CHENNAI: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin and his son, Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin, have intensified their criticism of the BJP, RSS, and Governor RN Ravi, while rekindling the Aryan-Dravidian ideology in public discourse. This escalation follows a recent controversy involving the omission of certain words from the Tamil Thai Vazhthu (State Tamil Song) during an event attended by the Governor. Although the incident initially sparked criticism from the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party, a similar error by state government employees during a subsequent function attended by Udhayanidhi Stalin has since attracted further scrutiny.
The original incident took place on October 18 at Doordarshan Kendra in Chennai, where Governor Ravi attended an event where the Tamil Thai Vazhthu was reportedly recited incorrectly, omitting words associated with Dravidian identity. CM Stalin, via social media, accused the Governor of “Dravidian allergy” and deliberate disrespect towards Tamil Nadu’s cultural symbols. “Is he Governor or Aryan?” Stalin tweeted, alleging that Governor Ravi’s omission of “Dravidian” in the anthem was intentional and unlawful, criticizing the Governor for disrespecting Tamil Nadu and advocating for Hindi imposition.
Stalin further condemned the Governor’s actions, suggesting they were part of a broader agenda to “insult the unity of India” and the state’s diverse heritage. “The Union Government should immediately recall the Governor, who is deliberately insulting Tamil Nadu and the sentiments of its people,” he wrote, underscoring DMK’s stance on federal autonomy and cultural integrity.
Reversal of Criticism Amid New Anthem Controversy
However, the controversy took a turn on October 25 when Deputy CM Udhayanidhi Stalin attended a function at the Secretariat, where state government women employees also recited the Tamil Thai Vazhthu with omissions and errors. Despite the similar nature of the error, Udhayanidhi dismissed it as a “technical fault,” attributing the mistakes to a malfunctioning microphone, without holding any individuals accountable. Unlike the incident involving the Governor, where both DMK supporters and pro-DMK social media voices heavily criticized the error, the recent incident received a more subdued reaction from the party’s supporters and affiliated media.
Critics have pointed out the apparent discrepancy in responses to the two incidents, questioning if the same standard of accountability should apply to the Deputy CM. Meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu government has yet to provide an official explanation or take action against the employees involved in the recent recitation errors. Doordarshan, however, issued an immediate apology following the initial incident on October 18, which critics argue contrasts with the state’s lack of response to the recent missteps during the Secretariat event.
Renewal of Aryan-Dravidian Ideology Amid Political Developments
Seizing the moment, both Stalin and Udhayanidhi have redirected their focus onto the Aryan-Dravidian divide, a historically significant but often divisive topic in Tamil Nadu’s politics. At an event organized by the Dravidian Ideology Teachers Association (DITA) in Chennai on October 26, Udhayanidhi alleged that the BJP and RSS were pushing a “saffronization” agenda through educational institutions in the state, accusing Governor Ravi of supporting these efforts by fostering the influence of “Sanghis” in higher education.
Udhayanidhi criticized recent educational policies such as NEET and CUET, claiming they act as barriers to Tamil Nadu’s students entering higher education, and further suggested that schemes like the Vishwakarma Yojana are aimed at restricting students to traditional family vocations rather than educational advancement. “Instead of contributing to education, they are creating ‘Sanghis’ in our institutions,” he stated, stressing that the Dravidian parties are committed to expanding educational access through various state initiatives.
The Deputy CM also called for DITA’s role in countering the alleged “saffronization” of education. “Dravidian parties value education and work to empower students, unlike those who impose restrictive policies to curb their growth,” he added, referencing the DMK’s focus on education policies aimed at fostering inclusivity and upward mobility.
Political Context and Strategy
The Stalins’ increased rhetoric on the Aryan-Dravidian theory is seen by some analysts as an attempt to shift public focus away from recent administrative controversies, including actor Joseph Vijay’s anticipated launch of a political party, which has drawn significant public interest. By foregrounding the Aryan-Dravidian discourse, the DMK is reviving its ideological legacy and drawing contrasts between its Dravidian identity and the nationalistic stance of the BJP and RSS.
At the recent launch of a book by Minister K Ponmudi on the Dravidian movement, CM Stalin’s speech underscored his commitment to the Dravidian model of governance while accusing the Governor of displaying an aversion to Tamil Nadu’s cultural identity.
Referring to the Governor’s reluctance to engage with Dravidian terms, Stalin commented, “If we invite him to deliver a speech in the assembly, he would not speak if the text includes words like ‘Dravida Model.’ If we say Hindi Month should not be celebrated, he might sing the Tamil Thai Vazhthu but omit the word ‘Dravida.’” Stalin questioned the Governor’s aversion to the term, saying, “Will it dirty your tongue if you sing ‘Dravida Naal Thiru Naadu’? If it causes burns on somebody’s mouth, chest, stomach, and brain to sing this, we will keep singing.”
Stalin also emphasised that “Dravidam” had evolved from a cultural identifier to a revolutionary term opposing perceived Aryan dominance, stating, “Dravidam is not merely the antonym of Aryan. It is a word that will harm Aryan dominance.” The CM reiterated the DMK’s Dravidian model as an alternative to the “Manu Neethi” system, emphasising that it promotes equality, social justice, and opportunity for all. He further added that the Dravidian movement had positioned Tamil Nadu ahead of other states in socio-economic metrics, claiming that the DMK had championed the causes of the oppressed, which he alleged still provoked hostility from opponents.
Udhayanidhi Stalin’s Remarks and BJP’s Response
Speaking at the same function, Deputy CM Udhayanidhi Stalin reinforced his father’s sentiments, pledging to defend the Dravidian identity. “Some want to destroy the Dravidian movement and erase the term ‘Dravida’ from Tamil Nadu. But as long as we have the black and red flag, as long as the last of Kalaignar’s brethren lives, and as long as we march under our leader, the dreams of fascist and Sanghi forces will never come true in Tamil Nadu,” he stated.
Following these statements, Tamil Nadu BJP State Secretary Aswathaman submitted a petition to Governor R.N. Ravi, seeking permission to file a lawsuit against CM Stalin and Udhayanidhi Stalin for making “derogatory and racist” remarks about the Governor. The petition alleges that the Deputy CM has been “reproaching the constitutional post” held by the Governor and accuses him of making disrespectful statements, including calling the Governor “a mere postman” and “RSS Ravi” in a widely circulated video from last year. The video also includes Udhayanidhi questioning the Governor’s authority and suggesting that his job is limited to communicating Tamil Nadu’s concerns to the central government.
Aswathaman stated in the petition, “The video is being widely shared by Dravidian ideologists, wherein Udhayanidhi Stalin’s statements are disrespectful towards the Governor, calling him merely a postman and challenging his authority as a constitutional representative.”
Hindu Munnani’s Reaction and Call for Clarity on ‘Dravidian Nadu’
Amidst the ongoing dispute, the Hindu Munnani, a right-wing organization, issued a statement challenging the Dravidian rhetoric and questioning the legitimacy of the concept of ‘Dravida Nadu.’ The organization asked the DMK leaders, “Where is Dravida Nadu, and why do you claim a non-existent entity? Who are the Dravidians, and what is their language and way of worship?” This statement comes as part of the broader critique of the DMK’s usage of Dravidian ideology, with the Hindu Munnani questioning its relevance and authenticity.
