Vijay not named in Karur stampede FIR: Why the DMK government is walking a tightrope around the Tamil superstar

The Incident and the FIR

On 27 September 2025, a stampede broke out during a campaign rally in Karur, Tamil Nadu, organized by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), led by the actor‑politician Vijay. The crush occurred as thousands of supporters tried to approach his campaign vehicle, leading to panic, suffocation, and deaths. Reuters+2The Guardian+2

In the aftermath, the Tamil Nadu police registered a First Information Report (FIR) under sections related to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, negligent conduct endangering human life, and disobedience to public service orders. Reuters+2The Guardian+2

However, Vijay’s name is conspicuously absent from the list of accused. Instead, senior party figures — including Bussy Anand, Nirmal Kumar, and V.P. Mathiyalagan — have been named in the case. Reuters+2The Guardian+2

This decision immediately raised eyebrows and triggered intense political and media debate over accountability, culpability, and political calculus.

Why Vijay Was Not Named: Possible Explanations

While one cannot confirm motives, a combination of legal, political, and strategic factors likely influenced the decision not to include Vijay’s name:

1. Legal calculus

• In FIRs, police generally name those with direct organizing or supervisory control over the event. The organizers, coordinators, or local district secretaries are more clearly tied to logistics, permissions, crowd control, and site management.
• Police may argue insufficient direct evidence currently linking Vijay to lapses or negligence. Unless a link (e.g. specific direction to overstretch a venue, ignoring safety advice) is demonstrable, naming him could risk legal challenges.
• Naming a high-profile figure without “prima facie” proof could invite accusations of political targeting or defamation.

2. Political sensitivity and risk avoidance

• Vijay is not just a politician — he is a mass superstar in Tamil Nadu, with a huge fan base and emotional appeal. Any legal action against him is bound to provoke strong reactions.
• The DMK government, which rules the state, must manage the optics carefully. Taking an action that might be perceived as overreach or vendetta could be politically damaging, especially with elections looming.
• The absence of his name (for now) allows the government and police flexibility — to gather evidence, investigate deeper, and frame later decisions based on findings, rather than being boxed into a position.

3. Avoiding backlash, fomenting public anger

• Naming a beloved film icon in an FIR connected to a tragedy with dozens dead could spark public outrage, protests, or even violent reactions by his supporters.
• The DMK may prefer to handle things behind the scenes, controlling narrative and damage, rather than making the issue a flashpoint.

4. Space for negotiation or middle path

• By not naming him initially, the government leaves open the option to bring charges later if warranted — or to potentially influence settlement, mediation, or institutional probe findings.
• This also gives the DMK room to claim it is “following due process” without appearing biased or vindictive.

The DMK’s Delicate Balancing Act

Given the sensitivity, the DMK-led government is navigating multiple, often conflicting pressures:

Political stakes

• The DMK faces not only the BJP but now a new potent challenger in TVK. Vijay’s entry into politics changes the electoral arithmetic. An aggressive move against him risks pushing his supporters into a more sympathetic stance.
• If the DMK is seen as harassing a film icon, it could galvanize not just TVK’s base but neutral voters who admire star icons.

Governance and law & order

• The government must maintain credibility: it cannot appear to be shielding Vijay or his party when a serious tragedy has occurred.
• It must ensure a transparent, fair investigation and visible accountability for those truly responsible — whether in TVK’s apparatus or state machinery (e.g., police, district administration).

Media and public perception

• The narrative will be contested fiercely. If DMK appears too soft, critics will accuse it of favoritism. If it acts too strongly, it invites backlash.
• The government is already pushing messaging to discourage social media misinformation and rumors, indicating its desire to manage the narrative. The Economic Times

Legal caution

• Any action against Vijay must pass legal muster. If the FIR names him without clear evidence, he can challenge it in courts, gaining credibility and publicity.
• A careful, evidence‑based approach allows the government to adjust positions as the investigation progresses.

Risks and Criticism

Even with caution, the DMK government is vulnerable to multiple criticisms:

• Perceived double standards: Opponents and critics will argue that if Vijay is powerful and popular, other political figures would have been prosecuted under similar circumstances. Claims of preferential treatment may arise.
• Delayed justice: If the government drags its feet, victims’ families may accuse it of shielding high-profile persons at the cost of prompt accountability.
• Political backlash: The TVK and its supporters could use this to paint the DMK as authoritarian or insecure.
• Media and civil society pressure: There will be demands for independent judicial inquiry, CBI or SIT mandates, especially given the scale of human loss.

What Lies Ahead: Possibilities & Watchpoints

1. Judicial or independent commission probe
   • The government has already announced a commission headed by a retired judge. Such a body can provide a cover of impartiality. The Week+1
   • The probe’s findings will be critical. If it finds serious lapses by TVK or government machinery, it may justify further action, including naming Vijay.
2. Supplemental charges or modification of FIR
   • If investigators uncover evidence implicating Vijay directly (e.g., instructions about timing, crowd control, ignoring warnings), his name could be added later.
   • The FIR might be expanded to include state officials — police or administrative — if failures on their part are exposed.
3. Political negotiation and damage control
   • DMK may offer compensation packages, public condolences, and visible outreach to victims to reduce the political fallout.
   • It may try to co-opt or neutralize criticism by highlighting its prompt medical response and relief efforts. The Week
4. Legal battles and reputation war
   • TVK, Vijay, and opposition parties may challenge the FIR in courts, file public interest litigation, or push for third‑party oversight (e.g. CBI). The Times of India
   • Media narratives will matter: any leaks, CCTV footage, internal communication will become arena of public contest.

Conclusion

The decision not to name Vijay in the Karur stampede FIR is hardly an accident — it reflects a calculated balance of legal prudence, electoral politics, and public sentiment management by the DMK government. While there’s a legitimate argument for accountability, the state must tread carefully to avoid being painted as either complicit or vindictive.

In the coming days, what the investigative findings reveal — and how the government acts — will shape not just the political fortunes of TVK and DMK, but also set a precedent for how high-profile leaders are treated in tragedies.

Would you like me to draft a shorter op-ed version or a perspective from the victims’ families to go along with this?