muslims are essentially Hindus who rejected Varnasrama Dharma in search of equality, and that is why they are now “targeted.” He tied Dalit and Muslim oppression together in a sweeping generalization, asserting that both communities are attacked because they reject caste and Sanatana Dharma. No nuance, no room for discussion just ideological binaries and manufactured victimhood.

Vanni Arasu said, “People who left Hinduism by rejecting the four varnas and opposing Sanatana Dharma were Muslims. They went to Islam saying, “We do not accept these four varnas. We do not accept this discrimination. We will accept equality and social justice.”

He then quoted Ambedkar, cherry-picking lines to fit his agenda conveniently ignoring Ambedkar’s own complex views on religion, reform, and social progress finally he accepted Buddhism not Islam. Vanni Arasu conveniently quoted another person Athavan Thiruchani to say, Hinduism itself is a compilation of castes, and if you remove caste, there would be nothing left of Hinduism.

This is the Dravidianist playbook in action, erase nuance, distort history, demonize Hindu symbols, and wrap it all up in the language of social justice. The real goal isn’t caste abolition it’s ideological domination, cloaked in the garb of activism. It’s not about reform, it’s about revenge politics waged not just against Brahmins or the RSS, but against the very civilizational fabric of India.

It is baffling how this group, operating within its tightly sealed echo chamber, constantly recycles old lies as if repetition makes them truer. Like a Goebbelsian propaganda machine, they tell each other what they want to hear and mistake their confirmation bias for reality then seek to impose this worldview on everyone else.

If this is the intellectual standard of the so-called abolitionist movement in Tamil Nadu, then it’s no wonder serious discourse on caste reform is stuck in ideological quicksand. When anti-caste activism becomes a mask for anti-Hindu propaganda, it loses all moral and intellectual credibility.

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

The post “Rama Cut Shambuka’s Head To Protect Varnasrama, He Committed Murder To Benefit Brahmins”, VCK Leader Vanni Arasu Spews Venom Against Hindus, Brahmins, RSS appeared first on The Commune.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the removal of all video teasers of the film Bad Girl from social media platforms.

The film, produced by Dravidianist director Vetrimaaran under his Cross Root Film Company and directed by Varsha Bharath, features Anjali Sivaraman in the lead role. The cast also includes Shanti Priya, Saranya Ravichandran, Hrithu Haroon, Deejay, Sasank Pommettipalli, among others. The production team had earlier announced a theatrical release date of 5 September.

However, Bad Girl has been mired in controversy since the release of its teaser. The latest legal challenge comes from a petition filed by three individuals, including Ramkumar and Ramesh Kumar from Sankarankoil, who approached the Madurai Bench alleging that the teaser contains inappropriate and obscene visuals involving minors and young girls.

Responding to the petition, the court has instructed the central government to take immediate action to remove the teaser from all digital platforms, including YouTube. Furthermore, the court has advised preventive measures to avoid similar content being shared in the future. With this legal hurdle, questions have now emerged over whether the film will be able to release on its scheduled date.

Dravidianist propaganda movie Bad Girl

Highly controversial Dravidianist propaganda movie Bad Girl, certified U/A by the Censor Board, is set to hit theatres on 5 September 2025. Directed by Varsha Bharath and backed by Dravidianist filmmaker Vetrimaaran in collaboration with Bollywood director Anurag Kashyap, the film has faced backlash since its teaser release on 26 January 2025.

The Bad Girl is less a coming-of-age story and more an ideological statement meant to reinforce anti-Brahmin narratives under the guise of empowerment. The teaser introduces audiences to a Tamil Brahmin girl, played by Anjali Sivaraman, who openly expresses her desire for a boyfriend, setting off a journey through her adolescence and college years marked by societal judgment and emotional conflict. The teaser culminates in a scene reminiscent of the 2020 “Thaali Bajao” ritual during the COVID pandemic, depicting traditional Brahmin practices seemingly to ridicule them.

