The historic and culturally important Thiruparankundram hill in Madurai, Tamil Nadu, has long held deep religious meaning for the Hindu community. Over the years, it also turned into a point of disagreement between Hindus and Muslims, especially regarding naming rights, traditional practices, and access to specific parts of the hill.

This long-standing tension continued until the Madras High Court delivered a detailed judgment that clearly upheld the Hindu position and attempted to bring legal clarity to issues that had been debated for decades.

In its October ruling, the High Court carefully examined multiple concerns raised in petitions. It looked at the naming of the hillock, the long-practiced animal sacrifice at the Sultan Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah, and the extent of Muslim prayer rights in the Nellithoppu area. After reviewing historical records and hearing arguments from both sides, the court held that the sacred name Thiruparankundram hill will remain unchanged. It further directed that animal sacrifice at the dargah must remain prohibited until the Civil Court gives a final decision, ensuring that any action moving forward aligns with established law. Additionally, the court ruled that Muslim worshippers may offer prayers in the Nellithoppu area only during Ramzan and Bakrid, and even then under strictly regulated conditions.

For millions of followers of Sanatan Dharma, the hill’s importance goes far beyond legal interpretation. It is home to the ancient Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Temple, one of the six abodes of Lord Murugan, making it one of the most spiritually powerful locations in Tamil Nadu. With such significance attached to the site, Hindus have always viewed any unauthorized claim or alteration to the hill as a sensitive matter.

Despite this clarity, the well-known left-leaning media platform The News Minute (TNM) has attempted to reopen the dispute. Instead of accepting the legal clarity brought by the court, TNM published an article on 5th November titled “Ayodhya of the South – A timeline of time immemorial”. The tone of this piece suggests an intention to stir up fresh controversy, present selectively chosen narratives, and revive communal tension. The article leaned heavily on emotional storytelling to portray Muslims as victims while ignoring the long history of Hindu claims and grievances related to the hill.

The very use of the term “Ayodhya” in the headline reveals what the media house wanted to frame. By invoking Ayodhya, TNM attempted to hint that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is trying to recreate another religious flashpoint. What TNM conveniently sidestepped is that the Ram Janmabhoomi verdict was delivered by the Supreme Court after years of evidence, hearings, and constitutional scrutiny. Like many such groups, acceptance of a verdict appears conditional — celebrated when it suits their ideological positions and rejected when it does not. Their reaction to the Thiruparankundram judgment fits exactly into this pattern.

Early attempts to manufacture Muslim victimhood and attack the BJP

TNM began building its narrative by referring to a 4th July interview with 52-year-old chef Syed Abutahir, who expressed his wish to sacrifice a goat at the dargah in Thiruparankundram. He claimed that “Sunni Muslim moved the date of their Sufi pilgrimage to Christmas. Just so their non-Brahmin Hindu neighbours could join the feast.” This statement was highlighted as a symbol of goodwill and communal warmth.

However, what followed was a completely different chain of events. The police informed the group that animal slaughter was not allowed at the location, and therefore the sacrifice could not proceed. This led to protests involving members of the dargah committee, the local jamaat, and various community leaders. TNM reported that the police initiated action by registering FIRs and that the crackdown “targeted exclusively Muslim men”, while Hindus, women, and children were spared.

TNM’s article began by presenting Muslims as people with open and generous hearts who were willing to delay their own rituals out of sensitivity toward their “non-Brahmin Hindu neighbours.” But this soft introduction quickly shifted into political commentary aimed at attacking what TNM called the “Hindutva forces.” These included the Hindu Munnani, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). TNM alleged that these groups escalated the issue ahead of state assembly elections and even launched a statewide agitation to assert Hindu control over the entire hill.

The media outlet then focused on the claim that Hindus wanted to prohibit both the animal sacrifice and Muslim prayers at the dargah, arguing that the entire hill is considered the sacred body of Lord Murugan. Abutahir added that there had never been any objection for years and that if things were peaceful in the past, they should remain unchanged now.

But this argument ignores a simple truth: just because something has continued for a long time does not make it permanently valid. Reform is a natural part of social progress. For instance, the Triple Talaq Law, which addressed a long-standing concern, was also introduced despite decades of practice. Moreover, the Thiruparankundram dispute is not a recent development. Historical documents show that Hindus have asserted their rights over the entire hill for over a century, especially since 1920, when the dargah reportedly tried to construct a mandapam.

