‘Support Dileep, Vedan, Mukesh, Suresh Gopi...tomorrow my sons could be accused’: Rahul Easwar
Thiruvananthapuram: Social activist Rahul Easwar on Tuesday set off a major controversy after making a sweeping statement defending several high-profile figures facing allegations, arguing that false and delayed complaints pose a danger to society at large.
Identifying himself as a “Hindu right-wing activist,” Easwar acknowledged big ideological differences with rapper Vedan, whom he accused of advocating a “Dalit-Muslim-Left nexus.” However, he said many complaints against Vedan were either frivolous or filed years later, prompting him to publicly support the artist.
Watch the video below:
“At the same time, many complaints against Vedan were frivolous, and many complaints were made years later. So, I supported Vedan,” Easwar said, adding that his stand was not about ideology but about principle.
Drawing parallels with other controversial cases, Easwar said he had earlier defended Congress leader Rahul Mamkootathil and warned against what he described as a culture of selective outrage and misinformation. “It’s an ideological difference. But we shouldn’t lie about a person’s case,” he said.
In a statement that has since gone viral, Easwar broadened his argument, naming actor Dileep, MLA Mukesh, BJP MP Suresh Gopi, and Eldhose Kunnappilly. “If Rahul Mamkootathil can be lied about, Dileep can be lied about, Vedan can be lied about, Rahul Easwar can be lied about,” he said.
Striking an emotional note, Easwar added, “My two sons are at risk tomorrow. So the point is — please listen to this; support Dileep, support Vedan, support Mukesh, support Eldhose Kunnappilly, support Suresh Gopi… because these are somebody’s father, son, brother, friend.”
The remarks have triggered intense debate in Kerala, with critics accusing Easwar of trivialising serious allegations, while supporters say he is highlighting the dangers of trial by media and politically motivated complaints.
Why Bail Was Granted:
The court granted bail after observing that the allegations against Vedan were not supported by immediate or consistent evidence, and that several complaints were filed years after the alleged incidents. The judge noted that custodial interrogation was not necessary at this stage and that prolonged incarceration before trial would amount to pre-judging the case.
The court also took into account Vedan’s cooperation with the investigation and held that bail, with strict conditions, would not hamper the probe, reiterating that bail is the rule and jail the exception.