Amit Malviya, the head of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) IT department, is caught in a legal soup following a tweet that has ignited a firestorm of controversy involving Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader and Tamil Nadu minister Udhayanidhi Stalin. The social media post in question concerns a statement made by Udhayanidhi about ‘Sanatana Dharma,’ which Malviya has interpreted as a call for the “genocide” of the 80 per cent of the population that adheres to it.
In a post on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter), Malviya said, “He (Udhayanidhi) is of the opinion that it (Sanatana Dharma) must be eradicated and not merely opposed. In short, he is calling for the genocide of 80% of the population of Bharat, who follow Sanatan Dharma.” This tweet was posted by Malviya on September 2.
The legal action against Malviya resulted from a complaint lodged by a DMK functionary named KAV Dhinakaran in Tamil Nadu’s Trichy. Malviya now faces charges under sections 153, 153 (A), 504, and 505 (1) (b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The complaint alleges, “Despite Udhayanidhi Stalin issuing clarification over his remarks on Sanathana Dharma, with political motive, Amit Malviya deliberately distorted the speech made by the minister to incite violence and hatred between two groups and to undermine communal harmony.”
The controversy was sparked by Udhayanidhi Stalin’s recent statement on ‘Sanatana Dharma,’ which drew criticism from various quarters, including Hindutva groups and political parties such as the BJP.
During a conference held on September 3, Udhayanidhi remarked, “Few things cannot be opposed, that should be abolished only. We can’t oppose dengue, mosquitoes, malaria, or corona. We have to eradicate this. That’s how we have to eradicate Sanatana.”
In response to Malviya’s tweet, Udhayanidhi clarified that he had not called for violence against the followers of Sanatana Dharma. However, he firmly stood by his remarks and expressed his readiness to face any legal challenges. He maintained that his statements represented the concerns of marginalised communities who, according to him, were facing hardships due to ‘Sanatana Dharma.