The Oath That Pushed Tamil Aside

For the first time in Tamil Nadu’s political history a Chief Minister oath ceremony pushed "Tamil Thai Vaalthu" to the end. Let that sink in properly. 

Not in Delhi. Not in a national parliamentary event. Not in a Prime Minister’s oath ceremony.

In Tamil Nadu.

A state built on language politics. A state where people fought and died protecting linguistic identity. A state that literally has Tamil in its name.

And yet the ceremony began with "Vande Mataram", moved to the National Anthem and only then ended with "Tamil Thai Vaalthu". Tamil was made secondary inside Tamil Nadu itself.

This is not some small procedural change as supporters are trying to portray. This is symbolism. And symbolism matters because politics has always worked through symbols before it works through policy.

The easiest defence now is this.

“It is protocol because the Governor attended.”

But even that argument weakens when the actual guidelines are examined.

The Centre’s recent circular regarding "Vande Mataram" itself was clarified by the Supreme Court as being “purely advisory” and not mandatory. The Court also stated that there are no penal consequences for non compliance. (The Indian Express)

Which means this was still a choice.

And that is exactly why people are questioning it.

Because if Tamil Nadu itself cannot place "Tamil Thai Vaalthu" first during its own Chief Minister oath ceremony then where exactly is Tamil identity supposed to stand with priority.

Why was Tamil pushed behind in Tamil Nadu itself. The usual emotional response from blind supporters is predictable.

“Nation comes first.”

Fine. Then let us speak logically.

This was not the oath taking ceremony of the Prime Minister of India. This was the oath taking ceremony of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The office itself exists to govern Tamil people within Tamil Nadu. Then why should Tamil identity stand behind everything else in its own state function.

And if the argument is truly about putting the nation first then another uncomfortable question must also be answered.

Why should Vande Mataram become the representation of national identity for everyone when it itself comes from a Sanskritised Bengali cultural framework unfamiliar to huge sections of the country. If unity is truly the argument then where is the equal cultural representation for all states and languages. Why is one region’s symbolism repeatedly presented as “National culture” while others are expected to adjust.

This is exactly how cultural domination begins.

Slowly. Symbolically. Repeatedly.

People are forgetting history too easily.

Tamil Nadu did not resist linguistic imposition for entertainment. The anti Hindi agitations were not dramatic political stunts. Students literally died on the streets because they understood one thing clearly.

Periyar said:

“மொழி அழிந்தால் இனம் அழியும்.”

If a language dies, the people tied to it slowly disappear.

And now look at where we are.

People are already forgetting how to speak proper Tamil. English has become status. Hindi is slowly entering through media commerce and politics. Tamil words are disappearing from everyday conversations. Children are growing up disconnected from their own linguistic roots. Even inside Tamil Nadu speaking fluent Tamil is sometimes treated as less modern.

And now even a Chief Minister oath ceremony cannot place "Tamil Thai Vaalthu" first.

This is not progress. This is dilution.

What makes this even worse is the silence from the same people who scream about Tamil pride. Suddenly everyone becomes quiet when Tamil identity is visibly pushed behind national symbolism inside Tamil Nadu itself. Looks like Tamil pride only matters in social media edits.

No one is speaking against India here. That lazy argument itself shows intellectual dishonesty. Tamil identity and Indian identity can coexist. But coexistence does not mean Tamil must bow its head inside Tamil Nadu.

That is the difference people are refusing to understand.

Our ancestors fought to make sure Tamil would never become secondary in its own land. Today people are voluntarily celebrating the exact thing they once resisted.

This is Shameful.

விஜய் எங்கே?

Disclaimer: This piece is presented in both Tamil and English. The Tamil version is the original text. The English translation follows the same structure and meaning for accessibility to non Tamil readers. Kindly Scroll down.

தேர்தல் முடிவுகள் வெளியாகி நான்கு நாட்கள் ஆகிவிட்டது. தமிழ்நாடு சமீப காலங்களில் கண்ட மிகப்பெரிய அரசியல் மாற்றங்களில் ஒன்றை பார்த்திருக்கிறது. ஆனால் இன்னும் ஒரு முறையான பத்திரிகையாளர் சந்திப்பு இல்லை. நேரடி மக்கள் உரை இல்லை. வெற்றி பெற்ற தலைமையிலிருந்து தெளிவான தொடர்பு இல்லை.

