Tamil Nadu BJP President Annamalai presents evidence debunking DMK Govt’s denial on ban on special pujas and Annadan

Tamil Nadu BJP Chief Annamalai has refuted the claims made by the DMK government, providing concrete evidence that contradicts their denial of issuing orders to prohibit special poojas, bhajans, and annadanam (food distribution) on a particular day. The revelation has sparked controversy, leading to a two-page statement from the DMK government attempting to salvage its image.

In a surprising turn of events, the people of Tamil Nadu woke up on Sunday with enthusiasm for the day’s planned religious events, only to be disappointed by authorities who declared that their programs would not be allowed. Various reasons were cited, ranging from concerns about law and order to the presence of minority religious sites, such as churches and mosques. Devotees were informed that they lacked the required 15-day prior permission, especially for events in Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR and CE) run temples, which are government-owned. Private temples and locations also faced threats, including potential arrests.

Outraged devotees took to social media platforms to express their strong condemnations, sharing letters they received from police and other authorities. As the day progressed, a growing number of voices questioned the government’s right to interfere in religious practices like poojas and anna dhan.

In response to mounting criticism, the DMK government issued a two-page explanatory statement. The statement clarified that there was no ban on the conduct of special poojas and anna dhan in temples on the specified date, vehemently warning of severe legal action against a Tamil daily for allegedly spreading false information. Annamalai condemned the DMK for its actions, further intensifying the ongoing controversy and raising questions about the government’s handling of religious practices in the state.

In another tweet later in the day, he said “the DMK government in TN has taken their Anti-Sanathana Dharma stand to an extreme level by imposing a blanket ban on conducting special pooja and Annadhana in Temples during Pran Prathikshtha in Ayodhya.  He attaches some sample communications..”

The conflict escalated on social media, with HR and CE Minister Sekar Babu and Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman engaging in a heated exchange.

Minister Sekar Babu, through his official handle, dismissed the claims of hindering celebrations as mere rumours aimed at diverting attention from the DMK youth wing conference in Salem. He specifically targeted Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, alleging that she was spreading untruthful news. Sitharaman responded strongly, asserting that the Tamil Nadu government had banned the live telecast of Ayodhya Ram Mandir programmes on January 22. She accused the government of restricting religious practices in over 200 temples dedicated to Shri Ram, both privately and under HR&CE management.

The BJP’s Tamil Nadu media wing functionary, Karthick Gopinath, posted communications denying permission for poojas and events in various locations, challenging Minister Sekar Babu’s accusations. Gopinath emphasised that the BJP was not engaged in cheap tactics and questioned the government’s motives in hindering the celebration of such a historic occasion.

Letters denying permission from police in Avadi, Killiyanoor-Villupuram, Alwarthirunagari (Thoothukudi), Kanyakumari, Trichy, and other areas have gone viral on social media. Despite these allegations gaining widespread attention, the DMK government issued a two-page statement, denying any ban on special poojas and anna dhan and warning of legal action against those spreading false information.

The controversy extends beyond social media, with the Sri Maha Periyava Anusha Natshatra Baktha Sabha (SMPANB) facing hurdles in organising bhajans at the Sri Godhandaramar Temple in Rangapuram. The SMPANB wrote to the Executive Officer of the HR&CE Department in Vellore seeking permission, but allegedly received a verbal communication to reconsider the event due to unforeseen circumstances. Subsequently, the SMPANB formally announced the cancellation of the bhajans event.

In a series of incidents raising concerns over religious freedom, authorities in Tamil Nadu have denied permissions for public events related to the consecration of the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple in Ayodhya. These incidents have sparked a clash between the BJP and the DMK-led government.

In Omandur, Murali Reddiyar, the Principal of Sriram High School, received a notice from the Kiliyanur Police Station regarding a planned program at the school for the Ram Janmabhoomi Pran Pratishta ceremony. The notice accused Reddiyar of organizing an event inviting 2000 members of the public without obtaining necessary permissions from the District Collector or a relevant court. The police warned that if the event proceeds in violation of the notice and any untoward incident occurs, Reddiyar would be held responsible.