Attempting to label the shrine as a “syncretic worship place” to dilute Hindu concerns

TNM further claimed that during the arrests, no BJP or Hindutva organization was “in the picture”, and the police had not received any official complaint from the Hindu residents against animal sacrifice. This was presented to imply that the issue was exaggerated by political forces.

A curious point appeared when the Muslim side approached the court and argued that the site is “a syncretic place of worship that draws pilgrims from both or all religions.” They even claimed that “the main individual who conducted the Halal ceremony at the dargah is a Hindu named Paramasivam, who is part of the Mukkulathor or Thevar community.” According to the report, his son — described as “a devotee of the dargah” — had “signed a sworn statement to this effect, saying his family performs Halal and collects a portion of the meat as part of an ancient ritual barter.”

These statements were used to build an image of shared cultural space and inter-religious warmth. But such isolated cases cannot erase the deeper tension that has existed for generations. A handful of individuals participating in rituals does not make the entire site “secular.” The presence of a few Hindus at the dargah is not proof of universal acceptance. Similarly, many non-Hindus visiting temples during festivals does not change their fundamentally religious identity.

The bigger and more important question remains: How can a place be called a symbol of harmony when Hindus have been fighting for their rights over the hill for more than 100 years? The emotional framing used by TNM overlooks the larger Hindu grievances. The experiences of a few individuals cannot override the historical and cultural sentiments of the wider Hindu community. Their concerns deserve equal respect and recognition.

Raising Suspicion on Official Claims to Preserve a False Narrative

The Thiruparankundram Revenue Inspector clearly stated that the public pathway leading to the shrine had been blocked by a group of Muslims. According to him, they “prevented the police from doing their duty” and “used inappropriate words and slogans” such as “down with police anarchy” while resisting the officials. These details were part of the formal complaint recorded by the authorities. Yet, the article being discussed tried to cast doubts on these statements by asking, “Why would one set of pilgrims have a problem with another set visiting the same shrine,” suggesting that such resistance seemed unlikely. At the same time, Abutahir claimed that he did not even remember seeing the official present at the scene.

A basic answer to this question is not difficult to understand. It is similar to why Hindu religious processions frequently face stone-pelting or obstruction during festivals in certain localities, and why permissions are often denied when they try to pass through what are labeled as “Muslim areas.” However, these are conversations that the left-leaning groups are always uncomfortable having. They refuse to acknowledge any troubling realities that may arise within their preferred demographic, which is why such incidents are consistently brushed aside or repackaged through soft narratives. The pattern remains the same: downplay the aggression, ignore the facts, and highlight only those angles that fit their ideological direction.

The article further mentioned that the Revenue Inspector’s charges were echoed by the Madurai Commissioner of Police, J. Loganathan, who stated the same in his submission before the Madras High Court’s Madurai bench. Yet the article complained that Loganathan did not speak about how “Hindus from Rajapalayam travelled with their Muslim neighbours like a family to sacrifice a goat and participate in Sufi rituals”, using this selective detail to continue projecting the “communal harmony” narrative.

As the story unfolded, Abutahir reportedly spoke for nearly fifteen minutes but suddenly disconnected the call and disappeared. He even stopped speaking to the Jamaat members who initially facilitated the interview with the media outlet. According to the report, he resumed the conversation only after a Madurai lawyer, S. Vanchinathan, promised to take up his case and blamed the local police for why Abutahir went silent in the first place.

The media piece then attempted to craft a picture of a perfect neighbourhood where a single Muslim family lived among appreciative Hindu neighbours, suggesting that the two communities coexist peacefully until the BJP or other Hindutva organisations supposedly provoke tensions. This argument quietly shifts responsibility towards the BJP and Hindutva groups while erasing the long and well-documented history of Hindu concerns related to the hill. The issue, in reality, has nothing to do with electoral politics. It has always been about safeguarding Hindu religious rights that have been asserted for generations. Yet the article subtly pushes the idea that Hindus must surrender their rights in the name of “harmony”—otherwise they risk being labelled communal for simply defending their beliefs.

Anti-Hindutva Accusations Continue While Avoiding Accountability from Those in Power

According to the article, the police claimed that their orders to stop the Muslims from climbing the hill came from the District Collector. But when the jamaat verified this, they allegedly found that no such instruction had been issued. The officers then said that the order was given on behalf of the district authorities by the Revenue Development Officer (RDO). Yet, the Muslim side again insisted that no such directive had not been issued.

