We are aware of how the anti-Brahmin movement gave rise to the DMK in Tamil Nadu. Despite being Hindus, they deliberately sowed division between the upper castes and the marginalized communities, strategically garnering support from the larger population.
Consequently, the party gained prominence and held sway over the state for several decades. Over time, the anti-Brahminic stance evolved into an atheist stand, while avoiding criticism of Christianity and Islam.
Recently, Udayanidhi Stalin, the son of Chief Minister MK Stalin, has taken a shocking step by advocating for the complete elimination of Sanatan Dharma, which is synonymous with Hinduism and translates to the "eternal dharma." This pronouncement is particularly alarming and akin to promoting extremism.
Udayanidhi stated- "Sanatana Dharma has to be eradicated just like mosquitoes, malaria, dengue and corona".
During a recent address to the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Forum, Minister Udayanidhi, while discussing the eradication of Sanatan Dharma, drew an unsettling parallel. He likened Sanatan Dharma to eradicating mosquitoes, malaria, dengue, and corona, implying that it should be completely eliminated.
Here's what he said in detail: "There are certain things which we have to eradicate and we cannot merely oppose. Mosquitoes, dengue, corona and malaria are things which we cannot oppose, we have to eradicate them. Sanatanam is also like this. Eradication and not opposing Sanatanam has to be our first task".
In the past, we've seen politicians like Akbaruddin Owaisi in Hyderabad, who have hurt Hindu sentiments by making controversial statements about Lord Rama and Kausalya. However, Udayanidhi Stalin's remarks are even more distressing.
Udayanidhi further provided a skewed interpretation of Sanatan Dharma, describing it as something unchangeable and unquestionable. Such statements have the potential to incite pro-Hindu groups, leading to unrest and divisions in society.
On a broader note, it is essential to question why anyone would intentionally hurt the sentiments of others. If politicians believe that exploiting communal and religious differences for their gain is a viable strategy, it reflects a regressive mindset. Fanning the flames of discord among communities and religions for political power is a primitive approach. People should evolve beyond such divisive tactics.
Nevertheless, it may be overly optimistic to expect universal progress, as some individuals remain entrenched in fanatical and fundamentalist ideologies, regardless of their education.
As education levels rise and society advances, it is disheartening to witness a large group of individuals still embracing extremist views on both sides of the spectrum.
Setting aside other considerations, what does Udayanidhi hope to achieve with his anti-Hindu stance, especially when the majority of the population is Hindu? Has he made a wise statement or a foolish one? Only time will provide the answer.
Usha Chowdhary
