❈ ❈ ❈

The Challenge to Sanatana Dharma from a Radical Politics of Emancipation

Sandeep Yadav

On September 2, 2023, when film actor Udhayanidhi Stalin, son of Tamil Nadu chief minister M.K. Stalin and a minister in the state government, spoke about the need to “eradicate” sanatana dharma during his talk at a Sanatana Abolition Conclave organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers and Artists Association in Chennai, his comment drew an immediate response of political outrage from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Reacting to Udayanidhi’s statement that “[s]ome things cannot be opposed, they should be eradicated…,” for which he gave the examples of dengue, malaria and Covid, adding, so should sanatana dharma, BJP spokesperson Amit Malviya hit out at him on social media. He alleged that Udayanidhi was calling for genocide of 80% population of Bharat. Home minister Amit Shah said Udayanidhi had insulted the country’s “culture, history and Sanatana Dharma,” and in Delhi an advocate filed a complaint with the police commissioner, saying that the comments presented a clear case of hate speech.

Udayanidhi, who holds the youth affairs and sports development portfolio, also reached out through posts on X: “I never called for the genocide of people who are following sanatana dharma. Sanatana Dharma is a principle that divides people in the name of caste and religion. Uprooting sanatana dharma is upholding humanity and human equality.”

He stated his position clearly: “I stand firmly by every word I have spoken. I spoke on behalf of the oppressed and marginalised, who suffer due to the Sanatana Dharma. I am ready to present the extensive writings of Periyar and Ambedkar, who conducted in-depth research on Sanatana Dharma and its negative impact on society in any forum.”

He also added that he was prepared to face any legal challenge that came his way.

This is not the first time that the idea of sanatana dharma has been at the centre of a political argument, no matter what the level of the debate or articulation may be. In fact, by referring to E.V. Ramaswami Naicker, or Periyar, and Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Udayanidhi was seeking to indicate the lineage of his views. But to understand this controversy, it is important to unpack the term sanatana dharma.

Sanatana is an adjective meaning eternal or unchanging, often employed by those Hindus who view their faith as timeless, universal and immutable. To them it describes the essence or core of Hinduism as timeless and universal.

Hinduism is a modern term (from the early 19th century) that accommodates a vast diversity of religious and cultural phenomena found across the country. It is not a single or unified religion but a collection of various sects, schools, philosophies, and traditions that share some common elements such as belief in reincarnation, karma, and the Vedas. Sanatana dharma and Hinduism are terms that are often used interchangeably.

Kim Knott, professor of religious and secular studies at Lancaster University, defines sanatana dharma in her book Hinduism: “Many describe Hinduism as Sanatan Dharma the eternal tradition or religion. This refers to the idea that its origins lie beyond human history and its truths have been divinely revealed (Shruti) and passed down through the ages to the present day in the most ancient of scriptures, the Vedas. Many share this faith perspective but varying opinions arise when it comes to interpreting human history in early India.”

At various times sanatana dharma has been contested by social reformers and activists who have exposed the oppressive and discriminatory aspects of Hinduism, especially its caste system. Among them, two prominent figures stand out: Periyar and Ambedkar. Both:

• were born in the late 19th century, witnessed colonial rule, the freedom movement, and the post-independence era;
• belonged to the so-called lower castes: Periyar was a non-Brahmin from Tamil Nadu, and Ambedkar was from an oppressed caste from Maharashtra;
• challenged the hegemony of Brahmins and upper castes in politics, culture, and religion; and
• advocated the rights and dignity of the oppressed castes, especially the Shudras and the Dalits.

Most importantly, both rejected sanatana dharma, seeing it as the source of injustice and inequality, and both envisaged a society based on equality, the dignity of every individual, and democracy.

Periyar’s critique of sanatana dharma

Periyar was a radical social reformer who founded the Self-Respect Movement in 1925. Arguing that the idea of sanatana dharma was used by Brahmins to exploit and oppress the lower castes, he denounced the concepts of karma, reincarnation, varna, dharma, and moksha as a means to justify the caste hierarchy and to keep the lower castes in perpetual servitude. To that end, Periyar challenged the authority of the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas and Manusmriti, among others, saying those texts were the result of human output, and biased.

Ridiculing the myths, superstitions, and rituals that were considered part of Hinduism, he advocated a scientific temper, a rational outlook, and critical thinking among his followers.

Periyar’s critique of sanatana dharma was not only intellectual but also political and cultural. He opposed the Brahminical influence in education, administration, media, literature, art and language in Tamil Nadu, demanding equal rights and opportunities for all in every sphere of life. To secure this aim, Periyar supported social justice measures such as reservation, representation, education and empowerment for the so-called lower castes.

