The Digital War: Defining “Hate Politics” in the Era of Vijay vs. Stalin
The political temperature in Tamil Nadu has reached a boiling point on social media, marking a significant escalation in the ideological warfare between the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the newly formed Tamizhaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) led by actor-turned-politician Vijay. The latest flashpoint centers around a controversial narrative regarding who truly represents “civilized politics” versus “hate politics” in the state.
The debate was ignited by a viral post from a verified X (formerly Twitter) handle, D Force, which shared a clip from Sun News featuring journalist Indra Kumar. The ensuing thread has become a microcosm of the current political atmosphere in Tamil Nadu—bitter, historical, and deeply polarized.
The Pro-DMK Narrative: Civility vs. Venom
The controversy began with a tweet that sought to draw a sharp contrast between Chief Minister MK Stalin and TVK leader Vijay. The post, sharing an 8-minute video analysis, lauded CM Stalin for transforming the state’s political culture.
“Leader Chief Minister Stalin is the one who changed the hate politics that prevailed in Tamil Nadu until the demise of Ammaiyar Jayalalithaa and took it towards a civilized path,” the tweet claimed.
However, the post immediately pivoted to attack Vijay, accusing him of regressing the political discourse. “But TVK leader Vijay has once again taken up that same venomous politics and hate politics in his hands… He has made the DMK and DMK supporters enemies to his cadres.”
The core of this criticism, echoed by journalist Indra Kumar in the attached video, is the allegation that Vijay is strategically misaligned. The accusation suggests that while Vijay claims his ideological enemies are the RSS and BJP, he has taken no decisive action or made no sharp speeches against them. Instead, the narrative claims, “He is maintaining silence on many issues raised by Sanghis (a colloquial term for right-wing supporters), acting as their indirect supporter.”
This perspective paints the ruling party as the guardian of decorum and the newcomer, Vijay, as a destabilizing force possibly aiding the DMK’s national rivals.
The Public Backlash: “200 Rupees” and Historical Recalls
The reaction to this post was swift and, in many cases, ferocious. The comment section reveals a significant disconnect between the DMK’s online narrative and the sentiment of a vocal section of the internet. The backlash focused on three main pillars: hypocrisy regarding language, historical precedent, and intolerance to criticism.
One user, identified as Vinoth, dismissed the pro-DMK narrative as paid propaganda, using the derogatory slang “200 rupees oopi” (a slur implying DMK supporters are paid ₹200 to tweet).
“Sell all these stories to 200 rupees oopi… Not to us,” Vinoth retorted sharply. He went on to attack the premise that the DMK has always been civilized, referencing the past rhetoric used against former Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa. “Your leader himself spoke like a third-grade speaker about Jayalalithaa… Now you are preaching that CM was so civilized.. Dei Thuppu ketta payale (You spit-worthy fellow)… Take the 200 and get out.”
This sentiment reflects a deep-seated memory among the electorate regarding the turbulent rivalry between Karunanidhi and Jayalalithaa, suggesting that the “civilized” label is a recent revision of history.
The “B-Team” Counter-Narrative
Another significant thread of the conversation revolves around the accusation that Vijay is a “B-Team” for the BJP. While the original post accused Vijay of silence against the RSS, commenters flipped the script.
A user named Imran provided a nuanced defense of Vijay’s strategy, arguing that criticizing the ruling party is the primary job of an opposition leader.
“Criticizing the ruling party is the opposition’s ‘duty’; it is not ‘hate politics’,”– Imran wrote. He emphasized that Vijay did declare the BJP his “ideological enemy” at his first conference. He critiqued the DMK’s tendency to brand anyone who questions them as an agent of the enemy. “Labeling everyone who asks questions as ‘Enemy’s Agent’ without facing criticisms is not a democratic attribute,” he argued.
Accusations of Intolerance and Media Bias
The comments also targeted the messenger, journalist Indra Kumar. Users like Rameez Mo and Logan resorted to personal attacks, calling into question the journalist’s integrity. “This pig journalist,” laughed one user, while another asked, “How are you putting on this disguise of chastity?”
Beyond the insults, there was a substantive critique of the DMK’s handling of dissent. A parody account, rvsmanian, brought up the issue of arrests, specifically mentioning the midnight arrests of meme creators.
“DMK knows how to enter a house at midnight and arrest someone who posted comedy memes… Is this anything other than hate politics?” the user questioned. This comment highlights a growing concern about freedom of speech, portraying the ruling party not as “civilized,” but as “intolerant” and “trembling” (thoda nadungi) in the face of criticism.
The Historical Burden
Perhaps the most damaging critiques were those that dug deep into the history of the Dravidian movement. A user named Venkat penned a lengthy rebuttal, placing the blame for the introduction of hate politics squarely on the shoulders of the late DMK patriarch, M. Karunanidhi.
“It was Karunanidhi who took up hate politics with his low-level speech against opposition leaders. From Nehru to Jayalalithaa, there is no leader he hasn’t spoken of vulgarly,” Venkat claimed. He asked if people had forgotten the speech regarding Udhayanidhi and Raja, suggesting that Stalin is now beginning to hate the Hindu population, thereby continuing a legacy of division rather than civility.
Conclusion: A Battle for the Narrative
This social media explosion serves as a case study for the upcoming electoral battles in Tamil Nadu. The DMK is attempting to pivot to a brand of “statesmanship” and “civility,” positioning itself as the mature guardian of the state against the “immature” and “misguided” aggression of Vijay’s TVK.
However, as the comments section proves, the internet has a long memory. The strategy of branding Vijay as a “BJP B-Team” is meeting stiff resistance from a public that views the criticism of the ruling government as a democratic necessity, not hate speech.
As Vijay continues to build his party structure and Stalin gears up for future elections, this digital war over who defines “political decency” is likely to only get louder, nastier, and more personal. The “200 rupees” jibe and the “Sanghi” label are now the standard ammunition in a war where no tweet goes unanswered.