Produced under Grass Root Film Company, Bad Girl has been labeled by detractors as another attempt to push Dravidian ideological propaganda, particularly targeting Brahmin culture.

Backlash From The Film Industry

Actress and former Bigg Boss Tamil contestant Sanam Shetty strongly condemned the film, accusing it of glamorizing rebellion, promiscuity, and substance abuse among minors. She noted that the portrayal sends an unhealthy message to impressionable adolescents and slammed the industry for overlooking deeper gender inequality issues.

Taking to X on 18 February 2025, she stated, “#BADGIRL Teaser is NOT a BOLD Example.. It’s a #BAD Example! #Freedom of choice and #GenderEquality concepts are wrongly portrayed in case of #Minors here! #Legally, #Ethically and even #Medically it sends a terribly #wrong message to the already influenceable adolescent children! Extremely disappointed with the so called Responsible Film Makers funding and supporting this Film. Do you agree with me?”

Later speaking to reporters, she said, “Equality doesn’t mean sleeping with multiple people, smoking cigarettes or ganja. Equality means asking us with equal opportunities. If you ask whether there’s equal opportunity between men and women, the answer is no. Take our industry, for example. Are the salaries given to male and female actors the same? No. Is the way male and female actors are approached the same? No. I’m speaking from personal experience. When we think they call us to act in movies, instead they call us for sleeping with them. This is the approach. Equality is needed here and you should speak for this. If you’re suggesting schoolgirl to sleep with ten people, smoke cigarette, ganja and  consume alcohol what kind of thinking is that? Hair”

#BADGIRL Teaser is NOT a BOLD Example..
It's a #BAD Example! #Freedom of choice and #GenderEquality concepts are wrongly portrayed in case of #Minors here! #Legally, #Ethically and even #Medically it sends a terribly #wrong message to the already influencable adolescent… pic.twitter.com/Dv6pVdXxtG

— Sanam Shetty (@ungalsanam) February 18, 2025

Similarly, Director Mohan G Kshatriyan, known for films like Bakasuran and Draupathi, also weighed in, accusing Vetrimaaran and Kashyap of recycling anti-Brahmin tropes for cinematic appeal. In a sarcastic post, he said, “Portraying a brahmin girl personal life is always a bold and refreshing film for this clan. What more can be expected from vetrimaran, Anurag kasyap & Co.. Bashing Brahmin father and mother is old and not trendy.. Try with your own caste girls and showcase it to your own family first.“

Legal Pushback

The Tamil Nadu Brahmin Association (THAMBRAAS) has issued a legal notice to Vetrimaaran, asserting that the film insults their community and contributes to cultural erosion. According to their complaint, the film’s protagonist a Tamil Brahmin schoolgirl is portrayed engaging in relationships, alcohol consumption, and other behaviors the group deems derogatory and misleading.

The notice alleges that Bad Girl violates Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which allows freedom of expression but with reasonable restrictions. It further cites Section 294 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Act, 2023, for obscene representation, especially concerning the use of “Iyer Bashai” (Brahmin dialect) and the depiction of Brahmin rituals in a negative light.

The association urged the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in Chennai to deny certification to the film, calling its content culturally divisive and offensive. The Nadar community has also voiced concerns, stating that the teaser normalizes immoral behavior among schoolgirls and spreads a misleading message to youth.

(With Inputs From Thanthi)

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

The post Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Orders Removal Of Dravidianist Propaganda Film ‘Bad Girl’ Teaser From All Social Media Platforms appeared first on The Commune.

Highly controversial Dravidianist propaganda movie Bad Girl, certified U/A by the Censor Board, is set to hit theatres on 5 September 2025. Directed by Varsha Bharath and backed by Dravidianist filmmaker Vetrimaaran in collaboration with Bollywood director Anurag Kashyap, the film has faced backlash since its teaser release on 26 January 2025.

