Opinion: Udhayanidhi Stalin's Scrutiny of Sanatana Dharma - An Examination
The attack by Udhayanidhi Stalin on Sanatana Dharma has reinvigorated debates on its actual meaning, and whether such an attack was warranted, especially at the current juncture, when the opposition is united to take on the BJP juggernaut. The spokespersons of the BJP have primarily equated Sanata Dharma with Hinduism and thereby argue that Udayanidhi aims to carry out genocide of Hindus, which, according to them, must be resisted.
Scholars of discourse analysis have noted how concepts can act as empty signifiers. Their interpretation can be highly dependent on the context in which they are situated and may exhibit variation accordingly. The BJP’s position on Sanatana Dharma indicates this contextual interpretation of the concept. In layman’s words, while the concept can mean eternal duties, in the contemporary rendition, it has been equated with universal values like love, cooperation, harmony, and so on by the supporters of the BJP. This is the BJP’s attempt to contextually define the concept, negating, in the process, its historical roots.
Sanatana Dharma, or Sanatanists, were an integral part of the public discourse in the latter half of the 19th century and the first half of the twentieth century. Unlike a tool used by ethno-nationalists in contemporary times to create a united Hindu identity, Sanatanists were primarily concerned with the literal understanding of Sanatana Dharma and focused on the duties prescribed to individuals, according to their caste. This would entail opposing even moderate social reform positions, which figures like Gandhi advocated for. For instance, throughout the temple entry movements that emerged in different parts of India in that period, a fundamental democratic demand of ‘lower castes’, Sanatanists would vociferously oppose the demand. This is a written record. For example, take the case of Kerala. Several lower caste organisations pressed for temple entry since the beginning of the twentieth century. This movement gained steam by the 1920s and the 1930s, and in that context, a committee was constituted by the Travoncore state to address this issue. A report, encompassing the perspectives of diverse stakeholders and possible solutions, was submitted to the government by the committee. Regarding Sanatanists, the committee noted that,
“On the other side, the Sanatanists maintain that the present practice (denial of entry to Avarnas to temples) cannot be modified to the slightest extent. With them, it is not a matter of logic or argument; it is a matter of faith. Any interference with the system of worship established by the Sastras, however mystic and unintelligible to the lay mind, the basis of it might be, will, in their view, be destructive of the whole scheme of temples and image-worship.” ( REPORT OF THE TEMPLE ENTRY ENTRY COMMITTEE, 1934, p 130)
This statement of the committee is symptomatic of the Sanatanists” positions across India during that period. Scanning through their comments to temple entry, Manoj Mitta, in his insightful book ‘Caste Pride’, noted that Ambedkar concurred with Sanatanists, regarding scriptural interpretations. However, the conclusions drawn from the interpretations would be diametrically opposed. While Sanatanists would advocate social hierarchy based on scriptural reading, Ambedkar would demand the expunging of such ideas to annihilate caste. It is possible that since the term Sanatana was associated with ultra-conservative forces, who were opposed to even piecemeal reforms in Hinduism, it did not gain currency after independence. Instead, it was limited to being expressed by overtly ultra-Brahminical factions.
However, even in the contemporary context, the impact of Sanatana, which is characterised by a significant presence of caste discrimination, remains a stark reality in India. Furthermore, in the present-day socio-political context, where Brahminism holds sway over the symbolic landscape of India with hegemonic dimensions, as evidenced by the use of symbols like Shengol during the inauguration of the new parliament or during the Sabarimala temple-entry controversy, the questioning of concepts such as Sanatana Dharma assumes historical significance. Amidst the ongoing controversy, Brahminical forces have endeavoured to absolve Sanatanists” ultra-orthodox and casteist history. However, it has become increasingly crucial to introduce a robust non-brahminical articulation to scrutinise such notions and thwart the ideological endeavours of Brahminism. This transcends electoral calculus. Udhayanidhi Stalin”s observations should be viewed in this context.
— Dr Balu Sunilraj is a PhD from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
(Disclaimer: The views and the details expressed above are the writer”s analysis.)