Periyar came to be known for his sharply articulated campaigns against caste discrimination, untouchability, child marriage, dowry, widowhood, polygamy and superstition. Promotion of gender equality, women’s education, inter-caste marriage, birth control and family planning were an integral part of his lifelong work.

At the political level, he was strongly anti-imperialistic and anti-fascistic. He laid the foundation for Dravida ideology in Tamil Nadu, which was based on several vital strands: championing of Tamil culture and calling for a Dravida nadu, opposition to Brahminism, and the domination of the north (in terms of Hindi or its Aryan culture) as exemplified by Sanatana Dharma. The foundation of Dravidian politics was laid in the 1940s with the Dravida Kazhagam (when the Justice Party and the Self-Respect movement came together), with political parties like the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam ( AIADMK) being later offshoots.

Ambedkar’s critique of dharma

The other strong trajectory of opposition to the idea of Hinduism as a sanatana dharma came from Baba Saheb Ambedkar. His own life exemplified the dehumanising aspect of caste society – despite being a brilliant scholar, lawyer, and leader he faced immense discrimination and humiliation due to his caste background.

Articulating that dharma was the root cause of his misery and that of millions of Dalits, especially the so-called untouchables, he argued that dharma was not eternal but historical, not universal but particular, not immutable but changeable.

Also that Hinduism was not based on reason, morality or equality.

Ambedkar’s critique of Dharma was theoretical but also practical and legal. He fought for the civil and human rights of the marginalised and Dalits in various forums and platforms, leading movements and agitations such as the Mahad Satyagraha (to assert that ‘untouchables’ had the right to access water in public places, and the Kalaram Temple Entry. We know him as the moving spirit behind the drafting of the Indian Constitution and the Hindu Code Bill. But the fact is, his disillusionment with the entrenched inequality of the caste system was so acute that he renounced Hinduism, embracing Buddhism as the only way out for himself and his followers in the quest for human dignity and equality.

Interestingly, Periyar gave a call in 1922 to renounce the Manusmriti, while Ambedkar burnt the Manusmriti in 1927 during the Mahad satyagraha, to signify his rejection of the religious underpinning for untouchability. Periyar and Ambedkar were two of the most influential and radical thinkers and leaders of modern India. Their sharp critique of sanatana dharma exposed the oppressive and discriminatory nature of Hinduism and its caste system, proposing alternative visions of society based on rationality, humanism, and democracy. In doing so they inspired generations of activists and spurred countless movements for social change and justice. Moreover, in the contemporary context of caste violence, communalism, and fascistic tone in dominant politics, the relevance of their ideas and quest remains undimmed.

Udayanidhi’s query, “What is Sanatana? Sanatana means nothing should be changed and all are permanent. But the Dravida model calls for change and all should be equal…” and the BJP’s response to the remarks made by him underscore one fact. Regardless the level of political discourse in our times and its purely instrumental nature (in this case, the salvos of the BJP and Udayanidhi reflecting the contestation between NDA and the INDIA alliance, which DMK is part of), the fact remains that this controversy has once again exposed a fundamental fault-line of Indian society.

The controversy also reveals that at this moment, when the dominant political project of our times is concerned with crafting an idea of Hinduism as a monolith and as a sanatana dharma, the significance of the ideas of towering figures like Periyar and Ambedkar is increasing.

(Dr Sandeep Yadav is a University Gold Medalist in PG. He has been teaching English as an Associate Professor in SLC(E) at the University of Delhi for the last 15 years. He has been a permanent faculty member at the Central University of Jharkhand for four years. Courtesy: The Wire.)

❈ ❈ ❈

Interview: The BJP May Defend ‘Sanatan Dharma’, But Can’t Define What it Means

Vrinda Gopinath interviews Dr Karthick Ram Manoharan

[In the context of the raging controversy on sanatan dharma, triggered by DMK heir and minister Udayanidhi Stalin, Dr Karthick Ram Manoharan, assistant professor at the National Law School of India University in Bengaluru, throws some light on the different interpretations of the sanatan dharma concept and whether it divides political beliefs between north and south India.

Dr Karthick is well-known for his research on the politics of identity, specifically focusing on questions of caste, religion and gender. However, it’s his research on political atheism, that later culminated in a book last year, Periyar: A Study in Political Atheism, on the intellectual and political thought of the rationalist anti-caste thinker Periyar E.V. Ramasamy, that could throw light on how Dravidian parties like the DMK have drawn their political core from Periyar and his reformist beliefs.

