From Gandhi to Gavai: Sanatan Still Weaponised to Target Dalits, Dissent

Over time, untouchability, contempt for those relegated to the lower end of the traditional caste hierarchy and the violent targeting of minorities have all come to be defended in the name of Sanatan. Recent events in the Supreme Court underscore how caste-based contempt and ideological aggression can manifest in alarming ways. The actions of advocate Rakesh Kishore, who recently hurled a shoe at Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai (he missed his mark) need to be seen as part of that pattern.

Kishore also shouted at the bench, “Sanatan Dharma ka apman nahin sahega Hindustan” (Hindustan won't tolerate insulting Sanatan Dharma), showing that caste-based contempt doesn't just endure but, regardless of social or economic standing, can be brazenly expressed. Even a practicing advocate can willfully, criminally disregard the apex court and the chief justice to assert his grievance in the name of 'Sanatan Dharma'.

Also read: Those Speaking Against Sanatana Dharma Today Are Fighting 2000 Years of Oppression

Even more chilling was Kishore's later defence of his actions, without a modicum of remorse, that was telecast on television channels. He was utterly unmindful of the large-heartedness with which the court and the CJI let him off the hook. All the more distressing was his celebration as a hero in the Hindutva ecosystem, which claims to take pride in Sanatan Dharma, even as it is openly weaponised to target rivals, dissenters, perceived opponents and those of other faiths. This response illustrates how ideological narratives can embolden individuals to act against the constitution and legal and moral norms.

When prime minister defended Sanatan

While campaigning for the 2024 general election in Gaya, Bihar, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a leader forged in the Hindutva crucible, had appealed for votes by targeting opponents of his ideology. At a time when protecting the constitution had become a major electoral issue and voters – including those from Dalit and Muslim communities – had rallied behind the cause. Then, Modi had advanced the preposterous argument that a great constitution could be drafted by Dr B.R. Ambedkar, the chair of the drafting committee of the constituent assembly, because "80% or 90%" of its members were Sanatani, who had supported him. By emphasising the Sanatani majority, he elevated one religious identity while marginalising the contributions of followers of Islam, Christianity and other belief systems in the assembly.

The Hindutva ecosystem is nourished on such valourising statements, which is why advocate Kishore's shoe-flinging should not be seen in isolation.

Context of attack on Justice B.R. Gavai

Chief Justice Gavai, a Buddhist and a Dalit, had earlier dismissed Kishore’s Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the restoration of a Lord Vishnu idol in the Khajuraho temple complex in Madhya Pradesh. Kishore claimed before the court to hold deep devotion for the deity. While Justice Gavai noted in his order the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India over the upkeep of this idol, he also remarked that the petitioner should pray to the deity to do something; a judicial remark about the petitioner's claim.

Kishore, however, interpreted that remark as an insult to Sanatan Dharma and flung the shoe to avenge it. After his infamous act, he declared that "the almighty was asking me every night how I could rest after such an insult”. He blamed CJI Gavai's comments disapproving of “bulldozer justice” for his actions.

Kishore’s invocation of Sanatan Dharma in defence of his outrageous actions follow a historical pattern of asserting hegemony over those relegated to the lower rungs of the traditional caste hierarchy. No wonder then, that the Hindutva forces have been vigorously justifying Kishore’s offence with pride. This episode exemplifies how caste and ideological sensitivities can be weaponised to justify illegal actions and casteist assaults, and how such acts are amplified by political narratives.

Historical experience: Gandhi and Ambedkar

Kishore’s actions and the ensuing defense by Hindutva forces echo historical patterns that Gandhi and Ambedkar sought to dismantle. Gandhi, a Sanatani Hindu, vocally opposed untouchability and caste-based oppression, warning on September 22, 1932, that he would “raze to the ground the fort of Sanatanists with dynamite” if the untouchables united against oppression. (It was during a discussion with Ambedkar on separate electorates for the Depressed Classes, which Gandhi opposed, though the larger point remains that Gandhi dared challenge orthodoxy nearly a century ago, while the current dispensation wishes to glorify the eras gone by.)

Gandhi himself endured attacks – stones, shoes, even bombs – for challenging caste orthodoxy and the moral blindness of those who backed untouchability. He said, albeit in opposition to Ambedkar's demands, that the "entire untouchable community should unitedly rebel against the Sanatanists”. In other words, he understood that sacred authority is used to defend hierarchy or violence.

Gandhi once wrote to social worker and freedom fighter Amritlal Thakkar: “Let Hinduism perish if the so-called Sanatanists fail to wake up and, in their vanity, resort to goondaism with the help of the masses.”

Also read: Sanatan Dharma: An Ideology or the Entire Hindu Community?

Similarly, on September 1, 1943, Ambedkar wrote a preface to the book, Mr. Gandhi and the Emancipation of Untouchables, in which he denounced the structural and social order underpinned by Sanatan – the regressive values associated with it. He scathingly wrote, “The Anti-semitism of the Nazis against the Jews is in no way different in ideology and in effect from the Sanatanism of the Hindus against the Untouchables.”

In Annihilation of Caste, Ambedkar wrote, “The Hindus must consider whether the time has not come for them to recognise that there is nothing fixed, nothing eternal, nothing sanatan; that everything is changing, that change is the law of life for individuals as well as for society.”

“In a changing society,” he wrote, “There must be a constant revolution of old values, and the Hindus must realise that if there must be standards to measure the acts of men, there must also be a readiness to revise those standards.”

Put differently, Ambedkar understood better than all his contemporaries that ideology, when sanctified by faith or belief, becomes a weapon against equality.

Viewed through this lens, while Gandhi was a victim of the regressive forces he challenged, Ambedkar exposed how caste hierarchy had been sanctified as eternal truth. Meanwhile, Gavai was targeted by a similar intolerance as in the past, making the act of hurling a shoe at him, in the name of Sanatan Dharma, not just an isolated act of disrespect. It is part of a larger, enduring struggle over caste, ideology and identity. Kishore’s act, the political environment that sustains it and the social attention it receives highlight the urgent need to uphold constitutional principles over sectarian or caste-based claims.

S.N. Sahu was officer on special duty to President of India K R Narayanan.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.