A legal complaint has been filed against Amit Malviya, the head of the IT department in the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP). The complaint is related to a tweet he posted about Udhayanidhi Stalin, a leader in the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and a Minister in Tamil Nadu.
In his tweet on the social platform formerly known as Twitter, Malviya claimed that Udhayanidhi’s recent comments about ‘Sanatana Dharma’ were calling for the “elimination” of 80 percent of the people who follow it.
Malviya wrote, “He (Udhayanidhi) believes that we should not just oppose Sanatana Dharma but completely get rid of it. In simple terms, he is suggesting that we should eliminate 80% of the population in Bharat who practice Sanatan Dharma.” This tweet was posted on September 2nd.
The Trichy Police in Tamil Nadu filed a First Information Report (FIR) following a complaint by KAV Dhinakaran, a DMK representative from Trichy South district. The charges against Malviya include sections 153, 153 (A), 504, and 505 (1) (b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The complaint accuses Malviya of intentionally distorting Udhayanidhi Stalin’s speech to incite violence and hatred between two groups and disrupt communal harmony, despite Udhayanidhi having clarified his comments on Sanathana Dharma.
Udhayanidhi Stalin’s recent remarks on ‘Sanatana Dharma’ stirred controversy and drew criticism from various quarters, including Hindutva groups and political parties, with the BJP being notable among them.
During his speech at the Sanatana Abolition Conference, Udhayanidhi expressed the view that Sanatana Dharma should not just be resisted but completely “eliminated.” He stated, “Some things cannot be simply opposed; they must be entirely eradicated. We don’t resist diseases like dengue, mosquitoes, malaria, or corona; we eliminate them. Similarly, we should eliminate Sanatana.”
Following Malviya’s tweet, Udhayanidhi clarified that he did not call for violence against Sanatana Dharma followers. However, he reiterated his stance and expressed his readiness to face any legal challenges. He emphasized that he was speaking on behalf of marginalized communities who, in his opinion, were suffering due to ‘Sanatana Dharma.’