சில தவெக ஆதரவாளர்களின் உணர்ச்சிப்பூர்வமான ஆன்லைன் எதிர்வினைகளைத் தவிர மக்கள் நேரடியாகக் கேட்கும் வகையில் எந்த பெரிய தொடர்பும் நடைபெறவில்லை. மற்ற அரசியல் கட்சிகள் தொடர்ந்து குரல் எழுப்பிக்கொண்டிருக்கின்றன. அதே நேரத்தில் சில தவெக ஆதரவாளர்கள் தெருக்களில் தேவையற்ற ஆர்ப்பாட்டங்களிலும் நாடகங்களிலும் ஈடுபட்டு கொண்டிருக்கிறார்கள். ஆனால் கட்சியின் தலைமையிலிருந்து மட்டும் எந்த தெளிவான தொடர்போ நேரடி விளக்கமோ வரவில்லை. மாற்றத்தை தொடர்ந்து பேசிய ஒரு கட்சியின் இந்த அமைதி இப்போது மிகவும் முரண்பாடாகத் தெரிகிறது.

தேர்தலுக்கு முன்பே ஒரு தூரம் இருந்தது. பெரிய சம்பவங்கள் நடந்தபோதும் விஜய் நேரடியாக வரவில்லை என்ற விமர்சனங்கள் இருந்தன. கரூரில் 41 பேர் உயிரிழந்த சம்பவம் அதில் முக்கியமான ஒன்று. குறைந்தபட்சம் நேரில் சென்று பார்க்கவோ அல்லது வெளிப்படையான ஒரு ஈடுபாட்டையாவது காட்டுவார் என்று பலர் எதிர்பார்த்தார்கள். அது கூட நடக்கவில்லை. தேர்தல் பிரச்சார காலத்திலும் விஜய் பெரும்பாலும் பொதுமக்கள் முன்னே வரவில்லை. சில தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்பட்ட நிகழ்ச்சிகளைத் தவிர அவர் பெரிதாக வெளியில் தோன்றவே இல்லை.

இப்போது தேர்தல் முடிந்த பிறகும் அதே கேள்விதான் தொடர்ந்து இருக்கிறது.

விஜய் எங்கே?

இவ்வளவு பெரிய வெற்றியை பெற்ற ஒரு தலைவர் சாதாரணமாக உடனே மக்கள் முன் வருவார். வெற்றியை கொண்டாடுவதற்காக மட்டும் அல்ல. அடுத்து என்ன செய்யப் போகிறார்கள் என்பதைப் பற்றி பேசவும், ஒரு திசையை காட்டவும், மக்களுக்கு நம்பிக்கை கொடுக்கவும்.

ஆனால் இங்கே அமைதிதான் இருக்கிறது.

மக்களை நேரடியாக சந்தித்ததை விட ஆளுநரை விஜய் அதிக முறை சந்தித்திருக்கிறார் போலத் தோன்றுகிறது.

அப்படியெனில் அந்த 107 எம்எல்ஏக்கள் எங்கே? ஏன் கட்சியின் தலைமையிலிருந்து வலுவான பொது தொடர்பு இல்லை? ஏன் இன்னும் எல்லாமே ஒரு தூரத்தில் இருப்பது போலத் தெரிகிறது?

அவர்களுக்கு வாக்களித்த மக்களுக்கு ஒரு முறையான நன்றி கூட தெரிவிக்க முன்வரவில்லை. இந்த வெற்றியை கொடுத்த மக்களைப் பற்றி உண்மையாக அக்கறை இல்லை போலவும் அதிகாரத்தை பிடிப்பதிலும் அரசியல் நிலைப்பாட்டை உறுதிப்படுத்துவதிலும் தான் அதிக கவனம் இருக்கிறது போலவும் ஒரு உணர்வு உருவாகிறது.

