The CPI(M)’s reaction to the 2G case verdict has triggered a war of words between the supporters of the party and the Dravidian movement. On social media, the debates have turned into a slanging match, invoking caste associations.
The developments may further strain the roller-coaster relationship between the two parties. In the R. K. Nagar byelection, the two parties refused to share a platform, though the CPI(M) supported the DMK candidate.
Noting that the judgement of the CBI special court on the 2G spectrum case raises more questions than answers, the Politburo of the party said since the CBI case and the prosecution had proved inadequate, steps must be taken immediately to pursue the matter legally, so that the guilty are punished.
It evoked a strong reaction from Dravidar Iyakka Tamilar Peravai leader Suba. Veerapandian, who is also a staunch supporter of the DMK. “I read the statement of a political party on the judgment on 2G. I thought that it might have been issued by the BJP. But I realised it had been issued by the CPI(M). It was perhaps a printing mistake,” he had said on Facebook.
His post led to attacks by CPI(M) supporters and counter attacks on the Left party. Some of the posts described CPI(M) as “a party of Brahmins.” Mr. Suba. Veerapandian too was attacked and critics made a reference to his caste.
“Mr. Suba. Veerapandian can certainly express his views. But his attempt to equate the CPI(M) with the BJP is totally unacceptable and it has resulted in unwanted comments on both sides,” said CPI(M) state secretariat member K. Kanagaraj.
Scathing remarks
For his part, former IT Minister A. Raja was scathing in his comments on the communists. “It is sad that intellectuals, ideologues and Leftists, who are barely in existence, converted the 2G scam into a private battle,” he said in a letter to his party leader M. Karunanidhi.
Explaining that the CPI(M) had nothing against Ms. Kanimozhi and Mr. Raja individually, Mr. Kanagaraj said his party only wanted to point out the role of corporate houses in the case and the remarks of the CBI Special Judge O.P. Saini about the investigating agency.
“As the case progressed, it became highly cautious and guarded in its attitude making it difficult to find out what the prosecution wanted to prove. By the end, the quality of the prosecution had totally deteriorated and become directionless and diffident,” Mr. Kanagaraj cited the judge in the case, Mr. Justice Saini, as saying.
Karuppu Karuna, deputy secretary of the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers and Artistes Association, said the CPI(M) made a similar demand for appeal when late Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and others were acquitted by the Karnataka High Court in the disproportionate wealth case. “How could one call the CPI(M) which is constantly fighting honour killings and caste oppression a Brahmin party,” said Mr. Karuna who is active on Facebook.
Mr Kanagaraj said the CPI(M)’s consistent stand against casteism irritates the supporters of the Dravidian movement since they have given up their own principles and are silent on major social issues like inter-caste marriages and honour killings. “When the judgment convicting the family of Kausalya for murdering her husband was out, Theekathir, the official organ of the CPI(M), published it on the front page. But Murasoli did not bother to carry the news even inside,” he said.