Critics argue that Bad Girl is less a coming-of-age story and more an ideological statement meant to reinforce anti-Brahmin narratives under the guise of empowerment. The teaser introduces audiences to a Tamil Brahmin girl, played by Anjali Sivaraman, who openly expresses her desire for a boyfriend, setting off a journey through her adolescence and college years marked by societal judgment and emotional conflict. The teaser culminates in a scene reminiscent of the 2020 “Thaali Bajao” ritual during the COVID pandemic, depicting traditional Brahmin practices—seemingly to ridicule them.

Produced under Grass Root Film Company, Bad Girl has been labeled by detractors as another attempt to push Dravidian ideological propaganda, particularly targeting Brahmin culture.

Backlash From The Film Industry

Actress and former Bigg Boss Tamil contestant Sanam Shetty strongly condemned the film, accusing it of glamorizing rebellion, promiscuity, and substance abuse among minors. She noted that the portrayal sends an unhealthy message to impressionable adolescents and slammed the industry for overlooking deeper gender inequality issues.

Taking to X on 18 February 2025, she stated, “#BADGIRL Teaser is NOT a BOLD Example.. It’s a #BAD Example! #Freedom of choice and #GenderEquality concepts are wrongly portrayed in case of #Minors here! #Legally, #Ethically and even #Medically it sends a terribly #wrong message to the already influenceable adolescent children! Extremely disappointed with the so called Responsible Film Makers funding and supporting this Film. Do you agree with me?”

Later speaking to reporters, she said, “Equality doesn’t mean sleeping with multiple people, smoking cigarettes or ganja. Equality means asking us with equal opportunities. If you ask whether there’s equal opportunity between men and women, the answer is no. Take our industry, for example. Are the salaries given to male and female actors the same? No. Is the way male and female actors are approached the same? No. I’m speaking from personal experience. When we think they call us to act in movies, instead they call us for sleeping with them. This is the approach. Equality is needed here and you should speak for this. If you’re suggesting schoolgirl to sleep with ten people, smoke cigarette, ganja and  consume alcohol what kind of thinking is that? Hair”

#BADGIRL Teaser is NOT a BOLD Example..
It's a #BAD Example! #Freedom of choice and #GenderEquality concepts are wrongly portrayed in case of #Minors here! #Legally, #Ethically and even #Medically it sends a terribly #wrong message to the already influencable adolescent… pic.twitter.com/Dv6pVdXxtG

— Sanam Shetty (@ungalsanam) February 18, 2025

Similarly, Director Mohan G Kshatriyan, known for films like Bakasuran and Draupathi, also weighed in, accusing Vetrimaaran and Kashyap of recycling anti-Brahmin tropes for cinematic appeal. In a sarcastic post, he said, “Portraying a brahmin girl personal life is always a bold and refreshing film for this clan. What more can be expected from vetrimaran, Anurag kasyap & Co.. Bashing Brahmin father and mother is old and not trendy.. Try with your own caste girls and showcase it to your own family first.“

Legal Pushback

The Tamil Nadu Brahmin Association (THAMBRAAS) has issued a legal notice to Vetrimaaran, asserting that the film insults their community and contributes to cultural erosion. According to their complaint, the film’s protagonist a Tamil Brahmin schoolgirl is portrayed engaging in relationships, alcohol consumption, and other behaviors the group deems derogatory and misleading.

The notice alleges that Bad Girl violates Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which allows freedom of expression but with reasonable restrictions. It further cites Section 294 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Act, 2023, for obscene representation, especially concerning the use of “Iyer Bashai” (Brahmin dialect) and the depiction of Brahmin rituals in a negative light.

The association urged the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in Chennai to deny certification to the film, calling its content culturally divisive and offensive. The Nadar community has also voiced concerns, stating that the teaser normalizes immoral behavior among schoolgirls and spreads a misleading message to youth.

