Tamil Nadu poet's ‘Lord Ram lost his mind' remark sparks row; BJP reacts
Speaking at an event where he received an award named after medieval Tamil poet Kambar, who authored the Tamil version of the epic Ramayana, Vairamuthu said Lord Ram 'lost his mind' after separating from his wife, Goddess Sita.
Vairamuthu said, 'After being separated from Sita, Ram lost his mind, not knowing what he was doing. Under the IPC (Indian Penal Code) Section 84, an act committed by a person due to mental derangement or unsoundness of mind does not constitute an offence.'
"Kamban may not have known the law, but he knew society and the human mind," he said in the event with Tamil Nadu chief minister MK Stalin in attendance.
"Ram is fully acquitted, forgiven – making Ram a human being, and Kamban divine," he added.
Reacting to the remarks, BJP leader CR Kesavan posted on X: 'Vairamuthu Ramasamy is a disgusting repeat offender when it comes to insulting sacred Hindu deities and grossly abusing Hindu Dharma. Now Vairamuthu who ironically in his name has 'Rama' perversely misinterpreting the Kamba Ramayana has called Lord Rama mentally unstable.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
8 minutes ago
- First Post
‘When Paris removed stray dogs': What happened in the French capital in the 1880s?
The Supreme Court's order to remove stray dogs from the streets of Delhi and NCR has sparked major outrage in the country. BJP leader and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi has called the directive 'impractical' and claimed that when Paris got rid of its strays in the 1880s, it had to face a rodent problem. Here's what happened A local resident walks her dogs past War propoganda posters in the Montmarte district in Paris on March 25, 2020. File Photo/Reuters The Supreme Court's recent ruling on the immediate removal of stray dogs from Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) has sparked a huge debate in the country. It has pitted public safety advocates against dog lovers who see the order as 'cruel'. The directive has garnered reactions from various quarters, including politicians. While some have hailed the top court's directive, others found it 'inhumane'. Former Union minister and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi has described the order as 'impractical', 'financially unviable' and 'potentially harmful' to the region's ecological balance. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD She also brought up the example of Paris, which she said faced a rat problem after getting rid of the canines from its streets in the 1880s. Let's take a closer look. Supreme Court's stray dogs order The Supreme Court on Monday (August 11) ordered the Delhi government, civic bodies and authorities of Noida, Gurgaon, and Ghaziabad to start picking up stray dogs and relocate them to shelters. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said that dog shelters have to be set up to accommodate around 5,000 stray dogs, which should be sterilised and immunised. The apex court gave authorities eight weeks to create the facilities and install CCTV monitoring to ensure no animals are released back onto the streets. It also warned that any person or organisation that obstructs the move will face strict action. The bench also refused to consider petitions from dog lovers or any other party on the issue. The order came amid a rise in dog bites and cases of rabies. However, it has divided the country, with many animal lovers criticising the ruling. Both Gandhi families have spoken against the Supreme Court's directive to remove the stray dogs. 'The SC's directive to remove all stray dogs from Delhi-NCR is a step back from decades of humane, science-backed policy. These voiceless souls are not 'problems' to be erased. Shelters, sterilisation, vaccination & community care can keep streets safe - without cruelty. Blanket removals are cruel, shortsighted, and strip us of compassion,' Congress MP Rahul Gandhi wrote in a post on X. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD He added, 'We can ensure public safety and animal welfare go hand in hand.' The SC's directive to remove all stray dogs from Delhi-NCR is a step back from decades of humane, science-backed policy. These voiceless souls are not 'problems' to be erased. Shelters, sterilisation, vaccination & community care can keep streets safe - without cruelty. Blanket… — Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) August 12, 2025 Animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi warned that removing stray dogs from the streets will create new problems. 'Within 48 hours, three lakh dogs will come from Ghaziabad, Faridabad, because there's food here in Delhi. And once you remove the dogs, monkeys will come on the ground… I've seen this happen at my own house,' she reportedly said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Referring to 1880s Paris, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader stated, 'When they removed dogs and cats, the city was overrun with rats.' She said dogs were 'rodent control animals'. What happened in the 1800s Paris? In the 1800s, stray dogs were frowned upon in Paris, seen as transmitters of rabies, fleas, and dirt. Paris had a large number of strays at the time, with the administration considering them a threat to cleanliness, health, and safety. According to a research paper titled Stray Dogs and the Making of Modern Paris, shared by The University of Liverpool Repository, in 1883, pharmacist Emile Capron backed the removal of stray dogs from the streets of Paris, claiming that 'the infinite number of these awful mutts' spread rabies. She also blamed them for scaring horses and pedestrians, which resulted in traffic accidents. 'As Capron's remarks suggest, many commentators treated strays as dangerously mobile nuisances that hindered the movement, and threatened the health, of the city's productive human and nonhuman inhabitants. Strays contributed to the sense that Paris was a pathological city plagued by crime, filth, and insecurity, and elite commentators treated them as members of the city's criminal, dirty and uprooted 'dangerous classes,'" Chris Pearson wrote in the paper. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD To ensure 'public safety', many stray dogs were allegedly culled. As Paris moved towards becoming modern, 'Parisian public hygienists and authorities turned strays into a problem that they would solve to make the city safe, clean and modern,' Pearson wrote. As per some accounts, the killing of strays led to a surge in the population of rats in the French city. ALSO READ: With nearly 10 lakh stray dogs, how will Delhi implement the Supreme Court order? When Parisians ate dogs, cats, rats During the Siege of Paris (the Franco-Prussian War between 1870-1871), the allied German forces surrounded Paris and cut off most of the food shipments to the French capital. Amid food shortages, Parisians resorted to eating rats, cats, dogs, and even horses. On November 12, 1870, a stall on the Rue Rochechouart street sold several animals. 'On the right side of the stall was several large dogs, neatly dressed … next to these are several large cats, also very neatly dressed … On the left of the stall there is a dozen or more of rats stretched upon a tray, and a young woman, half veiled, is timidly approaching them with a little girl at her side. She wishes to inquire the price of the rats, and, if she has money enough, to purchase one,' Robert Lowry Sibbet, an American doctor who was trapped in Paris during the siege, wrote in the book The Siege of Paris by an American Eye-Witness, published in 1892. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD With inputs from agencies
