TN Sports and Youth welfare Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin stoked controversy by calling for the eradication of Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism) just like how dengu, malaria, corona and mosquitoes are to be eradicated. “Our first work should be to abolish/eradicate Sanatanam instead of opposing it. So, my appreciations are to you all for giving an apt title to the meeting.” He said this while speaking in a conference titled “Eradicate Sanatana Conference”. He had reiterated that the party (DMK) was formed with the goal of eradicating Sanathana Dharma and will continue to work towards achieving it. It triggered off a nationwide outrage.
"DMK is formed to eradicate Santana Dharma and we will not stop till its done" Udhayanithi Stalin.
This is after his dad the CM of TN has publicly warned people from talking on the issue, it only proves that we truly have a very hopeless and inefficient person as the CM. pic.twitter.com/GZfrFVC5eP— Vishwatma 🇮🇳 ( மோடியின் குடும்பம் ) (@HLKodo) September 20, 2023
In another video he is heard saying “ 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”.
Hindu Munnani functionaries filed a quo-warranto petition at the Madras High Court asking, on what basis were DMK Ministers Udhayanidhi Stalin and PK Sekar Babu and DMK MP A. Raja were continuing in their office after calling for the annihilation of Sanatana Dharma (aka Hinduism). The petition came for hearing before Justice Anita Sumanth.
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. DMK MP P. Wilson representing Udhayanidhi Stalin asked whether calling for the eradication of Sanatana Dharma was against the Constitution. He said that there is no mention of Sanatana Dharma in the Constitution or any other law and went on to argue that Udhayanidhi Stalin spoke in his personal capacity and not as a Minister. ( there is a video in that he can be heard saying “ as sports and youth welfare minister, I am speaking here). While Wilson argued that no FIR has been filed on Udhayanidhi Stalin that is not the case. An FIR has been registered against him at the Civil Lines Police Station in Uttar Pradesh’s Rampur.
U-Turn Udhaynidhi 😂🤣
Even Day: DMK was started to eradicate Sanatana Dharma & we are not bothered, even if we lose the Government
Odd Day: I spoke about eradication of Santana Dharma as an individual & not as Minister pic.twitter.com/gE6MKAPm4Z
— Tinku Venkatesh | ಟಿಂಕು ವೆಂಕಟೇಶ್ (@tweets_tinku) October 16, 2023
BJP Tamil Nadu President K Annamalai said “The firmness of their stand defines the character of a Politician. You can’t expect this from DMK politicians, though. DMK scion Thiru Udhayanidhi Stalin has proved us right yet again. Having attended the Sanatana Eradication conference as a Minister of the DMK govt, today, his affidavit submitted to the court mentions that he participated in the event in a personal capacity & not as a Minister of State government. While the elections are due, DMK buries their ideology & the Drama begins.“
The firmness of their stand defines the character of a Politician. You can't expect this from DMK politicians, though. DMK scion Thiru @Udhaystalin has proved us right yet again.
Having attended the Sanatana Eradication conference as a Minister of the DMK govt, today, his… pic.twitter.com/I7E8TPjwbd
— K.Annamalai (@annamalai_k) October 16, 2023
After hearing the arguments, the judge adjourned the case for 31 October 2023. BJP state serecretary S G Surya said it is a double standard. Udhyanidhi Stalin who thundered to eradicate Sana Tana dharma in public and in court would say it is made in personal capacity. His grandfather M Karunanidhi who Hindus are thieves but denied it in court by saying “ I stole the hearts of Hindus” These dual stances of DMK.
#உதயநிதி – ஆட்சியே போனாலும் சனாதனத்தை ஒழிப்பேன் என பிதற்றுவது, பிறகு நீதிமன்றத்தில் "நான் அமைச்சராக பேசவில்லை!" என பம்முவது.#கருணாநிதி – இந்து என்றால் திருடன் என பிதற்றுவது, பிறகு நீதிமன்றத்தில் "இந்து என்றால் உள்ளம் கவர்ந்த திருடன்" என பம்முவது.
தி.மு.க இரட்டை நிலைபாடுகள்.. pic.twitter.com/W88jXxpdVU
— Dr.SG Suryah (@SuryahSG) October 17, 2023
Karunanidhi made several controversial statements regarding Hindus and Hinduism. 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. A lawyer named R. Premnath filed a case against Karunanidhi in Egmore 14th Magistrate Court.
Jayalalithaa led TN government gave permission to prosecute him. 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. 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. Petitioner filed a petition with the High Court, contending that the case had been withdrawn without notifying the him ( complainant). 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.
In 1987 the Tamil Nadu Assembly created legislative history by adopting a government-sponsored resolution expelling 10 members of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagham (DMK) for burning a copy of the Constitution during the party’s ongoing anti-Hindi agitation. After the Speaker of TN Assembly, Paul Hector Pandian disqualified the seven MLAs in the last session, the DMK decided to stop the public burning of the Constitution. Instead, the party’s workers were typing out the clause on Hindi on a separate piece of paper and burning it. It was to avoid legal consequences. It is in DMK’s DNA. Speaking boldly before the mike and denying it or makes “u turn” or gives different meaning after legal action was initiated.
People 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 by distorting their original speech to give another meaning.
