DMK Government Faces Criticism: Caste Discrimination and Police Violence in Tamil Nadu

DMK Government Faces Criticism: 24 Custodial Deaths and Caste Discrimination in Tamil Nadu

by

DMK Government Faces Criticism, in the heart of Chennai on July 13, popular actor-turned-politician Thalapathy Vijay, now the president of Tamizhaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), led a large-scale protest against 24 custodial deaths that occurred during the past four years under the DMK-led government. Vijay demanded an official apology, compensation, and complete accountability for each case, a move signalling growing concerns about police brutality and accountability in Tamil Nadu.

Although custodial violence has periodically surfaced in India’s national discourse, it felt unusually pointed coming from Vijay, a major Tamil cinema icon. given that this was his first political demonstration since launching his party in February 2024. The demonstration’s message was clear: social injustice in detention centres is not something that can be swept under the rug, and the DMK government must provide transparency.

Coalition Demands New Anti-Torture Law

Meanwhile, in Madurai, a coalition of over 150 human rights activists, writers, and civil society members staged a powerful demonstration following the mysterious custodial death of security guard B Ajith Kumar at the Sivagangai district jail. The protesters are pushing for a distinct anti-torture statute and the creation of an independent oversight committee, comprising retired judges and activists to oversee investigations and ensure police accountability.

Their argument is compelling: existing sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita lack the weight to address torture and custodial deaths comprehensively. To curb potential misuse of power, they are calling for new laws, independent investigations, and regular audits to protect prisoners’ rights and uphold the rule of law.

Cries for Social Justice: Dalit Discrimination Continues

Even as the DMK has often championed itself as a bastion of social justice, the reality on the ground tells a more complicated story. Last week, Congress leader K Selvaperunthagai, belonging to a Scheduled Caste, claimed that officials at the Vallakottai Murugan temple in Kancheepuram deliberately ignored protocol and disrespected his position during consecration ceremonies. DMK ally parties CPI, CPM, and VCK swiftly condemned the incident, calling it caste-based discrimination. CPIM and CPI leaders demanded strict action against the temple’s HR&CE officials.

This incident has rekindled the debate around caste bias in traditionally revered spaces like temples, forcing voters to question whether the DMK’s model truly delivers on its promise of equity.

DMK Government Faces Criticism: PMK Says DMK Must Face Social Justice Failures

In May 2024, PMK founder S. Ramadoss weighed in critically, urging the DMK government to “rectify mistakes it has committed in implementation of social justice”. He pointed out that the government has still not conducted a caste-wise census, nor provided the promised 10.5% reservation for the Vanniyar community. The absence of caste data, he argued, makes it difficult to shape targeted policies that could give historically disadvantaged communities their rightful access to welfare.

At the same time, other voices like CPI(M)-affiliated activists highlighted the government’s failure to pass separate legislation to address honour killings and caste-related murders. They argue that the current framework under the Prevention of Atrocities Act is insufficient and vulnerable to misuse, especially for crimes not explicitly covered, leaving victims without adequate legal recourse.

Backdrop: DMK’s Social Welfare Narrative

The DMK hasn’t been silent on these issues. Chief Minister MK Stalin frequently references the party’s welfare measures: integrating schemes for Adi Dravidar and Tribal communities, ₹1,000-a-month stipends for girl students, free transportation for women, and loans for marginalised entrepreneurs. These long-standing initiatives, lying in the line of Periyar and Ambedkar’s ideals, are often cited as evidence of the party’s commitment to equity.

Between 2006 and now, numerous such policies, including hostels for backward students, women’s empowerment schemes, and sanitation worker subsidies were launched. Supporters argue that these measures are far from “freebies”; they are investments aimed at dismantling social barriers.

Social Justice Politics: Real Progress or Political Ruse?

Yet, critics counter that these welfare measures, while appearing progressive, may serve more as political leverage than true empowerment. A recent News18 opinion piece laid bare harsh assessments: despite decades in power, the DMK still presides over rampant social inequality. Violence against Dalits, tokenistic appointments, and tacit tolerance of upper-caste dominance cast a shadow over the government’s social justice credentials.

Even academics note that the DMK’s strategy often prioritises appeasing upper-caste non-Brahmin groups rather than genuinely uplifting Dalits and other underprivileged communities—leading to sustained discrimination under the guise of reform.

An Uneven Social Justice Landscape

Within this complex, the state’s leadership finds itself pulled in two directions. On one hand, the DMK is rolling out large-scale welfare schemes, trying to modernize the Dravidian social justice model. On the other, civil society groups insist these initiatives don’t fully address systemic caste inequities including temple discrimination, custodial abuse, honour crimes, and caste-based violence.

As 2026 elections approach, the question facing voters is clear: Does the DMK truly represent the social justice it professes? Or are their policies more symbolic than transformative?

Leave a comment