Stalin seeks to put an end to row over DMK MP's remarks on Cong stalwart Kamaraj
made by DMK Rajya Sabha MP Trichy N Siva against late Congress stalwart and former Chief
Minister K Kamaraj, which drew strong condemnation from Congress and other Opposition
parties, DMK President and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin today appealed to all to
avoid needless debates on this and instead strive to fulfill the dreams and vision of the
late leader.
Mr Stain also urged the people not to fall frey to those trying to gain political mileage
out of the issue.
In a post on X, he recalled that social reofmer Periyar hiled Kamaraj as a true Tamilian
and DMK Founder and late CM C N Annadurai did not field a candidate against Kamaraj
in the bypoll to Gudiyatham Assembly seat.
Recalling all the arrangements made by late Chief Minister M Karunanidhi like a son for the
last rites of Mr Kamaraj after he died, Mr Stain said it was Mr Karunanidhi who constructed
a memorial for him and declared his birth anniversary as Education Development Day.
Mr Stalin said he felt humbled when Mr Kamaraj, depsite his ill health, attended his marriage
and showered his blessings. "I felt it as a honour", he added.
Ponting out that Kamaraj had dedcated his life to social justice, communal harmony and secularism,
Mr Stalin, without making any direct reference to the remarksmade by Siva, who is also the Deputy
General Secretary of the DMK, observed that it was unfair to have any unnecesary debates about
such a great leader and called for preserving his respect and dignity.
Mr Siva's remarks has caused some heartburn among the Congress functionaries and wokers
and resulted in unease in the Congress-DMK ties.
Some of the congress functionaries also called for action against Siva and Lok Sabha MP
Ms Jothimani said she would take up the matter with Mr Stalin.
Opposition party leaders, including AIADMK, BJP, PMK, AMMK and other parties also condemned
the remarks of Siva and sought to know whether the Congress was prepared to quit the DMK front
for insulting Kamaraj.
Talking to reporters, former BJP National Governing Council member and former State President
K Annamalai said the DMK had no right to talk about the late leader, as it was responsible for
defeating him in the 1967 elections.
UNI GV 1925
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
3 minutes ago
- Hans India
Rahul Gandhi's Comments On RSS And CPI(M) Create Discord Within Opposition Alliance
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's recent statements drawing parallels between the RSS and the CPI(M) have created friction within the opposition INDIA alliance, with Left party leaders expressing their displeasure during the bloc's virtual meeting on Saturday. Speaking at a memorial event for former Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy in Kottayam on Friday, Gandhi declared that he opposes both organizations ideologically, criticizing them for their alleged disconnect from common people. He stated that while he engages with both groups intellectually and through discourse, his primary grievance lies in their supposed lack of empathy toward citizens. Gandhi emphasized the importance of emotional connection in politics, suggesting that politicians should genuinely understand and respond to public sentiment. He characterized the absence of such empathy as a significant problem plaguing contemporary Indian political discourse. The remarks triggered immediate backlash from Left leaders during the alliance meeting. CPI leader D Raja reportedly raised concerns about such comparisons without directly naming Gandhi, arguing that equating the Left with the RSS could confuse party workers and undermine the coalition's solidarity. Other participants reminded attendees of the INDIA bloc's founding principle of "Save the Country, Remove BJP," cautioning against statements that might foster internal conflicts. CPI(M) General Secretary MA Baby issued a particularly sharp rebuke, calling Gandhi's comments "unfortunate" and indicative of poor understanding regarding both organizations' roles in Kerala and national politics. Baby reminded Gandhi of historical cooperation, specifically noting how Left parties' support was crucial for forming the Congress-led UPA government in 2004 when Congress lacked a parliamentary majority. Baby also pointed to Gandhi's own electoral history in Wayanad, where he faced a CPI candidate rather than RSS or BJP opposition. This reference highlighted what Baby perceived as inconsistencies in Gandhi's political positioning. The CPI(M) leader emphasized that while his party has criticized Congress on economic policies, such critiques have been conducted in a "friendly manner" without drawing false equivalencies between Congress and BJP. The controversy underscores the complex dynamics within the INDIA bloc, where national alliance partners often remain regional rivals. In Kerala, the CPI(M)-led Left Democratic Front and Congress-led United Democratic Front continue competing directly, while BJP attempts to establish stronger presence in the state. Despite these tensions, the virtual meeting addressed several collaborative initiatives for the upcoming Parliament Monsoon Session. Alliance partners agreed to jointly raise issues including the recent Pahalgam attack and concerns about electoral roll revisions in Bihar. The bloc is organizing protest demonstrations at Jantar Mantar on July 23-24 to address voting rights concerns, with planning details being finalized. This incident reflects broader challenges facing opposition unity efforts, where ideological differences and regional political realities sometimes clash with national coalition requirements. The response from Left leaders suggests that maintaining alliance cohesion will require more careful messaging from prominent figures like Gandhi, particularly when addressing sensitive political relationships. The timing of these remarks, coming during a memorial service for a respected Congress leader, has added another layer of controversy to an already delicate situation within the opposition ranks.
