Karunanidhi never changes his ways!
Whenever he finds himself cornered, he used to retaliate with one of the 3 words namely, sacred-thread, Aryans and dalits and focus his attack on Jayalalithaa and Brahmins. His politics has been centered on these 5 issues only. Even if his trouble- givers happen to be someone else – such as the CAG and the whole of India at the current juncture – he can think or talk about them only with these 5 issues in mind. As such he has come up with his usual talk of Brahmin – shudra divide and Manu dharma!!
But this time he forgot to talk about the sacred thread and claim that he and his men were targeted because they don't wear the sacred thread.
He also forgot to call it as an Aryan conspiracy against the Dravidians. May be he thought that it would irk Sonia Gandhi whose Italian origins qualify her as more Aryan than Jayalaithaa!
So for the present, he was satisfied with two issues – dalits and Manu dharma.
In his statement on the CAG report calling it only as 'presumptive' and not true, he asked by quoting poet Bharathi, "Is there one justice for sudras, and another one for Brahmins, who develop their belly without performing any work?" He added, "In Tamil Nadu, there is no rebirth for Manu dharma" which advocates "one justice for self and another one for sudras".
Usually he has no love lost for poet Bharathi because he was a brahmin. But that did not deter him from taking up an award in Bharathi's name and quoting selectively from Bharathiar. The same poet Bharathiyaar has spoken well about the varansharma dharma in his poem on 'atrocities in the name of castes' and has only chided forces that divide the society into upper and lower classes. He has eulogized Brahmins as straight forward people in that and other poems.
Bharathiyar has also spoken about Manu dharma in his poems as the code to be followed. It is strange how and why Karunanidhi made a selective quote from Bharathiyaar. I tried to know the exact verse in Tamil but could not get it. It seems Deccan chronicle was the only magazine that gave this part of his statement. I did not read this in the online issues of Tamil magazines such as Dinamalar and Dinakaran or Dinathanthi. It seems they don't want the people to know this statement by him thinking that this would add to the anger that is currently mounting against Karunanidhi in Tamilnadu.
As usual Karunanidhi was wrong in interpreting Manu Dharma. Manu dharma applied harsh punishment for Brahmins and mild punishment for shudras. The differential treatment did not favor Brahmins, It favored shudras only.
If Karunanidhi does not like that Manu dharma, let him follow the Manu dharma of Tamils. The grand function in the name of Cholan king that he attended at Tanjore recently as a regional Satarap must remind him of an olden king of that dynasty who was known by the name Manu neeti cholan. That king did not hesitate to kill his son as a punishment for having killed a calf. The justice system was very severe in those days in Tamilnadu and also throughout India, which is known from Megasthanes' writings. The king did not differentiate between the prince and an animal.
With this kind of a past history of a Tamil king by name Manu, I caution Karunanidhi to be careful in making such statements. How long it would take for Jayalaithaa to ask him to apply the same yardstick of non- differential treatment of Manu Neeti Cholan to render justice to the 3 persons killed in Dinakaran office?
***********************
From
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/chennai/karuna-rakes-brahmin-dalit-distinction-attack-jaya-823
Karuna rakes up brahmin-dalit distinction to attack Jaya
November 17th, 2010
Chennai, Nov. 16: While asking whether it was fair to write a final judgment against former telecom minister A. Raja in the 2G spectrum controversy only on the basis of CAG's "presumptive opinion", chief minister and DMK president M. Karunanidhi launched a scathing attack on AIADMK supremo, Ms Jayalalithaa, by raking up the brahmin-dalit divide in society.
"Is there one justice for sudras, and another one for Brahmins, who develop their belly without performing any work?" he quoted poet Bharathi and concluded the seven-page statement by asserting, "In Tamil Nadu, there is no rebirth for Manu dharma" which advocates "one justice for self and another one for sudras".
Hours after the CAG report was tabled in Parliament, Mr Karunanidhi came in defence of Mr Raja and said the report had "only stated that it was a presumptive loss". In a statement, he asked whether it was fair to write a final judgment on the basis of presumption.
Mr Karunanidhi recalled past instances of how Ms Jayalalithaa had vehemently protested the CAG when the audit body found fault with her regime.
He said the Supreme Court had commented that she was making a mockery of the judicial process in a case on her alleged evasion of IT. He said CAG had pointed out mistakes on several schemes implemented by the AIADMK government. It had castigated her government for the potential loss of `1,033 crore due to short levy of taxes in 2003-04, he said. In the same year, CAG had pointed out that there was no uniform procedure in disposing of land owned by Tansi.
While Tansi sold land to Jaya Publications, of which Ms Jayalalithaa was a partner, at `1,350 per square metre, the adjacent land was sold at `2,080 per sq m, he said.
"Did Jayalalithaa resign then?" Mr Karunanidhi said, adding that it was unfortunate that such a dubious person is the leader of the Opposition in Tamil Nadu.