அதிலும் திமுக மற்றும் அதிமுக கூட்டணி அமைந்தால் ராஜினாமா செய்வோம் என்று கூறியிருப்பது இன்னும் குழப்பமாக இருக்கிறது. அப்படியானால் அவர்களுக்கு வாக்களித்த மக்களின் முடிவு என்ன ஆகிறது? அரசியல் சமன்பாடுகள் மாறிவிட்டால் அந்த வாக்குகளின் மதிப்பும் இல்லையா? மக்கள் கேள்வி கேட்காமல் எந்த உணர்ச்சிப்பூர்வமான அரசியல் கூற்றையும் ஏற்றுக்கொள்வார்கள் என்ற எண்ணம் இருப்பது போலத் தோன்றுகிறது.

ஒரு தேர்தல் வெற்றி என்பது சமூக வலைதள போக்கு அல்ல. மக்கள் வரிசையில் நின்று நம்பிக்கையுடன் வாக்களித்திருக்கிறார்கள். அந்த வாக்குகளை தற்காலிக அரசியல் அழுத்தமாக மட்டும் பார்க்க ஆரம்பித்தால் மக்கள் மதிக்கப்படவில்லை என்ற உணர்வே உருவாகும்.

ஏனெனில் தலைமை என்பது தேர்தலில் வெல்வது மட்டும் அல்ல. குழப்பமான நேரங்களில் முன்னே வந்து நிற்பதும் தலைமைதான். மக்கள் பதில்களை எதிர்பார்க்கும் நேரத்தில் பேசுவதும் தலைமைதான்.

தேர்தலுக்கு முன் மக்கள் அவரைக் காண காத்திருந்தார்கள். தேர்தலுக்குப் பிறகும் மக்கள் இன்னும் காத்திருக்கிறார்கள்.

அதனால்தான் இப்போது ஒரு பெரிய கேள்வி எழுகிறது.

அடுத்த ஐந்து ஆண்டுகளும் இப்படித்தான் இருக்கப் போகிறதா?

Where Is Vijay?

It has been four days since the election results came out. Tamil Nadu has witnessed one of the biggest political shifts in recent years and yet there is still no proper press meet, no detailed public address and no visible interaction from the leadership that just received a massive mandate.

Apart from emotional reactions online from a section of TVK supporters there has been very little direct communication that people can actually hear from the leadership. Other political parties continue to raise their voices and remain active in public discourse. At the same time some TVK supporters are busy engaging in unnecessary public theatrics and dramatic displays on the streets. But from the party leadership itself there is still no proper clarification or direct interaction. The silence from a party that constantly spoke about change now feels deeply contradictory.

Before the election there was distance. Even during major incidents there was criticism that Vijay remained absent. The deaths of 41 people in Karur became one such moment where many expected at least a direct visit or visible engagement. That did not happen. Even throughout the campaign Vijay barely came out in public and remained largely unavailable except for a few selective appearances.

Now the elections are over and the same question still continues.

Where is Vijay?

A leader who has just received a mandate of this scale would normally come forward immediately. Not just to celebrate victory but to address concerns, speak about direction and reassure people about what comes next. Instead there is silence.

It feels like Vijay has visited the Governor more times than he has directly addressed the people after the results.

And where are the 107 MLAs. Why has there not been stronger public communication from the party leadership. Why does everything still feel distant.

They did not even come forward to properly thank the people who voted for them. There is a feeling as if the leadership does not really care about the people who gave them this mandate and is instead more focused on capturing power and securing political positioning.

What makes this even more confusing is the statement that they would resign if a DMK and ADMK alliance happens. What exactly does that mean for the people who voted for them. Does their vote suddenly lose value because political equations change. It feels as if the voters are expected to blindly accept every emotional political statement without questioning it.

A mandate is not a social media trend. People stood in queues and voted with expectations. Treating those votes like temporary political leverage only makes it seem like the people themselves are being taken for granted.

Because leadership is not just about winning elections. It is also about stepping forward when people are waiting for answers.

Before the election people waited to see him. After the election people are still waiting.

And that naturally raises a bigger concern.

Is this how the next five years are going to be?

A Take on Tamil Nadu Election 2026

The 2026 Tamil Nadu election has delivered a result that many are calling historic. It is only fair to begin by acknowledging the mandate. Congratulations to Joseph Vijay for the victory. A democratic outcome must be respected. But respect does not mean the absence of questions. It only makes those questions more important.

