
Minorities won't believe Vijay — he was silent during CAA, 370, triple talaq: Salma
We can't define literature in rigid terms and say, 'this alone is literature'. In earlier times, only Sanskrit literature was seen as 'true literature.' But it wasn't something a common person could understand — it spoke to and for only a certain elite section of society. What about the rest? Their experiences were excluded. This gap was bridged by leaders like Kalaignar Karunanidhi and Perarignar Anna.
Their works were powerful because they could be understood by the common man. And to me, that is the true purpose of literature — it must reach people, it must speak to them. Kalaignar's writing spanned across poetry, short stories, novels, even screenplays for films. And he had a strong, devoted readership who admired and connected with his work deeply.
Today, literature is more inclusive than ever. Writers like Ramanichandran and Jayakanthan have their own dedicated readers. Each writer has a unique voice, a distinct way of telling stories. And each one has an audience that values that expression. That is the beauty of literature.
The real problem is when we try to define literature by ranking it — saying, 'this is the best,' or worse, 'this doesn't even qualify as literature'. Who decides that? Every writer brings something different to the table, and that diversity is what makes literature meaningful and alive.
Q: As a Member of the Rajya Sabha, what is your primary goal or focus? What do you hope to achieve through your role in Parliament?
I come from a party that has always stood firmly for the ideals of social justice. At the heart of our ideology is the belief that everyone in this society should be treated equally, regardless of their caste, religion, gender, or background.
To my knowledge, I am the only woman from the Muslim community in the entire country who is going to take charge as a Member of the Rajya Sabha. This, in itself, speaks volumes about the vision and progressive mindset of our party president and Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, M. K. Stalin. I am deeply grateful to him for giving me this opportunity.
As an MP, I will faithfully represent the voice and principles of my party in Parliament. It's a responsibility I carry with pride and commitment.
Q: Kamala Surayya was known for her bold and explicit writing — even at a time when such topics were taboo. Today, we see many writers exploring similar themes, but often under the label of 'queer literature' or through anonymous platforms. Do you think it's anonymity that gives writers the courage to write openly about these subjects?
I've been considering writing a novel that deals with certain sensitive topics. And while thinking about it, the idea of using a different name and going anonymous crossed my mind. There's a certain courage that anonymity offers. When you write under your real name, people who know you tend to judge or misunderstand you based on the content, regardless of the intention behind it.
A few years before the death of Kamala Surayya, I had the opportunity to visit her in Kerala, thanks to a friend. She was under police protection in her own home. During our conversation, she said something that stayed with me: 'Writers write to sense freedom, but my writing has curbed my freedom.' She also said she felt lonely — that she couldn't see or find people like her anymore. That sense of isolation weighed on her deeply.
We've all witnessed how writers around the world have been arrested for their writing. So, this fear isn't abstract; it's real and close.
Q: When it comes to literature, we rarely see Tamil writers coming together as a collective or voicing concerns as a united front unlike in Karnataka and Kerala. Why do you think such solidarity is missing in Tamil Nadu? Also, when it comes to literary recognition, Tamil writers don't seem to receive the higher-ranking national awards as often as writers from Kerala. What could be the reason behind this disparity?
There is politics in groups here that stretches beyond political parties. When Kaaval Kottam by Su. Venkatesan got the Sahitya Akademi Award, one group wrote against it. If there is a voice against my literature, especially from conservatives, shouldn't there be collective opposition from writers? They don't need to support me — they could defend literature. Jealousy runs high in Tamil. No one uplifts the other. In Malayalam, at least when I look from the outside, though there is some talking behind the back, it looks positive. Here, there is no such unity.
Q: Does it have to do with not getting much recognition?
Even for my novels, sometimes I feel bad knowing that the original in Tamil would not receive an award. But they gave the award for the Marathi translation, which can only do half the justice to the original. There is no logic in this. But I don't know how to lobby.
Q: You have contributed to the literature through short stories, novels, and poems. What do you think is the essence of your contribution?
I can only say that the essence of all my literature is humanity. I see literature as the basis of loving fellow humans. We read so much literature and stories. The pain from reading the sadness or love of others is only possible through literature.
Q: In Tamil Nadu, there were only two political sides — DMK and AIADMK. Now Vijay has started a political party. Generally, minorities vote for the DMK alliance. Now there is talk that Vijay will lure minorities, especially youngsters. His speeches also mainly target minority votes. Is there any chance he gets the votes?
Minorities always vote for the DMK. The pattern has changed only once, that I know of. Because no one can forget the 3.5% reservation (for Muslims and Christians) introduced by Kalaignar. This helped them to get employment and education.
