Politics of religion

Leaders must respect cultural and religious diversity

Several Opposition parties that have now joined hands against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) under the rubric of the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance, or INDIA, a big tent of outfits that claim to espouse the Constitution’s pluralistic values, often find themselves caught in a binary. In a recent address at a meeting in Chennai, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader Udhayanidhi Stalin, a film actor and son of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin, and also a minister in the state, likened Sanatan Dharma to coronavirus, malaria and dengue, and said such things should not just be opposed but eradicated. Congress’ Priyank Kharge, the son of Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge and a minister in Karnataka, backed Mr Stalin’s remarks and noted that any religion that does not have equal rights is as good as a disease. Mr Stalin’s unfortunate outburst, possibly intended to burnish his leadership credentials among his party’s faithful, led to the INDIA partners of the DMK, including the Congress, distancing themselves from his comments.

Sanatan Dharma is a term used by many Hindus to describe their religion. Etymologically, Sanatan Dharma translates to an eternal way: An infinite, continuous way of life with no beginning or end, and all-embracing. It is possible that Mr Stalin’s comments stem from an incomplete understanding of the term or that he has conflated it with Hindutva, the guiding philosophy of the Sangh Parivar. But ignorance cannot be a pretext to spout offensive comments that vitiate the atmosphere further, let alone the political cost that the alliance his party is part of could face elsewhere in the country. Mr Stalin’s comment is as unfortunate as a Union minister’s call to shoot “anti-nationals”. Notably, over 200 citizens, including retired judges, former bureaucrats and ex-servicemen, have written to Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud to take cognizance of the DMK leader’s comment, calling it hate speech. In Mr Stalin’s comments, the BJP’s top leadership has found a stick with which to beat up the INDIA bloc. On Tuesday, a BJP post on X likened Mr Stalin’s comments to Hitler's characterisation of Jews, terming it “unadulterated hate speech and a call for genocide of 80 per cent population of Bharat, who follow Sanatan Dharma”. Mr Stalin, however, was unwavering. He later claimed that he had not called for violence against the followers of Sanatan Dharma.

Over the last nine years, several of India’s Opposition parties have often found themselves on the wrong side of the binary narrative that the BJP has framed, whether on Article 370, the criminalisation of instant triple talaq, the debate on the National Register of Citizens, the Citizenship Amendment Act, or the all-purpose scaffolding of “nationalists” versus anti-nationals. But, now, one of their own is guilty of playing a politics they profess to abhor. Mr Stalin’s remarks also betray the paucity of intellectual depth to appreciate the cultural and religious rhythms of a vast and diverse country. In the past, leaders who might have been ambivalent towards rituals and religions, had a profound understanding of their socio-cultural importance. Political parties like the Bahujan Samaj Party in Uttar Pradesh, or even the BJP, which has now embraced the cause of Pasmanda Muslims, have traversed from sectarian politics to adopting an approach that appeals to all. It would serve the INDIA bloc and the DMK well to avoid such comments that can hurt the sentiments of the majority of the population.