Thiruparankundram, a historic town in Madurai district of Tamil Nadu, has emerged as a major flashpoint in the debate over religious freedom, administrative neutrality and discrimination against Hindu practices. Recent events at and around the Kasi Viswanathar temple precincts have triggered widespread outrage among Hindus because of the systematic curbing of Hindu observances by the state administration while facilitating Muslim religious gatherings with elaborate security and logistical support.

At the heart of the current controversy is the denial of permission to light a “moksha deepam” or ceremonial lamp during a full-moon (poorna chandra) occasion believed to be auspicious by local devotees, even as a large Islamic event in the same locality was allegedly allowed to proceed with tight police deployment and traffic arrangements. This contrast has highlighted a glaring case of Hinduphobia and institutional bias, with Hindus arguing that the state is not merely failing to protect Hindu rights but is actively obstructing them in a manner that would be unthinkable for other communities.

Dispute Origins

The controversy erupted at Thiruparankundram Hill in Madurai, Tamil Nadu, centering on the ancient Deepathoon pillar and Kasi Viswanathar Temple, sites tied to longstanding Hindu customs like lighting the Karthigai Deepam—Moksha Deepam—for Lord Murugan devotees. On December 1, 2025, the Madras High Court Madurai bench ordered the ritual’s performance, affirming the site’s Hindu temple ownership despite disputes with a hilltop dargah. Tamil Nadu’s DMK government countered with Section 144 prohibitory orders, citing “law and order concerns,” and appealed, effectively blocking Hindus for 21 days while allowing over 20 women and men protesters’ arrests.​

Systematic Denial of Hindu Rights

Hindus faced blanket restrictions on temple access and Deepam lighting, with police demanding Aadhaar cards from locals and detaining protesters in a private marriage hall in Tirunagar, including lawyers. BJP leader H. Raja accused the administration of discriminatory religious restrictions, noting Hindus barred from worship while Muslims gained unrestricted hilltop access. This pattern escalated when a devotee, Poorna Chandran, self-immolated on December 18, 2025, protesting the anti-Hindu stance and denial of the sacred lamp ritual, drawing condemnation from BJP Tamil Nadu President Nainar Nagenthiran.

Muslim Festival Proceeds Unhindered

In stark contrast, the Muslim Sandhanakoodu festival at Sikandar Dargah atop the hill commenced on December 21-22, 2025, under heavy police security, with no similar curbs imposed. Hindu Munnani slammed the DMK for permitting this annual dargah event despite court orders favoring Hindu rituals, labeling it a wanton denial of Moksha Deepam in memory of Poorna Chandran. Protesters highlighted the hypocrisy: over 200 gathered demanding equal access, clashing with police as BJP and Hindu outfits rallied outside detention sites.​

Administrative Bias and Protests Intensify

Madurai Police Commissioner Inigo Divyan oversaw stringent measures, redirecting leaders like H. Raja while enforcing conditions for limited darshan at Kasi Viswanathar Temple starting December 22 at 12:40 pm. Hindu groups alleged the government’s unfounded objections created a false communal angle, noting no local Muslim opposition to court orders yet prioritizing “minority sensibilities” over Hindu rights. Large-scale protests by Hindu Munnani across Tamil Nadu accused DMK of institutionalized Hindu subjugation.​​

Evidence of Hinduphobia and Appeasement

The dual standards reveal systematic Hinduphobia: court-affirmed Hindu rituals defied via executive overreach, while Muslim festivities enjoy protection—exemplifying administrative bias against Hindu celebrations. Hindus decry an anti-Hindu establishment under DMK, sacrificing pluralism for appeasement, as one suicide and mass detentions underscore the toll on devotees. Naming disputes, with Hindus insisting on “Thiruparankundram” versus Muslim pushes for “Sikkandar Malai,” further highlight contested control amid unequal enforcement.​