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

The post Vetrimaaran-Backed Anti-Brahmin Dravidianist Propaganda Film ‘Bad Girl’ That Glamorizes Promiscuity Set For Theatrical Release On 5 September 2025 appeared first on The Commune.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin continues to keep the fire of the “Hindi imposition” drama simmering while the state is in doldrums. Giving this “protest” a push, he alleged the imposition of Hindi through the National Education Policy (NEP), threatened the survival of several regional languages. In a post on X, Stalin questioned the impact of Hindi on linguistic diversity across India and listed several languages that he claimed were “gasping for survival.” He wrote, “My dear sisters and brothers from other states, Ever wondered how many Indian languages Hindi has swallowed? Bhojpuri, Maithili, Awadhi, Braj, Bundeli, Garhwali, Kumaoni, Magahi, Marwari, Malvi, Chhattisgarhi, Santhali, Angika, Ho, Kharia, Khortha, Kurmali, Kurukh, Mundari and many more are now gasping for survival. The push for a monolithic Hindi identity is what kills ancient mother tongues. UP and Bihar were never just “Hindi heartlands.” Their real languages are now relics of the past. Tamil Nadu resists because we know where this ends. Tamil has awakened; Tamil culture has survived! Some languages ​​have given way to Hindi; they have disappeared without a trace!”

My dear sisters and brothers from other states,

Ever wondered how many Indian languages Hindi has swallowed? Bhojpuri, Maithili, Awadhi, Braj, Bundeli, Garhwali, Kumaoni, Magahi, Marwari, Malvi, Chhattisgarhi, Santhali, Angika, Ho, Kharia, Khortha, Kurmali, Kurukh, Mundari and… pic.twitter.com/VhkWtCDHV9

— M.K.Stalin (@mkstalin) February 27, 2025

Reaffirming his party’s stance, Stalin stated in a letter to his cadre, “We will oppose Hindi imposition. Hindi is the mask, Sanskrit is the hidden face.”

However, the letter to the cadre very blatantly shows that MK Stalin is actually peddling hate against Brahmins under the guise of “opposing Hindi.”

The image in the letter shows a person who has a “Shikha” (tuft) indirectly indicating that Brahmins are pushing for Sanskrit “imposition” and people must oppose them.

Thiru @mkstalin

Your artwork suggests that it is Brahmin / Sanskrit Hatred in the Guise of Hindi Hatred. Is it So?

P.S.: Since you have not lived in North , all these languages like Bhojpuri and Maithani are well preserved . Stop dividing people.https://t.co/fc8FViXx1W pic.twitter.com/BaszPLTgMk

— RapperPandit (@RapperPandit) February 27, 2025

The remarks come amid the Centre’s three-language policy, which the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) has been opposing on the surface – it is noteworthy that schools run by DMK members and other Dravidianist party leaders offer Hindi as a subject in their schools and have implemented NEP 2020.

Stalin’s Brahmin Hate

In 2021, he endorsed a book peddling Brahmin/Hindu hatred.

கொரோனா நிவாரணத்திற்காக
தமிழ் you tubers நிகழ்ச்சி நடத்தி திரட்டிய நிதி க்கான காசோலையை முதல்வரை சந்தித்து கொடுத்தோம். என் தந்தையார் மரணத்தின் போது அலைபேசியில் ஆறுதலைப் பகிர்ந்த முதல்வருக்கு நன்றியும் கூறினேன். திரு. பொழிலன் எழுதிய வேதவெறி இந்தியா புத்தகத்தை பரிசளித்தேன் pic.twitter.com/0mTiGIaXI0

— Senthil (@Senthilvel79) October 13, 2021

When he was the Opposition leader, Stalin had made obscene remarks on Hindu rituals and mocked the purohits while participating in a Muslim wedding function.

@mkstalin @PTTVOnlineNews @Dinamalar_News This is what our STALIN. Anti-Hindu and culture & rituals as for him IT IS ALL JOKE.. Nobody clapped except Kujas
REALLY CURSE WHO CALLED HIM FOR THAT MARRIAGE.. HINDUS PLS THINK AGAIN BEFORE YOU VOTE THESE TYPE OF CHEAP POLITICIANS…. pic.twitter.com/rFF5W0Lk3f

— Bab (@Fly02Bab) February 2, 2019

How Dravidianists Use Nazi-Style Cartoon Propaganda To Demonize Brahmins

Let us have a look at how Brahmins are depicted across Dravidian literature and “pop culture” through Nazi-style propaganda.