If this version of events is indeed accurate, it raises a question that the article conveniently avoided asking: doesn’t this reflect an administrative failure by the officials functioning under the ruling Dravidian government? Instead of pointing out the responsibility of the people in charge, the article went on to criticise Hindu organisations and the BJP — a party that holds merely four seats in the Tamil Nadu assembly — as if they were directing state machinery. The idea of “speaking truth to power” seems to apply only when it involves the BJP, regardless of whether the party is actually in power or not.

Later, the article stated that the Jain community had provided archaeological proof showing they had built shrines in the region long before other religions. But it conveniently skipped over the fact that even Jain caves were not spared historically, as they were reportedly painted green by certain Islamist groups who sought to claim these spaces.

The piece then made another sweeping claim that “evolving legal and political equations surrounding this conflict, detailing how police and bureaucratic actions created a vacuum that the BJP rapidly filled to escalate its Hindutva agenda.” To make the article appear balanced on the surface, it added that “secular groups feel profoundly disappointed by the police and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK)-led state machinery, which they view as having actively undermined the Dravidian Model’s commitment to social justice.”

Even so, the main target throughout the article remained Hindutva and the BJP. The ruling party — whose ministers, MLAs, and even MPs have openly expressed hostility toward Sanatan Dharma — was barely criticised, except for failing to enforce “social justice.” The suggestion that such an administration did not act against “Hindutva forces,” which actually hold no authority in the state, is not only contradictory but unrealistic.

The media outlet continued reinforcing this narrative by stating that “Hindutva groups are labeling it the Ayodhya of South India.” It condemned the large gathering where “Hindu Munnani, Hindu Makkal Katchi, RSS, and the BJP together with around five lakh people gathered in Madurai on 22nd June for a Murugan ‘Maanadu’ (conference)” — which was reportedly the biggest Hindutva gathering in Tamil Nadu’s history. During this event, the attendees vowed to reclaim the entire hill, which they believe represents Lord Murugan, and demanded that animal sacrifice at the dargah be permanently banned.

The Hindu Makkal Katchi also petitioned the court to ban the term “Sikkandar Malai,” insisting instead on the name “Skandar Malai,” one of Murugan’s sacred titles. Meanwhile, Muslim groups continued performing sacrificial rituals at the site, and prominent Muslim leaders even visited the hill. Yet, the media outlet criticised only the Hindu side for organising public meetings or asserting their legal rights. In this framing, any Hindu mobilisation — even one backed by court orders — is portrayed as dangerous or extremist.

A Century-Old Legal Battle That Clearly Establishes Ownership

The article argued that “Behind each name and claim over the Kundram, Kundru or Malai is a story that goes back to a time about which there is very little recorded history.” However, the historical record says otherwise. As already explained earlier, the dispute intensified when the dargah attempted to construct a mandapam in 1920, leading the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple to seek a legal declaration of ownership over the entire hill.

In 1923, the trial court ruled that the temple indeed owned almost the entire hill, except for around 33 cents of land at Nellithoppu, where the dargah’s flagstaff and mosque stood. When the dargah appealed, the Privy Council, which was the highest court during British rule, upheld the temple’s rights to the hill “from time immemorial” in 1931.

Subsequent cases only strengthened this position. In 1958, the court prohibited quarrying outside the dargah’s limited boundary. In 2011, it ruled that no new construction or lighting could be installed without the temple’s permission. Later petitions related to tourism activities or flag installations were also rejected.

For more than a century, the courts have consistently upheld that the temple holds complete authority over the hill, except for the small 33-cent patch reserved for the dargah.

Facts on the Ground Contradict the Media Narrative Entirely

In reality, the situation is far different from the image that The News Minute attempted to create. Hindus were compelled to organise large-scale demonstrations to push back against unauthorized encroachments by Muslim groups, while also fighting long legal battles just to obtain permission for their own religious activities.

Animal sacrifice at the site was allowed with approval from the DMK government. Authorities were forced to act only after Hindu devotees protested strongly when members of the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) and its political wing, the SDPI, allegedly tried to escalate communal tensions. Even plans to rename the hill as “Sikandar Malai” were reportedly in progress, despite the DMK often being accused of Muslim appeasement.

To some, the dargah may appear to symbolize communal harmony or a shared spiritual space. But the historical and legal reality is clear: the site has repeatedly been used to encroach on Hindu religious rights, disturb their sacred space, and disregard their sentiments. The High Court’s ruling, supported by more than a century of legal precedent, reaffirms this truth. No amount of victimhood narratives or selective storytelling from left-liberal media platforms can hide these well-established facts.