In Kanyakumari, a BJP functionary faced a similar situation when seeking permission to publicize the Ram Janmabhoomi temple consecration through loudspeaker-fitted vehicles on January 20 and 21, 2024. The police denied permission citing a lack of information about the locations and expressed concerns about the region’s significant Muslim and Christian population, fearing potential communal violence. The statement further highlighted ongoing issues between Hindus and Christians in the Mandaikadu region.

In an attempt to substantiate claims that the DMK government was misleading the public, TN BJP Chief Annamalai released an audio recording. The audio features a conversation between a Hindu devotee and the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department Executive Officer of the Poonamalle Perumal Temple. In the recording, the EO acknowledges verbal orders to prohibit celebrations marking the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple consecration ceremony. When questioned about any written communication or government order (GO), the EO admitted to oral instructions. The woman functionary suggested that oral orders might offer protection from action, emphasizing the existence of temples in the area allowing poojas. However, the EO remained firm in his stance, expressing reluctance to antagonize his superiors.

These incidents have intensified the ongoing political skirmish, with the BJP accusing the DMK government of suppressing religious freedoms and interfering in the celebration of a historic occasion. The release of the audio recording adds fuel to the fire, raising questions about the transparency and consistency of the government’s communication regarding permissions for religious events. As the controversies unfold, they bring to the forefront broader debates surrounding the intersection of religious practices, public celebrations, and government oversight in Tamil Nadu.

She asks Is there any order (from the govt of TN) that special puja must not be done during the Pran prathista of Ram temple in Ayodhya? I am a member of the … I am also an organiser for the special puja?,…
The EO says Yes mada, special puja is not allowed madam
Woman: has the govt passed any GO? Has any GO come from the HR and CE dept?
EO. Not a G.O but we have got oral instructions
Woman” but we should not be taking oral instructions , right ji? We would be facing problems if we allowed them puja right? The govt can’t question you , right? Only if a G.O. is passed you will be authorised to stop the pooja. Oral instructions and authorised G.O issued have a difference.
EO. I will face problems if I alone allow the puja and others do not allow it in other temples
Woman. You may face problems in the future as you are against it
EO. It is not happening anywhere throughout TN.
Woman: It is not that it is not happening anywhere ji. It will be happening in all places. What is the reason for banning this puja? It is a matter related to the temple (Ayodhya) we will place LED screens in many places and relay them live. This is usual thing which happens in many temples. When we allow private members inside temples during weddings. Lord Rama and Perumal are related. We could understand if vaishanavaite poojas are held in a Shiva temple. This is a vaishnavite temple’
EO are they doing it any other temple?
Woman: yes. They doing it in a Hanuman temple here. We are planning at many temples.
EO : where?
Woman the Hanuman temple in Poonamallee
EO : how will they do it ? even that temple is under HR and CE control.
Woman. No ji it is done in all temples. If you say the puja should not be done, does the advisory of HR and CE mention such a rule? Or is there any judiciary law?
EO. No. They instructed us not to allow it. I conveyed it to you. That’s it.
Woman: more than 80 percent are Hindus. Even simple pujas such as the Garuda Vahan procession we do a lot of poojas, right? Similarly this ceremony is for Lord Rama born in India. In Ayodhya things are going smoothly without any issues. Many Muslims have contributed even selling their properties. This is happening with much acceptance of Muslims. How could you say you are banning special pujas in TN. If you give us the G.O. you would not have any problems.
EO: I have no idea. For now the special puja is not permitted. I am letting you know my side of story. That’s it.
Woman: But that is only an oral instruction. I will accept if a G.O has been passed. With the G.O. we could speak further, right?
EO you asked for a wedding. We arranged for it in the temple premises
Woman. That is different ji. We have announced about the puja to the public in the last 10 to 15 days. We have told them it will happen in the Perumal temple.
EO : but no one asked permission from us ?
Woman. Oh, you mean we did not seek permission for this puja?
EO. Yes you never sought
Woman. So you say will not grant permission now because we did not get prior approval for the pooja? We are ready to seek permission now
EO: but at the neck of the moment, i do not have the power to grant permission. I am a government servant. How can I misuse my power.
Woman. So you have the power to ban the special puja?
EO. Even if we arrange for weedings ,,we get all the certificates and get permission.
Woman: So you don’t have the G.O. issued that is confirmed right?
EO. It is only an oral instruction, You inquire how other temples are doing.
Woman: This is not some other temple. this is a Hindu temple . we are not going to do something different. We will be live-streaming the consecration on the LED screen. We will be doing bhajans which is nothing new
EO. I can onlhy say this will lead me into problems
Woman. Will they take action if you allow this puja? This is not something wrong right? If you allow for something else, it is wrong will you be in trouble if you allow something related to a temple insides this temple? will they remove citing such a reason?
EO. If it is done in all the temples, it is fine . if it is done in this temple alone, will it not be a problem for me? That is my question
Woman. Will the higher authorities take action against you, ,citing this reason? It is happening in all temples. It is happening in Vinayagar temple. we have planned for 6 to 7 temples. It is a temple-related puja done inside a temple. and it is just a bhajan. It has been planned in 6 to 7 temples, each organiser in each temple. we planned for a special abhisheka in the morning and then do the LED screening.
EO : for now it is not allowed. Only that much I can say.
The conversation ended with it.