The central claim around this result is simple. People wanted change. For decades Tamil Nadu has largely been shaped by Dravidian politics and there has always been a section of voters who have spoken about the need for an alternative. That sentiment is not new. But the question is whether this result shows a thoughtful shift in political direction or a sudden alignment driven by something else. Discontent with one system does not validate another. That is not transformation. That is replacement.

Tamil Nadu has never been short of political alternatives. Smaller parties, regional voices, independent candidates and ideological movements have existed for years. Yet they rarely received this scale of attention or support. If the desire for change was always this strong why did it not translate earlier. What changed now. Is this truly about change or about the face value that people already admire for reasons outside politics. Is face value just enough?

This leads to the core of the issue. Can this be called a political victory in the true sense. A political victory is usually built on ideas, on clarity of policy, on public engagement and on a demonstrated understanding of governance. They are not built on recognition. It is shaped over time. It grows through debate and disagreement. But when a wave is driven largely by popularity from cinema the nature of that victory becomes harder to define.

A basic observation helps here. How many voters knew the TVK candidate they voted for. How many understood the party’s ideological position or its long term policy direction. How many can clearly explain what TVK stands for beyond freebies. These are not rhetorical questions meant to dismiss voters. These are the fundamentals of democratic choice. Because a democracy does not weaken when people choose differently. It weakens when choices are made without enough information.

Ideology is where the discussion becomes even more important. Every political movement is expected to stand on a clear set of principles. It must define its position on governance, on economy, on welfare, on federal relations and on social issues. As of now there is no strong clarity on where TVK positions itself within the political landscape of Tamil Nadu. A movement cannot sustain itself on emotion alone. It needs direction.

“Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement"

                     - Lenin

This is not about discrediting a new entrant. It is about setting the standard that every entrant must meet. Leadership in cinema and leadership in governance operate in completely different spaces. One is built on perception and storytelling. The other is built on ideology, accountability, clarity and experience. There is no personal criticism here. Vijay as an individual has built a strong connection with people over years. That connection has now changed into political capital. But the question remains whether that capital alone is enough to justify leadership of a state. Representation is not just about being liked, It is about being equipped.

None of this denies the right of people to choose differently. But It is also important to recognise that rejecting one system does not automatically validate another. Saying no to DMK or ADMK is a political choice. But saying yes to an alternative must come from understanding not from impulse. Otherwise the system does not evolve. Only the face changes.

Tamil Nadu has always been politically aware. Its voters have historically engaged with ideas, language, identity and governance in a serious way. That legacy sets a high benchmark. Any new political force entering this space must meet that level of seriousness.

This election result opens a new chapter. But what kind of chapter it becomes depends on what follows. Will this be a shift towards a more informed and ideologically driven politics, or will it remain a moment defined by popularity and expectation.

Because in the end one question will continue to matter.

Rejecting DMK and ADMK may be justified. But does that alone make TVK the answer.

That said, let us hope this becomes governance with clarity and not just a result of popularity.

The “Other State Heroine” Scam

A question was raised to Vignesh Raja about casting Mamitha Baiju as the lead in "Kara". The concern was simple. Why bring in an actress from another industry and then paint her darker to fit a character that is rooted in a dusky skin tone and a specific cultural space. His response was clear. He said he does not cast based on skin tone and that Mamitha Baiju justified the role through her performance. He spoke about auditions and selecting who fits best and stood by his decision.

That explanation sounds neat. It sounds professional. But it does not survive what is seen on screen.

Having watched Mamitha Baiju in both "Jana Nayagan" and "Kara" there is no space left for polite interpretation. She is the weakest link in both films. In "Kara" it becomes painfully obvious. Surrounded by actors who holds weight and presence she feels completely out of place. Every other performance holds the film together while hers feels disconnected. It is not subtle. It is visible in almost every scene she appears in. The character had potential but nothing comes through. No emotional hold. No conviction. No sense of belonging within the world of the film.

