The recent address by Udhayanidhi Stalin, the grandson of Kalaignar and a Minister in Tamil Nadu, at a conference titled End of Sanatana, has ignited a huge controversy. The BJP IT department and some intellectuals have accused Udhayanidhi of making a call to genocide, and that he must be tried in a court of law for his statement.
While this speech has led to considerable anger among certain sections of society, it is essential to understand the context and intent behind it. The BJP has seized upon it to portray the DMK as anti-Sanatani, which aligns with the DMK’s stance. The DMK is fighting it out. But at the same time, it may cause troubles for the secular alliance, especially in the north. Or, at least, the BJP thinks so, which is why its leaders are amplifying the issue.
Contrary to sensationalised interpretations, the address by Udhayanidhi does not advocate violence or genocide. “Eradicate Sanatana and its vices” is more of a clarion call for reform or purge or rejection of Hindu faith and society. It raises important questions within the broader framework of Hinduism. And it is not an attack on Hinduism or Sanatana from outside. Hinduism is a diverse religion, there is an immense rich diversity of faiths and rituals and paths. In fact, the Rig Veda itself acknowledges it. Savarkar himself has said that Hinduism is not a monolith.
Also read: India was a land of dharma but Europeans reduced it to Hinduism, Islam. And we accepted it
Understanding Sanatana as a part of the whole
To appreciate this controversy fully, it is crucial to grasp the historical-constitutional perspective of Hinduism and the Sanatan dharma. Especially, because in today’s India there are attempts to use these two terms interchangeably, as if they have the same meaning and connotation. The term “Hindu” is a broad concept, and “Sanatana” has been a part of it—like a subset. From the early days, the term Hindu has been more of a geographical identity. In his biography, Baburnama, Babur used the terms “Hindu” and “Hindustan” extensively, considering all local people as Hindus. This land was Hindustan for him.
The Indian Constitution encompasses all Indic/indigenous faiths, including Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism, under the term ‘Hindu’ (Article 25): “(b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina, or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.”
The Constituent Assembly’s acceptance of the Hindu definition and meaning proposed by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in his treatise Hindutva may be surprising to some. The ideas of Punyabhumi and Pitribhumi define Hindu for Savarkar. That’s the genesis of his idea that Islam and Christianity are non-Hindus.
If we take this definition of Hindu, then the BJP has to accept that what Udhayanidhi was saying is a critique from within. It underscores that contestations between these religions should be viewed within the expansive definition of Hinduism.
This constitutional definition of Hindu is there in the original text of the Constitution. This idea was endorsed by prominent leaders like Nehru, Patel, Dr. Ambedkar, Syama Prasad Mukherjee, and Maulana Azad.
Within this constitutional framework, Hinduism encompasses a wide spectrum of beliefs and practices. One can reject specific aspects, such as the idea of gods like Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh, or Rama or Krishna and the Varna system, or the rituals and yet remain a Hindu legally and constitutionally. Similarly, one may reject Sanatana while still remaining a Hindu. This inclusivity within Hinduism allows for a rich tapestry of religious diversity.
Also read: California’s Trojan Horse Caste Bill damages reputations of Indian Americans on unfounded grounds
Sanatana within the Hindu fold
The term ‘Sanatana’ refers to the traditional ritualistic aspect of Hinduism. Sanatana can be defined in numerous ways. Unlike many other religions, Hinduism does not have a single book like the Bible or the Quran. This is one of the main reasons for the plurality, almost bordering on chaos, in Hinduism. One can hold almost any view on anything and find favorable arguments in one or other texts. Someone may argue that Sanatana is eternal and timeless. At the same time, it can be argued that Sanatana evolved when a challenge to traditional Hinduism came from the Arya Samaj.
Contestations between Sanatana and other ideologies, like the Dravidian perspective, occur within the broader Hindu fold. This was akin to the contestation between Sanatana and Arya Samaj. Arya Samaj looked at Vedas as the source of Hinduism and discarded statue worship and most of the rituals, whereas Sanatana sourced most of its ideas and rituals from Puranas and Upanishads.
Historical precedent shows that such contestations had sometimes turned violent, as in the case of the emergence of the Lingayat sect/religion in 12th century in present-day north Karnataka and Maharashtra. Early Lingayats faced large-scale state violence. On the other hand, Buddhism and Jainism grew peacefully, but their sidelining was quite violent. Sikhism also grew in contestation of traditional Hinduism but faced no known backlash from traditionalists.
Let’s underline that Sanatana is just one strand or path within the Hindu fold. It implies that contestations between Sanatanis and Dravidians should be seen in the context of the broad definition of the term Hindu.
When we look at the 22 oaths/vows of Dr. Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Constitution was not giving a clarion call to end the Hindu religion (in no way was he asking for genocide)! Similarly, a Dravidian politician critiquing Sanatana is just fine. What else do you expect from a follower of Periyar, Anna, and Kalaignar? Udhayanidhi’s too is a political call, not a call to violence.
One may argue that Udhayanidhi said it inappropriately. He said he is ready to face court on this. But we must not forget that meanings are always drawn in context. I would urge everyone to watch the immortal movie 12 Angry Men (1957) to understand what I am saying here. A person in his loudest voice may say, I will kill you, but that does not mean he actually intends to kill you. This movie was made in Hindi with the title Ek Ruka Hua Faisala. In this movie, Pankaj Kapoor screams, “Main Tumhe Maar Daloonga (I will kill you)”, but the context tells us that he is just very angry.
When a leader says, “Garibi Hatao,” it does not mean he intends to kill the poor. Similarly, eradicating untouchability does not mean harming the privileged caste who practise it. Or even a slogan like “Congress-Mukt Bharat” does not mean killing all congressmen and women. Eradicating a disease does not mean killing the patient. When we hear about ‘polio eradication,’ we perceive it as a call to end the disease, not the patient. Similarly, eradicating Sanatana can be constructed as a call to cleanse the Hindu faith from the problems associated with Sanatana. This is the meaning one should draw because the Dravidian movement sees caste and superstition as problems associated with Sanatana.
Udhay is clearly criticizing Sanatana and underlining its problems. He used harsh words. The law can check it. We must note here that his mother, Durga Stalin, is a devout Hindu and displays her religiosity publicly. Another fact is that Tamil Nadu has the largest number of temples in India, and temples are thriving there despite more than 50 years of continuous Dravidian rule.
Dilip Mandal is the former managing editor of India Today Hindi Magazine, and has authored books on media and sociology. He tweets @Profdilipmandal. Views are personal.
(Edited by Anurag Chaubey)