Few weeks have passed since Udhayanidhi Stalin, the Tamil Nadu sports minister, condemned sanatan dharma vociferously and gave a call for its eradication, equating it to deadly infectious diseases. Unlike many other sensational statements routinely made by politicians that barely last a news cycle, this issue has lingered on.
Although Udhayanidhi’s original commentary was a stinging rebuke of a social evil that perpetrates inequality rather than a political attack, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) wasted no time in owning sanatana dharma and throwing itself lock, stock and barrel into defending a dharma that is considered to be the bedrock of Hinduism. So much so that Prime Minister Narendra Modi took it upon himself to exhort his ministers to give a “proper response” to Udhayanidhi’s critique.
While some observers saw this as a folly on part of the INDIA coalition that Udhayanidhi’s party DMK belongs to, as it gives electoral fodder to the Viswaguru, this in fact is an existential debate that has a lasting impact longer than any five-year election cycle because it impacts the millions that wallow under the weight of sanatan dharma knowingly or unknowingly, owing to their birth into a particular social order. It is much bigger than India itself, as it has its origins in our history that pre-dates the idea of India.
The ruling dispensation might interpret this statement as a vindication of Bharat, but that is not the intent here. Sanatan dharma has been criticised for its divisive and oppressive nature since time immemorial. To look at the long list of its critics, one has to start with Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha himself. His all-inclusive Sangha was born in stark contrast to the rigid birth-based discriminatory caste system and subjugation of women proscribed by sanatana dharm. After Buddha, King Asoka proved to be a formidable foe to sanatan sharma – so much so that his ascent to the throne of the Magadha empire was opposed tooth and nail by the sanatanis of the day. Historical books talk about multiple attempts on his life made by sacrificial Brahmins as he sought to put an end to ritualism and chose merit over birth-based hegemony. His embrace of Buddhism made it the predominant religion of the day and was a direct threat to sanatan dharma. This was dealt with with brute force in post-Asoka years by the sanatanis when the Mauryan dynasty was essentially ended by Pushyamitra Sunga, a Brahmin warrior who killed Brihadrath, the last Mauryan king, while being his commander-in-chief.
Also read: The RSS Chief Has Taken the Lead in Critiquing Sanatan Dharma. Why Can’t Opposition Follow?
Subsequently, sanatan dharma flourished again in the Indian subcontinent at the expense of Buddhism, a religion that was embraced by every country that it touched east of India but has been reduced to a mere shadow of its former glory days in its birthplace. A systematic violent pogrom perpetrated by Pushyamitra was behind this relegation of Buddhism to the annals of history in India. Thus, as rightly pointed out by Dr B.R. Ambedkar, “The history of India is nothing but a history of mortal conflict between Buddhism and Brahmanism.” But opposition to sanatan dharma did not die down with the elimination of Buddhism from India. A long line of thinkers and proponents of equality and social justice emerged from varied places in the landmass of India at different time points in history. To name a few prominent figures among them, Kabir, Basavanna, Akka Mahadevi, Narayana guru, Jyothirao Phule, Birsa Munda, Periyar and Ambedkar all rallied against the injustice that is inherent to sanatan dharma in their own might. This brief historical perspective proves it beyond doubt that critique and opposition to sanatan dharma is as much a part of India as this dharma itself.
Udhayanidhi has been clear about his stance – he opposes sanatan dharma because of its practices rooted in caste-based societal division and oppression. On the contrary, proponents of sanatan dharma have promulgated death threats against Udhayanidhi, twisted his arguments claiming that he called for a genocide and circulated videos of Hindu devotees stomping on his photos used as doormats in front of temples. Learned ministers mocked him for not calling out other religions. None of these chosen methods really explain to us what is it in their sanatan dharma that they are proud of. How is Udhayanidhi wrong in proclaiming his stand of working towards eradication of a dharma that is divisive to the core? Criticising sanatan dharma is by no means an endorsement of regressive measures adopted by other religions. This happens to be our concern because it affects millions that live amongst us. If the followers of the said dharma are supporters of birth-based caste demarcation and discrimination, they should state their stance rather than rabble-rouse. If their allegiance is to an inequitable system designed to benefit a few and oppress the many rather than to a Constitution that treats all as equals, then they should come clean about it. Rather than venerate Ambedkar on one hand and on the other hand thwart the constitution at every available opportunity – be it by performing religious rites in the Parliament building or by dog-whistling against religious minorities during election rallies – Modi should declare that his allegiance to sanatan dharma is overarching.
Also read: Sanatan Dharma: An Ideology or the Entire Hindu Community?
As already made evident, this debate, however, is much larger than Modi himself. Even though the BJP has taken on the mantle of protector of sanatan dharma today, social reformers and thought leaders have battled much mightier foes. In fact, one might even argue that soft Hindutva is much more of a threat by not speaking up against the subjugation in-built in sanatan dharma and in many ways has therefore become a precursor to hard Hindutva. Years of such a soft Hindutva approach that chooses to remain silent in the face of crass discrimination has only pushed more and more gullible masses into the fold of sanatan dharma – to an extent that today many of them fail to recognise that they are the oppressed and have rather become the foot-soldiers of hard Hindutva.
In essence, it is a sad reality that opponents of sanatan dharma today are having to fight the same pitched battles that were once fought by the likes of Asoka the great more than 2,000 years ago. That shows the staying power of regressive social practices. It is a testament to the society that we live in that is still mired in the stench of caste and religion while at the same time proclaiming success over sending spaceships to the moon. Nevertheless, whether scripted or not, remarks by Udhayanidhi have brought the much needed limelight on to this topic that is the bane of our existence and needs to be tackled head on if India is to ever move on to the progressive world order.
G. Naveen is a Telugu physician by profession and rationalist by passion. His articles are devoted towards voicing the concerns of downtrodden and marginalised communities.
