Makkal Needhi Maiam owner Kamal Haasan’s new outline of Nathuram Godse, Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin, as giveaway India’s initial extremist, who was a Hindu, triggered a debate nationwide. Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Minister K.T. Rajenthra Bhalaji went to a border of observant that a actor-politician’s tongue should be cut off. In a telephonic talk with The Hindu, MNM vice-president R. Mahendran questions a Chief Minister’s disaster to rebuke his Cabinet co-worker and a DMK’s overpower on a issue. Excerpts:
Probably for a initial time in Tamil Nadu, a domestic celebration personality – Kamal Haasan – was not authorised to debate (in Sulur) citing intensity law and sequence issue. Did your personality not realize a effect of his remarks on Godse’s religion?
This is not a matter of (him not realising the) consequence. It was usually a elementary matter of a chronological fact. The same was mentioned on a final day of a debate for a Parliamentary elections i.e. Apr 16 in Chennai nearby Marina. So, refusing accede to campaign, we feel is a inequitable decision. The military news that his revisit would emanate a law and sequence problem was not formed on contribution or belligerent reality.
But, was it suitable for Mr. Haasan to have done such observations when a Model Code of Conduct was in place?
If we were to contend so, even a Prime Minister had set a fashion when he has done some statements in Wardha in Apr on identical terms about Hindu and terrorism. The Prime Minister was perplexing to urge one religion, yet a leader’s summary from that debate was that we have to live like Indians and contingency not concede extremism to back a head. But a BJP and a allies wanted to make it demeanour like a matter opposite a religion.
Mr. Haasan’s matter was seen as minority appeasement…
I will quote from what a personality pronounced in Tirupparankundram. If it was about votes, afterwards a really elementary proof would contend since he would damp a minorities when we are going to win [the votes of] majority. If it is about a elementary arithmetic of opinion share, would he have done such a statement?
Your perspective on Minister K.T. Rajenthra Bhalaji’s acknowledgement to cut off Mr. Haasan’s tongue…
The remarks sounded as if it was done by someone with no shortcoming and someone concerned in a travel fight. If there is a order of law in a State, for certain movement should be taken opposite him. More importantly, a Chief Minister did not even complete a word of reprimand. We have sought Mr. Bhalaji’s abdication and have given a complaint, that we will pursue.
The DMK has remained wordless on a controversy…
It is utterly surprising. Even yet we are domestic opponents, we are grateful to Mr. Vaiko [MDMK leader] and Mr. Thirumavalavan [VCK chief], who shielded us. we suspect a DMK has a possess domestic reasons for remaining silent.
Is Mr. Haasan perplexing to forge a third front by creation such statements?
Absolutely not. His matter was a call for inhabitant formation and harmony. His debate was edited with mala fide vigilant to make people consider he is opposite a religion. We simplified a mount and people accepted us.
In this situation, some parties came out plainly in support of us since they are for what is right, legally or factually. It has zero to do with any domestic front.
Do we consider Mr. Haasan’s statements would have any impact on a electoral outcome?
The BJP and a allies’ infamous attacks would have unprotected them in a eyes of a public.
That way, we think, in a prolonged run, it is going to be disastrous for them and certain for us.