In a scathing attack against the DMK government, Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman accused the Tamil Nadu administration of obstructing public celebrations for the upcoming Pran Prathishta of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. Sitharaman’s remarks came during a press interaction in Madhuranthakam, Chenglepet district, where she vehemently criticised the alleged interference by the state government.

Sitharaman asserted that the arrangements for the Ayodhya celebration were made by the people themselves, emphasizing that it was a collective effort and not orchestrated by any political party or organization. However, upon landing in Tamil Nadu, she claimed to have received numerous complaints from the public, alleging that the government was obstructing their planned events and refusing permission even when formally requested.

The Union Finance Minister detailed instances where the police reportedly threatened individuals involved in organising events related to the Ram Mandir Pran Prathishta. She highlighted a specific incident in Kanchipuram, where a sub-inspector allegedly threatened organisers to dismantle the LED setup intended for live streaming the ceremony. Sitharaman expressed her disbelief at the situation, questioning how a Union minister’s statement could be dismissed as a rumour.

Sitharaman challenged HR and CE Minister Sekar Babu’s assertion that no orders were issued preventing people from participating in the celebrations. She called the government’s stance “laughable” and “ridiculous” and challenged them to openly declare that there were no orders restricting the viewing of the Prime Minister or hindering religious activities like bhajans or recitations of the Ramayan in temples.

Expressing her dissatisfaction with the government’s control over Hindu temples, Sitharaman accused them of taking money from Hindu devotees while curbing their religious practices. She challenged the government to allow public celebrations and permit activities like bhajans in temples if they genuinely had not issued any restrictive orders.

In a strategic move, Sitharaman linked the recent controversies surrounding religious freedoms to the DMK’s alleged anti-Hindu stance. She compared the situation to the rhetoric that played a role in the recent assembly elections, where discussions about the destruction of Sanatana Dharma allegedly harmed the DMK’s image. Sitharaman challenged the DMK to clarify their stance during the upcoming poll campaign.

The Finance Minister suggested that the DMK government might have unknowingly fallen into a trap, predicting that the controversies would backfire and expose their purported anti-Hindu stance. Sitharaman’s strong words set the stage for a heated exchange between the BJP and the DMK, raising questions about the government’s role in religious celebrations and its impact on public sentiment in Tamil Nadu. As the political battle unfolds, the controversies surrounding Ayodhya celebrations add another layer to the ongoing narrative of religious freedom and political dynamics in the state.

The clash between the BJP and the DMK government underscores the deepening divide over the celebration of the Ayodhya Ram Mandir Pranaprathishta. While the BJP accuses the government of anti-Hindu actions and suppressing religious freedom, the DMK government maintains its stance that no ban has been imposed on religious activities, dismissing the allegations as misinformation. As the controversy rages on, it remains to be seen how the government and the BJP will navigate the intricacies of religious freedoms and public celebrations in Tamil Nadu.