He is standing alone to target minority votes; he knows it won't happen if he is with the AIADMK-BJP alliance. We don't know who is behind him contesting alone. But minorities won't believe him. You should have done something before, and they must believe you will do something for them again.
The CAA protests turned the country upside down. If he has true concern for the minorities, he could have spoken in favour of them. Even recently, there were several atrocities against Muslims in North India. But he has not spoken against anything. He has not spoken when Triple Talaq or abrogation of Article 370 became issues. Suddenly, if he says he will save Muslims, it is not believable. The BJP is responsible for all these atrocities. At least he should criticise the BJP, but that is also not happening. He is only targeting the DMK. So, minorities won't believe him.
I think only 5,000 people came for the protest in Chennai (against custodial violence). Minorities will think about who has done things for them. They won't support an actor. In many movies, he has also depicted Muslims badly, showing Muslims as terrorists. These will blow up during the elections.
(On the other hand), MGR (late AIADMK founder and CM M.G. Ramachandran) was part of the DMK; he went to the field with cadres. (Late CM) J. Jayalalithaa took over AIADMK — she didn't start a separate party and come on her own to capture power. As far as Vijay is concerned, if we take field-level politics, he is not out there yet. You can't identify a leader without him coming to the field. I agree that Vijayakant (late DMDK founder) is one actor who people voted for. But that has ended.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hindu
2 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Justice delayed yet again
Last week, a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court acquitted all the seven accused, including BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, in the 2008 Malegaon blasts case. Six people were killed and 95 injured in the bombing that had struck the Muslim-majority town in Maharashtra. The case, which was investigated by two different agencies, triggered accusations of 'saffron terror'. All the accused were charged by the Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) in 2008 of being 'Hindutva extremists'. The trial was controversial as Rohini Salian, the former special public prosecutor, had alleged in 2015 that the government had put pressure on her, through the NIA, to 'go soft' on the accused. The case was initially probed by ATS chief Hemant Karkare, who was gunned down by terrorists during the November 26, 2008, terror attack on Mumbai. Eventually, it was handed over to the NIA. While acquitting the seven accused, the court pointed out several lapses in the investigation and criticised the NIA for presenting 'inconclusive', 'unreliable', and 'legally inadmissible' evidence. It said that there were procedural lapses in the invocation of stringent laws such as the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It added that the investigators had failed to link the motorcycle, allegedly used in the crime, to Ms. Thakur; that there were problems with witness statements; and that there was no proof that Lt Col Prasad Purohit (retired) or the right-wing outfit, Abhinav Bharat, was linked to the blast. In the order, Special Judge A.K. Lahoti observed, 'The testimony of prosecution witnesses is riddled with material inconsistencies and contradictions. Such discrepancies undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case and fall short of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.' While he said that terrorism has no religion, the Special Judge also added that a court cannot convict someone based on mere perception. Civil society members were critical of the verdict given the allegations that it was politically driven; and also since it came on the back of another verdict acquitting all the accused in another blast case. On July 21, the Bombay High Court acquitted all the 12 accused in the 2006 serial bomb blasts case. Seven explosions had ripped through Mumbai's local trains on the evening of July 11, 2006, killing 189 people and seriously injuring 824. The coordinated blasts had scarred the estimated 70 lakh people of Mumbai who use the local trains, often dubbed the city's lifeline, every day. Many victims feared taking the local train again. This case too was riddled with controversies. While the Maharashtra ATS, which had conducted the probe from the beginning, claimed that the attacks were the handiwork of the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Students' Islamic Movement of India, several other investigating agencies, including the NIA, claimed that the Indian Mujahideen had carried out the terror attacks. While acquitting the 12 accused, the High Court laid bare the inconsistencies, loopholes, and lapses in the probe by the Maharashtra ATS. It asked how key witness statements were recorded after an unexplained delay of 100 days. It questioned the trustworthiness and credibility of witnesses, highlighted deep flaws in both the investigation as well as prosecution, and demanded to know why the circumstantial evidence, such as call detail records, which the investigators had relied on so much, was inconclusive. It pointed out that the witness statements were delayed and inconsistent; that there were procedural lapses and coercion allegations about the confessions retrieved; that there was no proof of actual explosives used; and that the chain of custody of the recoveries was broken. The High Court also rapped the trial court for the conviction order. The judgments on two terror cases in India have left the victims, who have had to wait for nearly two decades for verdicts, without a sense of justice. The investigations raise serious questions about India's criminal justice system and specifically about the accountability of investigating agencies. Who are the agencies answerable to, for their contradictory claims and shoddy procedures, which have allowed extremist organisations to get away with such terrible crimes in Maharashtra? And when — if at all they do — will the victims of these blasts get a sense of closure?