Basically, the caricatures of Tamil Brahmins are based on 3 points:

• They are fat, unshapely, and ugly
• They are scary
• They are “powerful” yet harmless but evil in nature

So, pushing the point that if there is a Brahmin around you, look at them with fear in your eyes because they are going to devour you. If we compare this with the Nazi propaganda, Jews were also described as ugly, evil, money-minded, powerful, and scary, not to forget their flowing beards – they stereotyped Brahmins as those with Shikha (tuft).

Nazi-Style Propaganda

The Dravidianists have made use of what is known as the Picture Superiority Effect – a phenomenon in which imagery/pictures are remembered more than text or words.

Most of the Dravidian literature about Brahmins has a few things in common, especially on their cover images.

• The brahmin has a near-tonsured head with a tuft of hair at the back.
• He is fat, has a paunch, wears the dhoti, and of course, the janeu/sacred thread.
• In some cases, depending on the title and the type of content, the Brahmin is shown just next to Satan in terms of being evil.

Some other methodologies used include zoomorphism – depicting brahmins as animals. In some cases, the brahmin is depicted as the 8-legged octopus. The inspiration seems to have come from (no prizes for guessing) the Nazi propaganda.

Let’s take a look at some examples.

Anti-Brahmin propaganda poster
Nazie era anti-Semite propaganda pic.twitter.com/QBgqoAbroF

— Suren (@zeneraalstuff) September 20, 2017

“Aariya maayai” (Aryan mAyA/illusions) by the very 1st Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu: C. N. Annadurai…Cover image: brAhmaNa with evil smile pic.twitter.com/i7AaN1W5at

— āṅgīrasaśreṣṭha (@GhorAngirasa) September 21, 2017

pArppAn’s tuft (shikhA) is the NEET exam policy through which he destroys the lives, dreams, hopes & aspirations of non-pArppAns. pic.twitter.com/iqaOsEhC8J

— āṅgīrasaśreṣṭha (@GhorAngirasa) August 9, 2018

you can see creative re-use of Brahmin stereotypical caricatures by Tamilian (Drav) high frequency propaganda accounts.

this meme

Repeat : #D is a police matter. https://t.co/xpC13qwC0S pic.twitter.com/5SPowQRpq6

— Reality Check India (@realitycheckind) March 2, 2023

for a constitutional “rights” lawyers with an interest in linkages to power #Drav cases are a goldmine.But you arent “plugged in” to Tamil.The person next to you is the same person here.. you are knowingly or unknowingly allying with anti-semitic hatred couched as social justice pic.twitter.com/q915EsYtEa

— Reality Check India (@realitycheckind) November 10, 2022

This is straight out of Dravidian playbook. They did this with Nattu.. as well. both are Tamilians. pic.twitter.com/EZ68JN7Pty

— Reality Check India (@realitycheckind) September 5, 2022

The Dravidianists have been using such imagery and Nazi-style propaganda to villainze Brahmins and imprint this message in the minds of gullible people over the years. Chief Minister MK Stalin continues to do this to this day, in an age where he and his party men claim they have “eradicated” caste.

(With inputs from India Today)

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

The post Tamil Nadu CM MK Stalin Openly Peddles Hate Against Brahmins appeared first on The Commune.

The teaser for an upcoming Tamil film titled Bad Girl was released on 26 January 2025. Presented by filmmakers Anurag Kashyap and Vetri Maaran, the movie is penned and helmed by Varsha Bharath. The teaser introduces us to a young woman, portrayed by Anjali Sivaraman, who candidly shares her long-held desire to have a boyfriend. It then takes us back to her high school days, tracing a journey many young women may find familiar. As she navigates the challenges of puberty and the complex emotions it brings, her openness about her feelings provokes harsh judgment. Male classmates ridicule her, branding her with labels, while her female friends dismissively call her “desperate.” In college, when she enters a relationship, she faces the stark realities of a deeply ingrained “misogynistic” society.

