The Politics of Religion

 Udhayanidhi, son of Stalin, the CM of Tamil Nadu, and a minister himself in his father’s cabinet has stirred a hornet’s nest, with his remarks on Sanatana Dharma aka Hinduism. At a writers’ conference, he said the religion needs to be eliminated as it is fundamentally opposed to equality and social justice. Unsurprisingly, the comments have kicked up a political storm. Some critics have even interpreted his comments as a call to exterminate Hindus. Udhayanidhi has tried to clarify his remarks, but the criticism continues unabated. And not without reason. 

For all the virtues that one finds in Sanatana dharma (or Hinduism), it has its fair share of ills. Ills that have not vanished even as the world has progressed immensely on the front of discrimination. The biggest problem with the religion is the caste system, one that is defined by birth and cannot be changed. The system - borrowing from a work of the later-Vedic or Puranic ages, Manu Smruti - establishes a clear superiority of one person over another just by the factor of birth and no other qualification. The rigidity has ensured its robust survival over millennia, and continues to thrive even to this day - with the so called upper castes proudly declaring their caste status everywhere. 

The corollary of the caste system - post independence - is the system of reservation that has been introduced to uplift the socially oppressed classes (or castes) of people, through earmarked seats in education, government jobs, and even electoral representation. This reservation too finds no favour among majority of the upper castes - they deny the existence of discrimination, stating it was an invention of the British. Also, criticism of reservation indicates the inherent feeling of caste supremacy - and people of lower castes cannot be intelligent enough to secure education or jobs without state reservation. (I will not digress on this further because the debate isn’t about reservation). 

It’s not like caste system had not found opposition earlier. There were social reformers through the history who tried - in vain - in bringing the castes together and establish an egalitarian society. Basavanna of Karnataka is one shining example.  However his efforts turned into a separate community instead over time after his death, and even became an upper caste in the religion - such a travesty.  In Tamil Nadu, the rise of Periyar provided a great impetus for the socially oppressed castes. But, that movement has not eliminated caste bias or discrimination in the relatively forward state. A recent survey by a leading media house showed that over 75% people prefer arranged marriages and to marry within their community. 

Also, hardly a small section of the followers of the religion know it and the books. Most of the knowledge that a Hindu layman possesses is second-hand (or third or fourth). Hindus follow customs that are handed over to them by their previous generations - parents and grandparents.  There is no imparting of systemic religious education among Hindus. Most practising Hindus would not know even a line from most of the books that are considered holy - be it the Gita or the Vedas. Add to this, all these books are written in a language that is long dead and which was never the common tongue, Sanskrit. Even though there are translations available today in the local languages (and English), the scriptures are neither read by the majority nor is there any interest in their learning. There’s a blind reverence though of the Sanskrit language thanks to its inaccessibility; it is referred to as the language of the gods. (No wonder the script is called, Devanagari - a script also used by most Indian languages, barring the Dravidian ones). 

Add to these issues, the prevalence of a pantheon of gods and goddesses that keeps expanding, scores of blind beliefs that are strengthened through customs and practices. 

Prima facile, there is truth in the criticism of the religion by Udhayanidhi Stalin. However, his remarks are intemperate and do not behove of a politician-cum-public servant. As a Minister and people’s representative, he is entrusted to protect the interests of all people, regardless of class or religion. When he bats for the elimination of a religion itself, he undermines the principles of the Constitution that he has sworn by.  

Udhayanidhi’s mother herself is a practising Hindu. Recently she was in news for donating a golden idol to a temple. I do not know if his religious beliefs - if he follows one or is an atheist. If he were a rationalist alone and not a public persona, he could get away with his opinions and criticisms of Hinduism. As a Minister and a leading politician of a state, it is condemnable. 

The country is already in the throes of majoritarianism, with religious divides being made important each day. People are being influenced to vote on religious lines than issues of development. These remarks would only strengthen the rabble rousers on both sides of religious divides. They would exploit these words for nefarious gains and political mileage.  Every major organised religion has its ills to deal with. Islam or Christianity, no exception. With his remarks, Udhayanidhi has brought the discourse down to the level of trolls that indulge in religious-baiting that abounds on social media (and mainstream media too, with debates on how Hindus are in danger in their only land).  Already his remarks are being twisted to appear that he is seeking to exterminate Hindus. 

The need of the hour is for other political parties and politicians to dissociate from Udhayanidhi’s remarks and not defend them/him. It would be wise if Udhayanidhi withdraws his own remarks and tenders apology. His defences of remarks would only further vitiate the debates that are sure to arise. Hinduism surely needs to reform itself for the centuries to come. Just like every other religion in the country. Responsible leaders should talk about what could be done to make the country a better place socially and economically than indulge in painting religions as absolutely diabolical.