India Today
15 minutes ago
- India Today
Graphic designer who made provocative posters for PFI before ban, granted bail
The Bombay High Court has granted bail to Maula Nabisab Mulla, a Nashik-based graphic designer who had spent over two years in custody for allegedly designing posters for the Popular Front of India (PFI) — at a time when the organisation was not yet banned by the Government of India.A bench comprising Justices A S Gadkari and Rajesh S Patil noted that the case against Mulla pertained solely to graphic designing work, including banners and social media content, and that the PFI was not a proscribed organisation at the time of the alleged to the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Nashik, a PFI office was inaugurated on June 14, 2022, in Malegaon, where a meeting allegedly took place discussing various incidents of atrocities against the Muslim community, including mob lynching. The prosecution claimed that during the meeting, attendees called for Muslim unity and discussed waging war against the country by 'any means necessary.' One of the accused was alleged to have issued a fatwa inciting violence against those who spoke against was arrested for his alleged role in creating posters and graphic content that the ATS said were of an 'objectionable nature,' inciting hatred between for Mulla, advocates N N Gawankar and Advait Tamhankar argued that their client's role was limited to that of a professional graphic designer, and he had no active involvement in the ideological or organisational activities of pointed out that the FIR was lodged on September 22, 2022, while the PFI was officially banned only on September 27, 2022. 'Therefore, at the time of registration of the FIR, the organisation was not banned and no offence under anti-terror laws was made out,' the defence lawyers also noted that five other accused in the same case had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court, with roles similar or greater than Mulla' the prosecution opposed the bail plea, the Court observed that the trial had not yet commenced and there were over 190 witnesses to be examined, indicating a prolonged legal process bench concluded that Mulla's role — as per the ATS charges — was comparable to that of others who had already been released on bail.'The role attributed to the applicant is similar to the other co-accused, who have already been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The FIR was registered when the organisation was not yet banned. Hence, on parity and considering the long incarceration, the applicant deserves to be released on bail,' the bench was granted bail subject to conditions imposed by the Court. The order brings attention to the delays in trial and the legal complexities surrounding retrospective application of bans on organisations.- EndsTrending Reel


Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
Cotton export scam: Centre acts against 5 certifiers in state
Bhopal: A suspected scam involving the export of ordinary cotton falsely certified as organic has surfaced in the state, prompting the central govt to initiate action against five certification agencies. Responding to a question by Congress leader Digvijaya Singh in the Rajya Sabha, the central govt confirmed on Aug 1 that five certification bodies had faced punitive action over irregularities in the certification of organic cotton. Singh asked about the number of cases of organic cotton scam which have come to light so far in Madhya Pradesh. The number of FIRs which have been registered against certification agencies in the case of export of ordinary cotton in the name of organic cotton in the state, and the action that has been taken against them so far and the number of certification agencies that have been reinstated, out of those certification agencies whose registrations were cancelled, and the basis for their reinstatement. The minister of state in the ministry of commerce and industry, Jitin Prasada, stated in a written reply that the system for organic certification under National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP) involves a third-party certification system of organic processes and organic produce, which was certified across the supply chain by a certification body (govt or private). Cotton is covered under NPOP only till production level. Thereafter, the post production process including ginning, processing etc is done under private certification, and not covered under NPOP. In 2022, due to irregularities in certification of organic cotton, accreditation of two certification bodies was terminated while two certification bodies were suspended. In 2024, one more certification body was suspended for one year, for irregularities in the certification operations, including certification of organic cotton. With respect to the two terminated certification bodies, the said certification bodies are not in existence, under NPOP. With respect to the two certification bodies suspended in 2022, their period of suspension was for 6 months and 12 months. After the completion of this period, and complying with the accreditation requirements under NPOP, they were reinstated in 2024. In case of the certification body suspended in 2024, the period of operation of the suspension is for a period of 1 year, with effect from Oct 1, 2024, which is yet to be over, thus the said certification body is not in operation. The issue was also raised by Leader of Opposition in the state assembly Umang Singhar while speaking after the chief minister's address. In a passing reference, the LOP said if India wants to establish a strong global identity and maintain its credibility abroad, then the quality of our exported goods must meet international standards. He raised concerns over quality issues, citing frequent rejections and multiple scams ranging of crores and urged the chief minister to pay attention to these irregularities.