When Chennai Lectures Colombo: Why M.K. Stalin’s Constitutional Commentary Rings Hollow
Colombowire International Correspondent
There is a peculiar confidence with which Indian regional politicians speak on the constitutional architecture of neighbouring states. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin’s recent intervention on Sri Lanka’s proposed Constitution is a case in point: politically emotive, rhetorically expansive, and constitutionally superficial.
Stalin’s letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi warning that Sri Lanka’s proposed Constitution may “sideline Tamils” is presented as a moral intervention. In substance, however, it reads more like inherited political theatre than informed constitutional critique. The difficulty is not concern for Sri Lankan Tamils—an entirely legitimate subject—but the authority with which Stalin pontificates on constitutional design, federalism, and self-determination, areas in which he has neither academic grounding nor practical constitutional experience.
A Heir, Not a Constitutional Scholar
M.K. Stalin is not a constitutional lawyer, jurist, or scholar of comparative federalism. His political career, like his office, is an inheritance of lineage rather than legal merit. Son of the late M. Karunanidhi—a formidable political communicator but not a constitutional authority himself—Stalin’s understanding of constitutional law appears limited to inherited slogans rather than jurisprudential depth.
This matters because constitution-making is not a sentimental exercise. It is a technical, historically embedded, and legally constrained process. Sri Lanka’s constitutional question is entangled with sovereignty, post-conflict reconciliation, electoral mandates, and economic restructuring. To reduce it to a checklist of the Thimpu Principles from 1985 is to ignore four decades of legal, demographic, and geopolitical transformation.
The Irony of Federal Sermons from a Centralised Reality
Stalin urges India to “press for federal arrangements” in Sri Lanka, invoking India’s own constitutional values of federalism. This is where the argument collapses under its own hypocrisy.
India’s Constitution, while federal in form, is among the most centralising constitutions in the democratic world. Article 356 (President’s Rule), centrally appointed Governors, fiscal centralisation through the GST regime, and routine interference in state autonomy have systematically hollowed out genuine federalism. Tamil Nadu itself has repeatedly complained—often rightly—of linguistic imposition, fiscal discrimination, and erosion of state powers by New Delhi.
If Stalin is genuinely concerned about federalism and minority rights, his first port of call should be the Indian Constitution and its implementation, particularly the persistent marginalisation of linguistic minorities, the dilution of state autonomy, and the selective use of central power against opposition-ruled states.
Selective Outrage and Convenient Silence
Stalin speaks of “77 years of discrimination” faced by Sri Lankan Tamils under unitary constitutions. Yet he remains conspicuously silent on India’s own historical record: the systematic dilution of Article 370, the erosion of Sixth Schedule protections, custodial violence, language-based exclusion, and the routine sidelining of minority aspirations through executive fiat.
The moral authority to lecture another sovereign nation on constitutional justice requires internal consistency. Selective outrage—amplified when it suits domestic electoral politics—undermines credibility.
Sri Lanka’s Constitution Is Not Tamil Nadu’s Campaign Tool
Sri Lanka’s current constitutional reform process, led by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, arises from a distinct political mandate following economic collapse, systemic corruption, and mass public revolt. To frame it narrowly as an ethnic conspiracy or an inevitable instrument of Tamil marginalisation is intellectually lazy and politically irresponsible.
Federalism is not a magic wand; nor is it the only constitutional model capable of protecting minority rights. Many multi-ethnic states operate unitary systems with robust safeguards, while federal systems have equally failed minorities. The quality of institutions, rule of law, and economic justice matters more than constitutional labels.
A Joke, But Not for the Reasons Stated
What makes Stalin’s intervention a “joke” is not concern for Sri Lankan Tamils, but the presumption of expertise. Constitutional reform is not an arena for inherited indignation or emotional kinship politics. It demands legal precision, historical humility, and above all, respect for sovereignty.
Before advising Colombo, Stalin would do well to examine Chennai and New Delhi. Before invoking federal ideals abroad, he should confront their erosion at home. And before positioning himself as a constitutional conscience of South Asia, he should acquire a working understanding of the subject he so confidently lectures upon.
Until then, his commentary on Sri Lanka’s Constitution remains what it appears to be: domestic political signalling dressed up as international constitutional concern.