Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) Chief Thol. Thirumavalavan is facing criticism for his inconsistent stance on the entry of common individuals into the sanctum of temples, revealing what many are calling double standards. Thirumavalavan’s remarks during the Kalaignar 100 function organized by the DMK highlighted his strong opposition to the exclusion of individuals, regardless of their status, from entering the garba griha (sanctum sanctorum) of temples.
Known for his anti-Hindu stance, Thirumavalavan expressed the pain felt by Periyar, emphasising that even kings or Maha Rajas (Chakravarthi) were not allowed to enter the temple’s garba griha. He denounced the societal curse that prohibits entry into the sanctum sanctorum, contrasting it with the freedom to enter fortresses, ascend temple gopurams, or conquer Mount Everest.
However, his position took a dramatic turn after the Pran Prathishta ceremony of the Ayodhya Ram Mandir. Thirumavalavan questioned whether Prime Minister Modi qualifies as the head of a Hindu religious organisation, signalling a contradictory stance to his earlier comments on temple entry.
Thirumavalavan questioned Modi’s qualification as the head of a Hindu religious organisation and suggested that a Shankaracharya or the head of a religious institution should have performed the consecration.
In a speech at the Vellum Sananayagam event organized by VCK, Thirumavalavan accused Modi of engaging in politics rather than demonstrating genuine devotion to God, sparking a new debate on the intersection of religion and politics.
மாட்டிக்கிணாறு ஒர்த்தரு இவர காப்பாத்தனும் கர்த்தரு 🤣
— Indhavaainko (இந்தாவாய்ங்கோ) 👊 (@indhavaainko) January 29, 2024
Critics argue that while Thirumavalavan speaks out against restrictions on temple entry, his stance shifts when it comes to political adversaries like Modi. They accuse him of opportunism, citing instances where he engaged in rituals contrary to his professed beliefs, such as employing a Brahmin priest for his Christian sister’s funeral and participating in religious practices across different faiths.
Minister KKSSR Ramachandran, a part of the DMK cabinet, is facing criticism over alleged remarks made during the 2019 State Assembly election campaign. In a campaign meeting in Rajapalayam, Ramachandran purportedly stated that they would deceive voters by donning sacred ashes on their foreheads to gain their trust and votes.
Minister KKSSR Ramachandran, now part of the DMK cabinet, is under fire for alleged comments made during the 2019 state Assembly election campaign. He reportedly stated that they would deceive Hindu voters by donning sacred ashes on their foreheads to gain their trust and votes, while later appearing publicly with sacred ash on his face.
Minister Udhaya Nidhi Stalin, known for his stance against Sanatana Dharma and his atheist beliefs, has also faced criticism. He was seen kneeling down before a pastor, seeking blessings and openly admitted to being a Christian, similar to his wife’s faith.
NTK Chief Seeman mocked Prime Minister Modi in a video, sarcastically suggesting that chanting “Jai Sri Ram” would solve all problems, including hunger and poverty. The comments were seen as a dig at the inauguration of the Ram Mandir.
DMK’s parent organisation, the Dravidar Kazhagam, organised a meeting in support of the Sethusamudram project, involving the removal of Ramar Paalam (Ram Setu). The Sriperumbudhur Lok Sabha member admitted to demolishing temples for political gain.
The Sriperumbudhur Lok Sabha member’s admission of demolishing three temples, including a 100-year-old Saraswati, Lakshmi, and Parvathi temple on GST Road, has added fuel to the fire. The revelation that the demolition was a calculated move to secure votes has sparked outrage among the public, questioning the ethics of using religious structures for political gains.
In another dimension, the Dravidian government’s imposition of restrictions and denial of permissions for Hindu festivals, including Vinayagar Chaturthi and pran Pratishta, has drawn criticism. The government’s attempts to regulate religious practices through oral orders and interference with temple events have been challenged in the courts, with conflicting statements emerging from different authorities.
While the Supreme Court was initially informed that no bans were imposed on temple events, subsequent revelations in an affidavit on February 2 contradicted this, stating that only four out of 288 events were granted permission. This inconsistency raises concerns about the transparency of the government’s policies and the treatment of religious practices.
The series of events points to the complex relationship between Dravidian political leaders and Hindu sentiments. Despite the anti-Hindu and anti-sana tana dharma stance of these leaders, the contradictory actions and statements have sparked criticism and may impact the perception of the Dravidian parties among the Hindu electorate. The upcoming elections may see increased scrutiny of these leaders and their handling of religious matters.
Comments