This is not about calling her a bad actress. She has proven that she can work in lighter roles. In something like "Premalu" which is breezy and character driven in a soft way she fits naturally and performs with ease. But when the role demands depth she struggles. She underplays where she needs to stand firm. This was less obvious in "Jana Nayagan" but in "Kara" it becomes unavoidable because of the actors around her who elevate every scene. Her character ends up feeling like an empty space.

So the question cannot be avoided anymore. If not for performance then why was she cast?

The answer points towards something else. Market value.

This is where the pattern becomes clear. An actress gains attention in one industry. She is then brought into another space where the role demands something very specific. Instead of finding someone who naturally fits the role, the film reshapes her appearance to match it. Then the decision is justified in the name of auditions and suitability. This is not casting based on the character. This is casting based on visibility.

And yes this leans into the politics of colour whether it is accepted or not. If the intention was to portray a dusky character with authenticity, there are enough actors within the same industry who already have that presence naturally. Why import someone and artificially construct that identity. What exactly is being achieved here beyond a safer and more marketable face.

The problem becomes bigger when the performance fails to support the decision. That is where the entire argument falls apart. When the result on screen fails this badly all the explanations begin to sound like excuses. The audience is not blind. When something does not work it is felt immediately. No amount of explanation can change that.

There is also another layer to this. The idea that the market of the heroine can override the demands of the role. That might work in films where presence is enough to hold the scenes. But in films that require performance it gets exposed very quickly. A character cannot be sustained by popularity. It needs ability. It needs understanding. It needs presence.

Fair skin or current popularity does not make someone right for a role. And forcing that equation again and again only weakens films and damages credibility. What makes it worse is the refusal to acknowledge it. There is always a layer of justification wrapped around it as if the audience cannot see what is happening on screen.

At some point the honesty has to come in. If a casting decision is made for market reasons then say it. Stand by it. That is at least straightforward. But building narratives around performance and suitability when the result clearly says otherwise only insults the audience.

Because this is not about one film or one actress. This is a pattern that keeps repeating. And every time it happens the same question remains.

Is the film serving the story or is it serving the market.

Kara Review

Kara is directed by the filmmaker of "Por Thozhil" Vignesh Raja and stars Dhanush alongside KS Ravikumar, MS Bhaskar, Jayaram, Suraj Venjaramoodu and Mamitha Baiju with music composed by GV Prakash Kumar. With a director who previously delivered a tightly written film, this comes in with strong expectations and a promise of something rooted and different in its approach.

The film is set in the early 20th century, and follows a set of characters whose lives intersect through conflict emotion and social themes. It does not reveal everything upfront but slowly opens into a world built on relationships and choices. The core idea is fresh and carries strong potential giving the sense that this could have been something unique.

The screenplay and writing begin on a strong note and draw attention early on, but slowly start losing control as the film progresses. The pace drops and the narrative begins to feel sluggish in many places. The film starts from one point and ends somewhere else without a proper connection in between. There is no strong linear structure and that becomes evident throughout. Some dialogues work and feel grounded but overall the writing stands out as the weakest aspect. The idea had strength but the execution through writing does not hold it together.

The making of the film is one of its biggest positives. The 20th century setup is recreated with good care and attention to detail. The costumes, the vehicles and the entire production design feel authentic and well thought out. The colour grading adds to the experience and helps in making the world believable. There is a visible finesse in how the film is presented.

Music works strongly in favour of the film. GV Prakash delivers a soundtrack that feels traditional and rooted which fits the setting and narrative perfectly. The songs blend well into the story, and the background score holds several moments together. Even when the film loses its grip, the music manages to keep it engaging.

Acting is another major strength with one clear exception. Dhanush, KS Ravikumar, MS Bhaskar, Jayaram and Suraj all deliver strong performances and bring life to their characters. KS Ravikumar stands out with a role that feels very relatable and emotional. His character leaves an impact. However Mamitha Baiju despite having scope does not deliver a convincing performance. The character had potential but it does not get conveyed on screen and ends up being a weak link.

Overall, Kara is an ambitious film that aims to stand apart. Coming from director Vignesh Raja it had a strong base to build on but falls short in execution. There is always a sense that something is missing whether it is the pacing or the lack of direction in the narrative. The film has potential but never fully reaches it.

Rating: 6/10 ⭐️