Bad Girl, produced by Vetrimaaran, could be the next Annapoorani.

Teaser features a TB girl who breaks all imposed standards of "good" to free herself from the clutches of Brahminical patriarchy by become a modern free woman, fit to join Lulu Mandram.pic.twitter.com/L7rowIkQ0K

— Tamil Labs 2.0 (@labstamil) January 26, 2025

Vetrimaaran produces Bad Girl under the Grass Root Film Company banner. Now this might look like an ordinary teaser release but when we examine the contents of the teaser, we realise it is yet another Dravidian anti-Brahmin propaganda film that is set to “delight” the ever-hungry Dravidianist’s appetite for such content.

We all know Vetrimaaran, a Dravidianist film maker, famous for his flop films like Viduthalai has repeatedly regurgitating casteist Dravidianist vomit and spreading it as ideology and principle through his films.

In 2023, the film Annapoorani tried to appease the Dravidianist’s thirst for such content. This year, it is this film. The teaser introduces a Tamil Brahmin girl who is a rebel, defies societal expectations of being the “good girl” as she seeks to break free from the constraints of the usual trope of “Brahminical patriarchy“, and since this film is from the Dravidianist ideologue’s soil, it needs to show her embracing the identity of a modern, liberated woman. The final shot in the teaser shows the 2020 scenes of Thaali bajao during the Covid pandemic which has also been “meticulously” shot with precision to highlight those deemed regressive – Brahmins who are shown performing rituals with traditional symbols like the naamam. 

The stale narrative in the teaser takes a snarky jab at those who continue to resist “progressive” ideals, contrasting them with the image of modern youth celebrating freedom and rationality, drinking away to glory, dancing in clubs with a triumphant “Cheers!” The deep-seated hypocrisy within the Dravidian male psyche has also been seen harboring a peculiar fetish for Brahmin women. This obsession only stems from an inability to appreciate their own caste people and family members/friends/partners, redirecting their lust toward the very group they claim to oppose.

Time and again the Tamil society has enabled this poison to take root and flourish, allowing the pervasive dehumanization and objectification of Brahmin women.

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

The post Dravidianist Fetish For Brahmin Women Laid Bare In “Bad Girl” Produced By Dravidianist Director Vetrimaaran And Directed By Varsha Bharath, Peddles Negative Stereotypes About Brahmins appeared first on The Commune.

A hunger strike led by Hindu Makkal Katchi leader Arjun Sampath was held in Palakkanatham, Madurai, on Saturday, 4 January 2025, in which protesters demanded a law protecting the rights of Brahmins. Senior BJP leader H Raja participated and launched a scathing attack on the Dravidian movement, its leaders, and their policies.

Addressing the gathering, senior BJP leader H Raja launched a scathing attack on the Dravidian movement, accusing it of fostering division and conflict in Tamil society. “The Dravidian movement is a foreign puppet. It created division in the country and caused caste conflict. Today, Udhayanidhi Stalin says, ‘I am proud to be a Christian.’ He says this to ensure that the votes of the Christian community do not go to Vijay. If you want to file a case for speaking this truth, then file a case,” Raja said.

Raja alleged that anti-national elements were targeting those who upheld nationalistic ideologies. He stated, “I am not speaking my own words today. I am quoting what Nehru and Periyar said. The governance today is carried out by those who follow Periyar, who once called for the genocide of Brahmins.”

Criticizing the social impact of the Dravidian movement, Raja said incidents of drug addiction and sexual assault were on the rise. “The Dravidian movement is not only anti-national but also anti-Tamil. To understand Periyar, we must look at his statements. He questioned how a Kannada could become the leader of Tamils and declared that Tamils have no knowledge or leadership qualities. According to them, only a Kannada can be a leader,” he alleged.

