Tamil Nadu’s sports and youth affairs minister Udhayanidhi Stalin left many of us bewildered and deeply concerned when he boldly declared that Sanatana Dharma should be “eradicated”. His likening of Sanatana Dharma to “dengue, malaria, and Covid” was nothing short of inflammatory.
The ensuing reactions ranged from calls for clarification within the Tamil Nadu government to outright condemnation from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Amit Malviya, the head of the BJP IT cell, equated the statement to a chilling call for the ‘genocide’ of India’s vast Sanatana Dharma-following population. The division within the INDIA alliance following Udhayanidhi’s statement shows how deeply disturbing it was. Adding to the tumult, Ayodhya seer Paramhans Acharya made a shocking announcement, offering a staggering Rs 10 crore reward for killing Udhayanidhi.
The statement even prompted a response from Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who said that it needs a “proper response” based on “the facts of the issue”. Udhyanidhi’s supporters are defending his statement as a matter of freedom of speech. However, it’s essential to remember that the Constitution doesn’t adhere to the French secularism model, which prohibits all religious values from the public sphere, but rather respects all religions and prohibits the abuse of any faith. While there may be varying perspectives on public discussions about sacred beliefs, in this instance, it is clear that Udhayanidhi’s statement is no scholarly discourse — it was an emotionally charged and derogatory comment about Hinduism.
Also read: Dear Udhayanidhi, Sanatan Dharma isn’t a political creed that can be defeated in an…
Free speech vs hate speech
In the context of free speech, let’s make one thing clear: Advocates of unrestricted expression and those supporting Udhyanidhi’s views aren’t the same. The former staunchly defend the idea that no punitive measures or legal barriers should stifle speech, even if the content lacks rationale or merit. But the practicality of implementing this principle in a vast, culturally diverse country like India poses formidable challenges. Additionally, the debate over whether hate speech should enjoy the same protection in India as it does in the United States is a moot one. Assessing its applicability to India’s distinct socio-cultural landscape is a matter of personal opinion, understandably passionate and varied across the board.
Supporters of unrestricted expression must also think about the consequences beyond legal punishment. In a climate where allegations of Islamophobia and blasphemy have become so common, individuals may find themselves entangled in controversies and isolated in society. In such circumstances, building a level playing field becomes exceedingly difficult, raising the fundamental question of whether freedom of speech can be equally applied to all.
Furthermore, it’s important to distinguish between engaging in a discourse on societal issues and regressive practices within a religious community and actively advocating against the faith itself. To target a faith is an illiberal approach. This mindset reveals a striking parallel to a situation where religious majorities are intolerant toward atheist individuals.
Also read: Udhayanidhi’s ‘eradicate Sanatana’ not a call to genocide. It’s internal critique of Hinduism
Sanatana Dharma & acceptance
History provides us with haunting reminders that leaders who perceive religion as a threat can metamorphose into monstrous figures. Joseph Stalin is an example. As Karl Marx, co-author of The Communist Manifesto, boldly asserted: “Communism begins where atheism begins.” In 1928, Stalin embarked on a mission to impose militant atheism upon the erstwhile Soviet Union through a campaign called “Godless Five-Year Plan”.
American historian Timothy D. Snyder’s chilling revelation that Stalin deliberately caused the deaths of approximately 6 million individuals, which rises to a staggering 9 million when foreseeable deaths resulting from other State measures are taken into account, underscores the harrowing depths to which such ideologies can descend. It’s a stark reminder that even in the face of immense suffering, individuals and societies must grapple with the complex interplay of belief, ideology, and power.
As an Indian Pasmanda Muslim, I see Hinduism as a system of beliefs and practices that encapsulates beauty — one that doesn’t demand adherence to a single set of ideas. It’s a religion that transcends creed and embraces a rich tapestry of culture. Within the vast spectrum of Sanatana Dharma, there is a profound acceptance of the principles of social justice. Through legal and policy reforms, followers of this system have contributed significantly to our society. Moreover, Hinduism is remarkable for its ability to offer space for all religions to coexist and flourish alongside it. I firmly believe that India’s secular and diverse fabric owes much to its Hindu majority, which has consistently championed tolerance and pluralism. It’s a testament to the nation’s strength, unity, and the enduring spirit of coexistence that defines our great land.
Amana Begam Ansari is a columnist and TV news panelist. She runs a weekly YouTube show called ‘India This Week by Amana and Khalid’. She tweets @Amana_Ansari. Views are personal.
(Edited by Humra Laeeq)