Hans India
3 minutes ago
- Hans India
Shashi Tharoor Defends Nation-First Approach Despite Party Loyalty Concerns
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has reinforced his commitment to placing national interests above party considerations, acknowledging that this stance sometimes creates friction with party leadership who may perceive such positions as disloyal. Addressing an audience in Kochi at a discussion on "Peace, Harmony and National Development" on Saturday, the Thiruvananthapuram representative articulated his philosophy that political parties should serve as instruments for national betterment rather than ends in themselves. He emphasized that regardless of party affiliation, the ultimate goal should be creating a stronger India, even if different parties disagree on methodology. Tharoor directly confronted recent criticism he has received for backing the Modi government's handling of Operation Sindoor and other defense-related initiatives. He defended his position by stating that supporting the nation's armed forces and government during critical security matters represents the correct course of action, regardless of political consequences. When questioned by a student about his relationship with Congress leadership, Tharoor explained the delicate balance he maintains between party loyalty and national duty. He noted that while he respects his party and shares its fundamental values, he believes cooperation with other parties becomes necessary when national security is at stake, though such collaboration sometimes appears disloyal to party colleagues. The veteran politician acknowledged that democratic politics inherently involves competition between parties, but argued that this competitive spirit should not prevent collaborative efforts during crucial moments. He described inclusive development as his consistent theme throughout his sixteen-year political career, alongside commitments to national security and broader national interests. Speaking to reporters later, Tharoor reiterated that his "nation first" philosophy has guided his entire political journey since returning to India specifically to serve the country in various capacities. He emphasized that his service extends beyond conventional political boundaries. The Congress leader also addressed growing speculation about internal party tensions, particularly following his appointment to head an all-party delegation regarding Operation Sindoor. While typically avoiding public discussion of such political matters, he felt obligated to respond to the student's inquiry and subsequently shared the interaction on social media platform X. Tharoor invoked former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's famous question "Who lives if India dies?" to underscore his belief that political actors must set aside partisan differences when national interests are threatened. This perspective has become increasingly relevant as he faces scrutiny for positions that some within his party view as overly accommodating toward the current government. Recent controversy surrounding Tharoor intensified after he published an article praising Prime Minister Modi's international diplomatic approach, specifically commending his "energy" and "dynamism" in global affairs. The Prime Minister's Office's decision to share this article further fueled speculation about Tharoor's standing within the Congress hierarchy and his relationship with party leadership. Throughout his remarks, Tharoor maintained that political parties across the spectrum should demonstrate willingness to collaborate during moments of national significance, suggesting that such cooperation represents true patriotism rather than political betrayal. His comments reflect ongoing tensions within opposition ranks about how to balance criticism of the ruling party with support for national initiatives, particularly those involving security and defense matters. The controversy highlights broader questions about the role of individual conscience versus party discipline in contemporary Indian politics, with Tharoor positioning himself as someone willing to face internal criticism for what he perceives as principled stances on national issues.
The Print
10 minutes ago
- The Print
Limits on nuclear programme today will tie our hands in future: Vajpayee on India-US deal
The matter about which we are concerned is India's changing nuclear policy. India has, till now, maintained an independent nuclear policy, and the world has recognised this policy and the efforts of our scientists. Whether it is the Pokhran nuclear explosions or the generation of nuclear electricity, or using nuclear energy to fight cancer, our scientists have recorded many achievements in every sphere of nuclear science over the last few decades. All this has been possible due to an independent policy, the control of which has always remained in our hands. Mr Speaker, this agreement includes mention of several issues in India-America relations. There have been important declarations in this agreement regarding trade, energy, agriculture, science, technology and terrorism. We welcome the increasing cooperation between our two countries in the fields of trade, agriculture and science. We are making efforts to find new means to increase energy production. Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to present the government's position on the joint statement issued by India and America regarding nuclear weapons. I also congratulate the Prime Minister, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, for the goodwill visit to America. Whether the government was Congress or NDA, one issue was never compromised — and that was the independence of India's nuclear policy. After the nuclear test explosions in Pokhran, many countries of the world launched a campaign against us. We were faced with serious economic and strategic challenges. Even in these difficult circumstances, India's nuclear policy remained independent. Despite possessing nuclear weapons of strategic importance, we had declared very clearly that India shall never be the first to use nuclear weapons. India shall also not use nuclear weapons against countries that do not possess such weapons. We made the concept of a 'credible minimum nuclear deterrent' the cornerstone of our nuclear policy. We do not wish to join the arms race. We remain as committed to nuclear disarmament today as we were during the time of Nehruji. The world has confidence that our nuclear weapons are under non-military (civilian) control. The Indo-US agreement has raised many questions about the independence of our nuclear policy. The first matter of concern is the promise made by India that the nuclear programme will be divided into two parts—one strategic and the other non-strategic. I am sure the government must have discussed this with scientists before agreeing to such a condition. The government must be aware of the technical difficulties involved in such a division. The more important question is whether this will impact our strategic capabilities. As circumstances change, our strategic requirements will also change. In this era of terrorism, can we say with certainty today what kind of weapons will be needed and when? If we define limits now for the nuclear programme, will our hands not be tied in the future? I demand that the entire nation be taken into confidence on this indirect restriction on our nuclear capabilities. The second point of concern in this agreement is the commitment to restrict the production of nuclear materials in cooperation with America. Who will participate in this agreement? Our scientists are engaged in using the country's abundant thorium reserves for nuclear energy production. Will international inspections affect these efforts? If we succeed with thorium technology, all barriers to the peaceful use of nuclear energy will be overcome. In this agreement, the USA has not recognised India as a nuclear weapons state. America has called India — and I quote — 'a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology.' Brazil, Canada, Germany, and Japan possess the most modern nuclear technology, just as India does. But there is one difference: they do not possess nuclear weapons, which India does. Despite this difference, will India receive the same facilities as these countries? Editor's note: This speech has been translated from the original in Hindi. This is part of ThePrint's Great Speeches series. It features speeches and debates that shaped modern India.