Raja accused Periyar and his followers of seeking to destroy Brahmins to prevent the emergence of scholars like UV Saminatha Iyer, who republished Tamil Sangam literature. He said, “Did Periyar ever republish Sangam literature? Why do they hate Brahmins? So that Tamil scholarship and cultural preservation are destroyed.”

Referring to the opposition to Hindi by Periyar, Raja claimed it was not out of love for Tamil but to promote English. “There is no greater traitor to the Tamil people than Periyar. Such Tamil haters criticize Brahmins and Tamil culture,” he said.

Raja also addressed controversies surrounding the names of leaders and cultural practices. He alleged that Periyar signed his letters as ‘Ramaswamy Nayakkar’ and criticized the Dravidian movement for considering it shameful to use one’s given name. Raja also recalled an incident involving the late AIADMK leader Jayalalithaa, saying, “When my sister Jayalalithaa called him Karunanidhi, he was offended and she asked how else he should be addressed.”

The BJP leader went on to criticize the Dravidian movement, accusing it of dulling the intellect of the Tamil community. “Do you know how much damage this Dravidian stock has done? The intelligent Tamil community has become dull because of them,” he said.

Raja concluded his speech with a call for action, saying, “We should soon call all communities and hold a meeting against drugs and violence against women.”

The hunger strike highlighted a growing demand for a Brahmin protection law and brought into focus the ideological clashes between proponents of the Dravidian ideology and its critics. Raja concluded his speech with a call for collective action against societal challenges, further intensifying the discourse on Tamil Nadu’s political landscape.

(With inputs from Junior Vikatan)

The post Udhayanidhi Says He Is Proud To Be Christian To Prevent Votes From Going To Vijay: BJP Leader H Raja Slams DMK Scion Udhayanidhi Stalin & Dravidian Movement At Brahmin Rights Protest In Madurai appeared first on The Commune.

Actress Kasthuri Shankar has blasted the ruling DMK government in Tamil Nadu for promoting a divisive ideology that incites hate and abuse against Hindus, particularly targeting the Brahmin community through name-calling and ridicule. Her fierce speech took place during a recent protest rally organized by Indu Makkal Katchi (IMK) Chief Arjun Sampath. The rally called for the creation of legislation to safeguard the Brahmin community, akin to the Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act that exists for Scheduled Caste communities. This event on 3 November 2024, at Rajarathinam Stadium in Egmore, Chennai, was a response to the rising hate speech and hostility directed at Brahmins in the state by Dravidianist and other anti-Hindu elements.

Kasthuri began her speech by thanking IMK Chief Arjun Sampath for organizing the protest to protect and support the Brahmin community, as well as expressing gratitude to the members of other communities who attended to show their solidarity. She then shared her experiences in her profession, revealing that despite being a well-known actress and a skilled orator, she has been repeatedly excluded from TV debates and discussions. She alleged that television networks deny her participation due to pressure from above, highlighting the systemic obstacles she faces.

Kasthuri then criticized the Dravidianist agenda in films, pointing out how they fail to overcome existing lobbies. She referenced a scene from the movie “Pariyerum Perumal”, acknowledging it as a good film but criticizing a particular moment where a man sits with his shirt open in a bar, in order to specifically show that he is a Brahmin by focusing on the sacred thread (janeu). She argued that this was a deliberate attempt to ridicule Brahmins, as she noted there were no similar depictions of religious symbols from other communities, such as a man wearing a Taqiyah (Muslim skullcap) or a Christian depicted with a cross. She emphasized that this scene served no relevance to the film’s narrative and was merely intended to mock the Brahmin community.

Actress Kasthuri said, “There is a bar scene in “Pariyerum Perumal” where the hero, a young man from the Scheduled Caste, goes to drink in an attempt to resolve his depression for once. In that scene, everyone is drinking, but only one person is shown without a shirt. Why is that? It’s to highlight the sacred thread (janeu). As I watched, I looked around the bar, if anyone else was depicted wearing a skullcap, a cross, or any other community symbols. But there was no one. Not even someone with a big moustache. Yet, they chose to establish him shirtless in that particular scene because they could not speak of brahmin hate anywhere.”

