What was said to be the holy lamp post was actually a British-era landmark..!

1. What was called a Holy Lamp Post is Actually a British-Era Boundary Stone!

The first step in creating a problem is to give a sacred identity to an ordinary object. This is what happened in Thiruparankundram. The Sang Parivar organizations started this issue by claiming they wanted to light a lamp on a holy "Lamp Post" located on the Thiruparankundram hill.

However, the truth revealed by the documents is completely different. The stone they are referring to is not a lamp post; it is a Survey Marker (Boundary Stone) used for land surveying during the British period. The number '1050' is also engraved on it. This fact is clearly documented in the records of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). Furthermore, a court judgment delivered by Justice Rama Iyer as early as 1923 also mentioned it as a boundary stone.

The irony here is that it was the Sang Parivar organizations themselves who submitted the ASI document to the court, which proves that the stone is a boundary stone and not a lamp post. There was a significant hidden agenda in choosing this boundary stone. To reach that stone, one has to enter and pass through the Sikandar Badhusha Dargah of the Muslims. Through this, an inevitable flashpoint for conflict was created.

The Union Government's Archaeological Department calls it a boundary stone. The judgment delivered by Rama Iyer in 1923 calls it a boundary stone. After all this, what more can be said other than that they are trying to steal our God by distorting it as a lamp post?

This attempt did not stop at transforming an ordinary stone into a sacred object. Next, an attempt began to appropriate the God of an entire race.

2. This is Not a Problem About Murugan; It is an Attempt to Appropriate Murugan!

Although this struggle is portrayed as a fight for the right to the deity Murugan, it is pointed out that there is a deeper attempt at cultural appropriation behind it. Murugan is the ancient Tamil deity "Seyon," the chief of the Kurinji region (hills and surrounding areas).

However, it is argued that over time, Murugan's Tamil name and identity were systematically Sanskritized and changed to 'Subrahmanyan.' Citing the research of linguistic scholars, it is said that the word Subrahmanyan means "Brahmin's Slave," and this is a cultural imposition.

The word Subrahmanyan means Brahmin's slave. I am not saying it; the Sun of Linguistics Devaneya Pavanar and Aruliyar say it.

Therefore, the argument put forth here is that the Thiruparankundram controversy is not just an issue of worship rights; it is part of a broader attempt to destroy the identity of an ancient deity of a race and inject a different religious ideology onto it. The questions being asked here are profound: Why are the original inhabitants of the land, the Adi Dravidians or tribal people, not priests in the temples of Murugan, the God of the hills? Why are Sanskrit rituals performed for Murugan, who is called the Tamil God?

Changing a cultural identity requires not only social acceptance but also legal sanction. Judicial traditions were violated to obtain that sanction.

3. A Judgment that Violated Judicial Traditions!

The legal dimension of this issue raises several questions. In 2017, a two-judge High Court bench reconfirmed a previous verdict given by a single-person court regarding this controversy. Accordingly, it was ruled that the lamp should be lit near the Uchi Pillaiyar Temple, the traditional place where the lamp is lit.

However, a single judge, G.R. Swaminathan, delivered a new judgment that is completely contrary to this ruling. This is severely criticized as being against judicial traditions.

Can G.R. Swaminathan, as a single judge, interfere with a judgment delivered by a two-judge bench? ... Can a single judge write a counter-verdict to the ruling given by a two-member bench?

Furthermore, the judge's arbitrary cancellation of the Section 144 prohibitory order issued by the District Collector using his administrative power is another major issue. This constitutes judicial interference in the powers of the executive and questions the very foundation of the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Indian Constitution.