No apology to Kannadigas, yet Dhruv Rathee gets Bengaluru Platform

Bengaluru

YouTuber and political commentator Dhruv Rathee’s visit to Bengaluru has triggered renewed criticism over his earlier remarks concerning Kannadigas, with Kannada activist and journalist Dinesh Kumar S C questioning why Rathee was invited to the city without being asked to clarify or apologise for his controversial statements.

Rathee is in Bengaluru on Thursday to participate in a public programme concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. His visit has brought back into focus a video in which he spoke about incidents involving non-Kannada speakers in Karnataka.

Critics have accused Rathee of making a sweeping claim that people in Karnataka are assaulted for not speaking Kannada. Several Kannada-speaking viewers had subsequently challenged him to provide evidence or cite a specific incident supporting the claim.

Dinesh Kumar said Rathee’s remarks had made him lose the respect he once had for the YouTuber.

“By making a blatant false claim that people speaking other languages are beaten in Karnataka because they do not speak Kannada, it is clear whom Dhruv Rathee was trying to please,” Kumar said.

He alleged that Karnataka has provided a safe environment for people from Hindi-speaking States and accused Rathee of responding to that hospitality by portraying Kannadigas negatively.

“People from the Hindi-speaking States can never repay Karnataka for the safe haven it has provided them. Instead, they portray Kannadigas as cruel and terrorists and spit into the plate from which they have eaten,” he said.

Kumar said Rathee’s video had fundamentally altered his view of him.

“After watching this video by Dhruv Rathee, whatever respect I had for him disappeared. This ungrateful man now comes to Bengaluru and delivers speeches. Our people roll out the red carpet for such a traitor. What could be more self-destructive than this?” he said.

He questioned the decision to invite Rathee to Bengaluru without first seeking an apology over the disputed remarks.

“At the very least, before inviting him to Bengaluru, could our people not have asked him to apologise? Have we lost even that much self-respect?” Kumar asked.

The controversy comes at a time when Karnataka has emerged as an important centre of public opposition to aspects of the SIR exercise. Rathee’s Bengaluru appearance is linked to a programme focusing on the electoral-roll revision.

For Rathee’s critics, however, his position on SIR is separate from the questions surrounding his earlier comments about Karnataka and Kannadigas. They argue that criticism of the Kannada language movement is legitimate, but sweeping claims about violence against non-Kannada speakers should be supported by specific evidence.

The episode has also triggered a wider debate over how Karnataka responds to prominent public figures who make contentious statements about the State or its linguistic community.

Kumar said the issue was not about preventing Rathee from speaking in Bengaluru, but about accountability for what he had previously said.

Rathee has not, according to his critics, issued an apology for the remarks that triggered the controversy. His return to Bengaluru has consequently revived demands that he address the allegations and explain the basis for his earlier claims.

The question being raised by Kannada activists is straightforward: before giving a public platform to someone accused of making sweeping allegations against Kannadigas, should organisers have first sought an explanation or apology?