She also criticized the hypocrisy of these films, citing another example to take a jab at the lobbyists. She referenced “Soorarai Pottru“, where the hero, who in real life is from the Brahmin community, is portrayed under the name Maaran, suggesting a different community. In contrast, the villain is depicted as coming from the Brahmin community, highlighting the skewed representation and agendas at play in these narratives.

Kasthuri then asserted that the genocide in Kashmir is not a standalone incident; she argued that the ongoing hate against the Brahmin community in Tamil Nadu for the past 60 years is also a form of genocide. She emphasized that this sustained hostility is eroding their sense of belonging and identity, constituting a gradual destruction of their community.

Kasthuri then attacked the Dravidianists agenda by stating, “Denial of existence of God (Atheism) is the fundamental principle for Dravidianists, for that they have taken stand animosity toward Brahmins. It is because, if they say there is no god who will believe when there is someone in the temple devoutly engaged in bhakti follows all rules and regulation, thus the Hindu community will be united right. It’s akin to the story of the four bulls: when four of them stand together, no one can harm the Hindu community.”

She continued by highlighting how Dravidianists plot against one another, pitting individuals against each other while oppressing others. They create false narratives that even some Iyers and Iyengars have bought into, thinking they will gain inclusivity. However, she warned that they are merely being used as pawns in a scheme to ridicule their community.

Then blasting the entire Dravidian ecosystem by stating, “They are ridiculing our community by name-calling, using variety of terms like Paapan, Noolibaan, and Ibrahim brother had said and went that they even refer them as Brahmin Adi Varudi and Sombu etc. At least for them, Adivarudi and Sombu, then think of my situation. Because I am an actress and a woman, they will directly go to only one thing and stop there. There is a certain word for it, but the words they use are not a worse cuss word than ‘Dravidiyas’. Even if they refer to me with that word, I will happily say that my work is better and I am putting in my own hard work, not like you who is divisive c*ck and unjust p*mp.” 

She also mocked Suba Veerapandian, General Secretary of Dravida Iyyakka Tamilar Peravai, for ridiculing Brahmins by questioning how many have died for a cause. In response, she suggested he watch today’s situation, highlighting the Pulwama incident and a recent movie portraying a Brahmin soldier who died for the nation. She pointed out that it would be equally valid to ask how many from your community have not profited from making movies about these tragedies

Kasthuri then asked, “Who is Aryan Vandheri (immigrants/settlers)? Tamils have been engaged in spiritual practices and worshiping deities in temples since the era of Sangam literature. Vanniyars and Devas are alongside Kshatriyas, while Chettiyars, Mudaliyars, and Velalars are recognized as Vaishyas. Similarly, Shivacharyas, Iyers, Iyengars, Saivapillais, and Pandarams who worked in temples are classified as Brahmins.”

Then she asked, “Who are you to claim that there is no Tamil identity? Three hundred years ago, those who came to serve the king and those who attended to the royal household spoke Telugu. Now, when you assert that Tamils are your people, who are you to say that Tamils are not Brahmins? That’s why no movement can be called Tamilar Munnetra Kazhagam; instead, they create the term ‘Dravidam.'”

She also emphasized that this is not about unity for Brahmins, but a unity for all Hindus.

Furthermore, she noted that while E.V. Ramasamy was playing Goli and peeling onions, many Brahmins were actively engaged in social reforms and the freedom struggle. She named several individuals, including Subramaniya Siva, Vanginathan, Bharathiyar, and Srinivasa Iyengar, as well as women like Colonel Lakshmi and Sister Subalakshmi.

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

The post ‘Not Just Kashmir, TN’s 60-Year Brahmin Hate Is Genocide Too’, Actress Kasthuri Shankar Calls Out Hate Against Brahmins By Dravidianists appeared first on The Commune.