Excerpts from an interview (extract).]

●●●

Vrinda Gopinath: Udayanidhi Stalin was addressing a conference on the eradication of sanatan dharma so no one should be surprised by his utterances, but is Hinduism in the north defined by only sanatan dharma and Vedic traditions, whereas in the south there are various other forms beyond sanatan dharma, and which have also challenged the Vedic sanatan dharma?

Dr Karthick Ram Manoharan: Yes, absolutely. Let me start with the Tamil trajectory. For the Tamil Shaivites, the key religious text is the Periyapurana, but nowhere in the whole text is any mention of sanatan dharma. This is not unique to Tamil Nadu only – in Karnataka, for the Lingayats, the Basavana Vachanas are their most sacred prayers for the sect but there is no mention of sanatan dharma.

VG: Is this what differentiates Hinduism in the north and south?

KRM: We are unable to find any sort of reference to sanatan dharma in the Vedas or Upanishads.

However, the idea of sanatan dharma is most prominently mentioned in the Mahabharata, not by itself but along with other concepts like varnashrama dharma (caste) in dharma shastra or stree dharma and, most importantly, raj dharma. In the Sanskrit Shivapurana, the idea of sanatan dharma finds mention only twice, that too in a marginal way.

Scholars who have worked extensively on Hindu history like Audrey Truschke define sanatan dharma as a means of self-identification of a religious community, a concept that appeared only in the 19th century. And it came most often to differentiate an orthodox or a conservative viewpoint as opposed to a reformist viewpoint.

Even in well-known Sanskrit scriptures or popular religion, sanatan dharma does not have any dominant presence in the way, say the idea that Shiva is god, or Rama as mariada purushotham, or that Krishna is an incarnation. So, compared to these ideas, the concept of sanatan dharma does not really have much of a dominant presence in the religious scriptures.

VG: But the RSS-BJP terms Truschke anti-Hindu for her research on Hinduism?

KRM: Yes, but take Vaishali Jayaraman, a young scholar who has delved deep into the concept of sanatan dharma and who takes a very positive approach to it, she notes that this idea of sanatan dharma does not really find any mention in the Vedic corpus and that it’s only in the Puranas and Mahabharata that it finds mention and even when it does, it does not really have a consistent meaning.

VG: Is it sanatam dharma that differentiates Hinduism in the north from the south?

KRM: I believe the south has diverse religious traditions but this is true of the north as well. We generally assume the north to be a sort of a monolith but even here, there is no uniform consensus that sanatan dharma is the only way to go forward. Take the Arya Samaj, a reformist movement from the north – now, we may disagree with some of their politics but we have to acknowledge that the Arya Samaj was essentially calling for a return to the Vedas, and the Vedas clearly do not have the concept of sanatan dharma.

As I mentioned earlier, it was only in the 19th century that sanatan dharma gets associated with a sort of a north Indian conservative Hindu position which was opposed to reform. Remember there were reformers like Dayanand Saraswati, Swami Vivekanand, who are today seen as Hindu icons, but at that point of time they were reformers who challenged orthodox Hindu belief systems.

VG: How did reform movements come to stay in the south?

KRM: Reform movements in the south tended to be religious where it tried to establish a direct connection between the individual and God without the mediation of complicated scriptures or ritual practices of Sanskrit-speaking elites. So, the very popular Bhakti movement which emerged in Tamil Nadu or the Lingayat movement which emerged in Karnataka were in a sense movements against certain ossified forms of ritualistic practices.

The Bhakti movement in Tamil Nadu which was led by Tamil saints called Nayanars, and the Lingayat movement in Karnataka, were all not just articulated in the native languages but they also greatly contributed to the flowering of Kannada and Tamil literature. In a sense, they were also democratic because this was the language of the people, it wasn’t language used by a minority elite section alone, thus making it a popular religion with a stress on devotion rather than rigid conformity to ritual.

To elaborate, the Nayanmars believed just reciting ‘Om Namo Shiva’ was enough rather than reciting all of the Vedas together. This in a sense undermined the authority of people who held knowledge as an exclusive property. This was not a challenge to Hinduism but an articulation of another form of Hinduism, just like the Protestants who imagined a new form of Christianity.

VG: How did the Dravida parties like the DMK come to make this their political core, and how does it contravene with the idea of sanatan dharma?

KRM: Periyar, who is seen as the father of the Dravidian movement and who rebelled against caste hierarchy, had said some really harsh things about religion which are unimaginable today. In fact the DMK is mild compared to him. Take his highly critical writings on the Ramayana, where he alleged that the epic upheld casteist principles. The reports of his Dravida Kazhagam often contained satires on religion and provocative cartoons of gods.

