Chennai: Tamil Nadu minister and DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin on Monday defended his stance on 'Sanatana Dharma' after the Madras High Court criticized the police for failing to take action against him and PK Sekar Babu over their comments.
The High Court noted that no individual has the right to promote divisive ideas or the abolition of any ideology.
Udhayanidhi Stalin, who had earlier compared 'Sanatana Dharma' to "dengue" and "malaria", said that he hadn't said anything wrong, adding that he was ready to face legal consequences regarding his statement. He said, "I haven’t said anything wrong. What I said was right and I’ll face it legally.. I will not change my statement. I have spoken my ideology. I’ve not spoken more than what Ambedkar, Periyar or Thirumavalavan had said. I can be an MLA, a Minister or a Youth Wing Secretary and tomorrow I maybe not. But being a human is more important."
The DMK leader further said, "We’ve been speaking about Sanatana for several years while NEET is a six-year-old issue. It (Sanatana) is a several hundred years old issue, we shall oppose it forever."
In September, Udhayanidhi Stalin called for the eradication of 'Sanatana Dharma', as he said, it was "against social justice and equality".
"Few things cannot be opposed, that should be abolished only. We can't oppose dengue, mosquitoes, malaria or coronavirus. We have to eradicate this. That's how we have to eradicate Sanatana," he had said.
"Rather than opposing Sanatana, it should be eradicated. The name Sanatana is from Sanskrit. It is against social justice and equality," Stalin said, who is a minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Development in the ruling DMK government.
His remarks drew sharp criticism from the ruling BJP, with the party's IT cell head Amit Malviya saying that Stalin's statement was "eerily similar" to Hitler's views about Jews.
Nepal Hit by Third Earthquake in Four Days, Tremors Felt in Delhi-NCR
ED Detains Punjab AAP MLA Jaswant Singh Gajjan Majra in Bank Fraud Case
TN Minister Ponmudy and Wife Face Legal Challenge in Disproportionate Assets Case