India.com
8 minutes ago
- India.com
Voter's list row: Congress' Sonia Gandhi's name added to voter list before she was citizen? BJP alleges so
Voter's list row: Congress' Sonia Gandhi's name added to voter list before she was citizen? BJP alleges so The Bharatiya Janata Party on Wednesday launched a counterattack on Congress and claimed Sonia Gandhi had been illegally added to the voter list 45 years ago, before she was an Indian citizen. The Congress has accused the BJP of 'colluding' with the Election Commission to commit voter fraud. Ex-Union Minister Anurag Thakur claimed ex-Congress boss – born Sonia Maino in Italy in 1946 – was added on the list from 1980 to 1982, a year before she was an Indian citizen. In a long Twitter post, BJP leader Amit Malviya claimed that Sonia Gandhi's name first appeared on the rolls in 1980 — three years before she became an Indian citizen and while she still held Italian citizenship. The post read: Sonia Gandhi's tryst with India's voters' list is riddled with glaring violations of electoral law. This perhaps explains Rahul Gandhi's fondness for regularising ineligible and illegal voters, and his opposition to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). Her name first appeared on the rolls in 1980 — three years before she became an Indian citizen and while she still held Italian citizenship. At the time, the Gandhi family lived at 1, Safdarjung Road, the official residence of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Until then, the voters registered at that address were Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Sanjay Gandhi, and Maneka Gandhi. In 1980, the electoral rolls of the New Delhi parliamentary constituency were revised with January 1, 1980, as the qualifying date. During this revision, Sonia Gandhi's name was added, appearing at serial number 388 in polling station 145. This entry was a clear violation of the law, which requires a person to be an Indian citizen to be registered as a voter. Following an outcry in 1982, her name was deleted from the list — only to reappear in 1983. But even her reinstatement raised serious questions. In the fresh revision of the electoral rolls that year, Sonia Gandhi was listed at serial number 236 in polling station 140. The qualifying date for registration was January 1, 1983 — yet she was granted Indian citizenship only on April 30, 1983. In other words, Sonia Gandhi's name entered the electoral rolls twice without meeting the basic citizenship requirement — first as an Italian citizen in 1980, and then again in 1983, months before she legally became a citizen of India. We are not even asking why it took her 15 years after marrying Rajiv Gandhi to accept Indian citizenship. If this isn't blatant electoral malpractice, what is? What the Opposition is alleging? Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, also made explosive claims of a 'huge criminal fraud' in polls through collusion between the BJP and the Election Commission. Alleging that a 'vote chori model' was being used in many constituencies across the country, Gandhi said that the judiciary needs to get involved in this because 'the democracy that we love so much, does not exist anymore'.
The Hindu
8 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Poverty prevents people from filing appeals, says Madras High Court; orders release of life convict citing parity
Observing that there are several reasons, including poverty, that prevent people from filing appeals before higher judicial forums, the Madras High Court has ordered the release of a convict in a dacoity-cum-murder case by according him the benefit of parity with his co-convicts, who had been released from prison by an order of the Supreme Court in 2018. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan concurred with the argument of advocate R. Sankarasubbu that if the convict Balu, alias D. Balasubramanian, had approached the top court along with the three co-convicts, there was every possibility of his sentence also having been reduced from life imprisonment to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The judges allowed a writ petition filed by the convict's wife Indira Gandhi, seeking the release of her husband on the ground of parity. They recorded the submission of Additional Public Prosecutor E. Raj Thilak, who also did not dispute the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court, in at least three cases, regarding the principle of extending parity to an unappealed convict. 'When the petitioner complains that her husband's constitutional right under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) had been violated, we cannot shrug off our duties and ask the petitioner to... prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court,' the judges wrote and pointed out that the criminal case was from the year 2002, and that more than two decades had passed since he was convicted. 'All that we are doing is performing our constitutional duty of rendering parity between A1, A2, A4 and the petitioner's husband. Our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are wide and they have been granted only to enable us to do justice. This court also has the inherent power and the jurisdiction, while dealing with situations as presented in the present case, to render justice and prevent manifest injustice,' the judges said. According to the prosecution, the convicts had robbed 4.7 kg of gold and 5.5 kg of silver from a jewellery shop after killing a person who was sleeping inside the shop. Though the petitioner's husband had not committed any overt act with respect to the murder, he too was convicted under Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code, which makes all members of a gang liable for punishment even if one of them had committed murder. Though the trial court had imposed only 10 years of imprisonment on the convicts, the High Court had enhanced their punishment to life imprisonment in 2010 while allowing a 2006 State appeal for enhancement of sentence. However, allowing a further appeal by three of the convicts, except the petitioner's husband, the Supreme Court had reduced their sentence to 10 years in 2018 and ordered their release. Hence, the petitioner had now approached the High Court, by way of a writ petition, seeking parity and obtained the relief.
