Statues vs Public Welfare: Why the Supreme Court's Remarks on Karunanidhi’s Statue Matter for Indian Democracy

The tradition of erecting statues of leaders and public figures in India is not new. From national icons to regional stalwarts, statues have long dotted the public landscape. However, the recent stern remarks by the Supreme Court regarding a petition to install a statue of M. Karunanidhi, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and a towering figure in Dravidian politics have reignited critical debates about the purpose and cost of such commemorations.

The Supreme Court firmly questioned why taxpayer money should be used to glorify political leaders. Is it appropriate for politicians to prioritize building memorials over providing essential services that ordinary citizens need and deserve?

In this case, the Tamil Nadu government sought permission to install a statue of Karunanidhi in Tirunelveli district. The Madras High Court initially rejected the request, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision. The rationale: statues in public spaces often disrupt traffic, cause inconvenience to citizens, and place undue stress on already burdened urban infrastructure.

Notably, the High Court offered a progressive alternative suggesting the creation of public parks named after leaders. These parks could serve the dual purpose of honoring legacies while providing tangible benefits to the public. This is not just a directive for Tamil Nadu but a lesson for political culture across India.

The Politics Behind Statues

Statue politics has deep roots in India. Whether it’s freedom fighters or regional icons, these structures are more than symbolic tributes, they often serve political purposes. A statue sends a signal to a specific community or caste that their leader is being honored, thereby securing political allegiance or votes. This is precisely why demands for statues spike during election seasons or shortly after a leader’s passing.

But can a leader’s legacy truly be defined by a stone or metal structure? Should public funds be spent on symbols that neither enhance education nor improve healthcare or infrastructure?

Legacy Should Be a Living, Functional Contribution

In a democracy, both public memory and public welfare are important. Preserving the legacy of influential leaders is vital, but the method of doing so should provide real value to society. As the courts rightly emphasized, commemoration must deliver practical benefits.

For instance, if we truly wish to honor Karunanidhi or any great leader, why not:

• Establish a library in their name housing their writings, speeches, and ideas?
• Set up a technology park, research center, or scholarship scheme?
• Launch a public health campaign, school, or social welfare initiative?

Such initiatives not only preserve a leader’s memory but also contribute to social progress—turning ideology into action.

Public Needs Must Come First

Most Indian cities are grappling with deteriorating infrastructure—broken roads, lack of green spaces, traffic congestion, pollution, and limited access to healthcare and education. In this context, spending crores on statues seems not only out of touch but almost mocking to the public’s daily struggles.

Instead, building parks as suggested by the judiciary not only beautifies cities but provides much-needed open spaces. Parks become hubs for children to play, the elderly to walk, and citizens to interact. If designed thoughtfully, they can also include information about the leaders they commemorate creating a balance between memory and utility.

Democracy Demands Responsible Spending

The Supreme Court’s observations raise a deeper question: What should taxpayer money be used for?

In a democracy, the government is a trustee of public resources. When these resources are diverted for political symbolism rather than public welfare, the very essence of democratic governance is compromised. In a developing country like India still battling deficits in health, education, water, and infrastructure every rupee counts.

Building a Functional Legacy

True legacy is not built in stone but in actions and institutions that outlive their creators. If Karunanidhi’s legacy is to endure, it should be embedded in:

• Educational reforms
• Literature and cultural initiatives
• Social welfare programs
• Research institutions exploring Dravidian ideology and its impact

Imagine a Dravidian Thought Research Institute or a scholarship fund for underprivileged students in Karunanidhi’s name. Such contributions would empower thousands, making his legacy dynamic and impactful, not just symbolic.

A Democratic Reminder

The courts’ stance is a crucial intervention in India’s democratic evolution. This is not just about Karunanidhi or Tamil Nadu—it sets a precedent for the entire nation. Legacy and memory must not be separated from the public good.

Today, as citizens face mounting challenges—pollution, unemployment, lack of open space—the politics of statues risks appearing tone-deaf. Respecting leaders is important, but how that respect is expressed matters even more.

Parks, libraries, research centers, and scholarships do far more than stone ever could—they nurture future generations, keeping ideologies alive through action. Statues, by contrast, often become sites of political controversy, encroachment, or neglect.

The Supreme Court’s comments serve as a warning bell. They remind us that in a democracy, public funds are for public benefit, not political glorification. If political parties and governments take this message seriously, India can move towards a model where public memory and public convenience coexist strengthening democracy from the ground up.