But he was not just an atheist. I believe that Periyar’s concept was a political atheism which attacked not just religion, but also how religion tends to influence state power, the dangers when religion and state power come to be one as it can fundamentally impinge upon the democratic rights and freedoms of the individual. It can’t be more true than it is today.

While observers of the DMK tend to draw a straight line from DMK to Periyar, I don’t think that’s the case. The DMK when it was formed, considerably toned down the attacks on religion, and DMK founder C.N. Annadurai believed that everyone belonged to one community and one god, an idea derived from Tamil Shaivism.

DMK leaders stood for social reform but also created spaces where criticisms of religion could also flourish. Both Annadurai and M. Karunanidhi were privately atheists but did not hinder the religious practices of partymen or the public. The Dravidian electoral parties in general continue to be inclusivist even today with respect to religion.

For instance, one of the main criticisms against Udayanidhi Stalin is that while he attacks sanatan dharma, his mother is a devout believer. People jibe him saying why don’t you ask her to change first, but it’s a false accusation because the DMK has never forced anyone to give up their religious beliefs.

VG: Is all this alien to the north, going by the BJP’s raging attack against Udayanidhi Stalin?

KRM: First, Udayanidhi Stalin is not the only person to say this – Thol Thirumavalavan, the Dalit leader and MP from VCK party and who is in the DMK-led alliance in the state, has also made equally if not even more strong statements than Udayanidhi Stalin on sanatan dharma. Or Samajwadi Party leader in Uttar Pradesh Swami Prasad Maurya has also made strong statements criticising the Ramacharitramanas and Hinduism. The Congress’s Priyanka Kharge has come out fully in support of Stalin.

VG: Is this the difference between Dravidian politics and the BJP’s sanatan dharma?

KRM: The first problem is that the BJP does not define what it means by sanatan dharma. Does the BJP support the definition of the past two centuries where it has been associated with a very conservative position on issues of caste, women and religion? This is not true in the south with so many social reform movements that have worked to eradicate injustices because of caste, patriarchy and religion. Sanatan dharma was never popular and it has been criticised extensively by the reformists.

VG: Is this what differentiates between the north and south?

KRM: I don’t want to frame this as a north versus south debate, I want to frame this as Hindutva versus an egalitarian, inclusive politics, in ideological and political terms, rather than in regional terms. After all, there has been a lot of resistance even in the north against sanatan dharma and Hindutva; but can the BJP tell us what sort of Hinduism it wants to defend – is it this extremely conservative and most regressive approach to Hinduism it wants to protect? Forget radical reformers, I think even Gandhians should be uncomfortable with this.

Also, has the BJP, which now celebrates Dr B.R. Ambedkar as an icon, read his book Riddles of Hinduism? Udayanidhi’s utterances on sanatan dharma are extremely mild compared to Ambedkar’s critique on Hinduism.

So, the BJP should tell us what is sanatan dharma, where are they deriving this concept from and is it integral to Hinduism? Can the BJP tell if sanatan dharma is found in the Vedas or Upanishads; and where and how it is used in the Puranas? There are other more prominent concepts in the Puranas and itihasas such as the concepts of varnashara dharma (caste duties) and stree dharma (duties of women). Today, many anti-caste activists have been openly criticising varnashara dharma, and many feminists have been openly criticising stree dharma. What is the BJP’s stand on this?

And if we are to speak constitutionally, we have this idea of ‘essential religious practices’. Does sanatan dharma come under essential religious practices? If so, on what authority? These are questions the BJP has to answer before demanding apologies for criticising sanatan dharma

VG: Isn’t it odd that Tamil Nadu is having conferences to ban sanatan dharma even though it’s an alien concept?

KRM: If I’m not wrong, I would say discussions and criticisms against sanatan dharma and Manusmriti have got really strong after the BJP came to power in 2014, because the BJP has made it part of the national discourse. Tamil Nadu has always had anti-caste discourse but the BJP is forcing anti-sanatan dharma politics in the state with its policies, like NEET entrance exam or diluting caste reservations etc. Many activists in Tamil Nadu, and not just political leaders like Thol Thirumavalavan and Udayanidhi Stalin, see this as part and parcel of the sanatan dharma or Manu mentality of the BJP.

The BJP is blowing it out of proportion only keeping elections in mind. It may work outside Tamil Nadu but will have no effect in the state.

(Courtesy: The Wire.)