An FIR has been filed against Pawan Kalyan by a Madras HC lawyer over his veiled reference to Udhayanidhi Stalin's remarks on Sanatana dharma.
Published Oct 04, 2024 | 10:13 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 04, 2024 | 11:34 PM
Andhra and Tamil Nadu Dy CMsPawan Kalyan and Udhayanidhi Stalin
Only recently did Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan shift his focus from the Tirupati laddu row, only to pick up the importance of ‘Sanatana dharma’. Barely two days later, he entered into a verbal fight with his Tamil Nadu counterpart Udhayanidhi Stalin, cautioning him not to make statements against Sanatana dharma.
Responding to Pawan Kalyan’s inflammatory statements, S Vanchinathan, a lawyer practising at the Madurai bench of Madras High Court, on Friday, 4 October, lodged a formal complaint with the district’s Commissioner of Police.
During his address at the Varahi Sabha in Tirupati, which followed his 11-day Prayaschitta Deeksha (penance) at the Tirumala Tirupati temple, Kalyan had, on 3 October, expressed his strong commitment to Sanatana dharma. Additionally, while emphasising the necessity for legislation to protect it, he made veiled reference to Udhayanidhi Stalin, who had earlier spoken about wiping out Sanatana dharma.
In September last year, then Sports Minister and now Dy CM Udhayanidhi Stalin was addressing a meeting when he equated Sanatana Dharma to the coronavirus, malaria, dengue, and mosquitoes, calling for its eradication. This caused an uproar, with the BJP leading the way.
Following his remarks, an FIR was filed against him for allegedly ‘inciting religious sentiment,’ and he was eventually granted bail in the case by a Bengaluru court. Karnataka minister Priyank Kharge was also booked for backing Udhayanidhi’s remark.
Between when he was booked for his comment and when he received bail, the Supreme Court in March 2024, rebuked Udhayanidhi Stalin over his remark and asked why he had moved the top court with his plea after abusing his right to freedom of speech and expression.
“You abuse your right under Article 19(1)(a) (of the Constitution). You abuse your right under Article 25. Now, you are exercising your right under Article 32 (to file a plea in the Supreme Court)? Do you not know the consequences of what you said? You are not a layman, you are a minister. You should know the consequences,” the bench said, adjourning the matter to 15 March.
Addressing a meeting in Tirupati on Thursday, 3 October, Pawan Kalyan emphasised the necessity for legislation to protect Sanatana dharma across the country, proposing the establishment of a board with annual budget allocations to ensure the quality of ingredients used in temple prasadam (offerings).
Kalyan’s remarks, made in Tamil to make sure Tamil speaking audience understand it, is considered a veiled reference to the DMK leader even though he did not mention any names and drew criticism for its potential to incite communal discord.
He questioned the fairness of targeting Hinduism while suggesting that similar critiques of Christianity or Islam would provoke widespread backlash. “When I began talking about Sanatana dharma, pseudo secularists made fun of me. A disturbing trend on the rise is that we are expected to keep quiet if anyone criticises our dharma. But would those who practise other religions (Christianity or Islam) keep quiet if we utter one word against their religion?” he asked.
Calling on people to teach a lesson to those who harm Sanatana dharma, he made a veiled reference to the alleged campaign against him. Addressing the allegation that his Sanatana dharma deeksha had a hidden agenda to further his political interests, Pawan Kalyan asked what need he had to dabble in politics behind the facade of Sanatana dharma now.
“I had never thought a day would come in my life where I had to speak about the need to protect Sanatana dharma,” he added.
In response to Kalyan’s inflammatory remarks, Advocate S Vanchinathan asserted in his complaint that the Andhra Dy CM’s statements constitute hate speech and could incite communal violence between the two states. Vanchinathan emphasised that such remarks violate the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, particularly sections 196(1)(a)(b), 197(1)(d), and 352 which deal with promoting enmity between different religious communities and disrupting public order.
Advocate Vanchinathan, known for his fight against social injustice over the last two decades, urged the police to take immediate action citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lalita Kumari vs. State of Bihar.
The ruling mandated that law enforcement must register a case upon disclosure of a cognizable offense. Vanchinathan’s complaint underscores the responsibility of public figures to foster communal harmony and respect the Constitution’s goal of building an equitable society.
In the wake of the controversy surrounding Pawan Kalyan’s speech, social media has erupted with mockery and trolling from people belonging to both Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. Many users from Tamil Nadu have taken to platforms like X to ridicule Pawan for his perceived lack of education and understanding of the complex issues at hand, suggesting that his statements reflect ignorance rather than insight.
On the other hand, some netizens from Andhra Pradesh have responded by mocking Udhayanidhi for not facing any consequences for his controversial remarks, questioning why he remains unpunished despite the backlash.
These people didn’t dare to file a case on Jr. Stalin when he called to eradicate #SanatanaDharma but has the audacity to file case against @PawanKalyan just because he stood by & spoke in support of our Dharma.
Is this what Jr Stalin means by “Let’s wait and see”?
Let’s see… pic.twitter.com/7mDac7tS2K
— Tathvam-asi (@ssaratht) October 4, 2024
Speaking to South First about the issue, political analyst Raveendran Duraiswamy said that the perception and understanding of Sanatana dharma differ between the two states.
“They are true to their vote bank,” Duraiswamy said, explaining that Pawan Kalyan made his remarks purely to suit his interests, possibly envisioning himself securing a seat in the future as he aims to become the face of BJP one day.
Pointing out to the different political ideologies between both states, the political analyst said that Pawan’s focus is on maintaining his image and gaining votes based on Hinduism.
In contrast, Tamil Nadu’s political landscape has always revolved around Dravidian ideology and the power dynamics between privileged and underprivileged castes.
(Edited by Neena)
