On September 2, Udhayanidhi Stalin, the Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Development of the State of Tamil Nadu, compared Sanatana Dharma with “dengue, malaria, fever and corona” to make the point that the former must not be merely opposed but must be eradicated like a disease.
Udhayanidhi has since doubled down on his position despite ostensibly being cautioned by his father, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, M K Stalin, and T R Baalu, MP and DMK Treasurer. Not surprisingly, despite these cautionary notes, a few days ago, the former Finance Minister of Tamil Nadu and currently the Minister for Information technology and Digital Services for the state, P T R Thiagarajan, threw his weight behind Udhayanidhi’s statement at a public event. Is this episode a reflection of: (a) M K Stalin’s inability to rein in such fascist Hinduphobic and Hindumisic tirades by his son and cabinet colleagues; or (b) the insincerity behind his public call to them to not press the issue further; or (c) the general hatred for Sanatana Dharma within the DMK ecosystem, which is traceable to the larger history of the Dravidian Movement?
Why is this line of enquiry relevant? Predictably, Udhyanidhi’s statement has generated significant mileage and opportunity for all interested political stakeholders both within and outside Tamil Nadu, given the statement’s unqualified brazenness and proximity to 2024. However, to limit oneself to the political layer would be superficial and myopic. Going beyond the expected political posturing of parties, what should be a deeper cause of concern for those interested in taking a longer civilisational view (both retrospective and prospective), is the fact that such a statement was delivered under the auspices of a conference titled, ‘Eradicating Sanatana Dharma from the Society’ — an event which saw the prominent participation of two cabinet ministers of the State of Tamil Nadu, Udhayanidhi and P K Sekar Babu who is, tragically one might add, the Minister for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. More recently, even the AIADMK, a political foe of the DMK, has snapped ties with the BJP citing the TN BJP President K Annamalai’s trenchant criticism of the Dravidian Movement and its “stalwarts”.
Clearly, there is more to the issue that goes beyond a few individuals or even the DMK for that matter, and calls for deep scrutiny of an idea that has animated the larger social discourse of erstwhile Madras Presidency and Tamil Nadu for over a century and a half, namely, Dravidianism.
Thanks to the shameful copout called the “tyranny of distance”, which is better understood as tyranny of apathy and ignorance, the antecedents of this creature called “Dravidianism”, its extra-territorial strings and interests, stated and unstated motivations, alliances, various avatars, and actions remain largely unknown to the rest of the country. It is, at best, crudely misunderstood as a so-called “social justice” movement with the “North-South” and “Sanskrit/Hindi-Tamil” divides as its pillars. This allows the creature to continue to operate and expand unhindered without drawing attention, using manufactured linguistic, ethnic, religious and territorial fissures as the tools of its secessionist agenda.
Since it is my stated position that Dravidianism is, at the very least, as deadly and pernicious as the mindset that birthed and actioned the Two-Nation Theory and its post-Partition manifestations such as Kashmiri secessionism, I intend to present to the readers over a series of pieces the origin story of Dravidianism and its broad, if not comprehensive, journey starting from the 18th century.
In my view, this is a much-needed exercise in knowledge dissemination, not because of the relevance of the issue to 2024, but because it has a direct and critical bearing on whatever remains of the Dharmic civilisation in Southern and the rest of Bharat. After all, Dravidianism, akin to Khalistanism, is but a customised, made-to-taste version of the inculturation template that has been employed the world over by the same mindset in achieving the same goal — namely, to balkanise Dharma and its sacred geography — which would become apparent as this conversation progresses.
In undertaking this exercise, I will draw extensively from colonial records, scholarly literature, and primary sources such as correspondence between important dramatis personae and speeches. At this juncture, I must caveat that since all national parties, including “nationalist” parties which swear by “Bharat”, have allied with Dravidianist parties at one point or the other, the purpose of this exercise is not to burnish any contemporary political entity’s Dharmic credentials. Instead, my intent is to underscore the point that while political interests and postures change with time and convenience, discerning Bharatiyas must not take their eyes off the relentless sub-radar anti-Dharmic movements which are old, historic and remain unstintingly committed to their mission.
On a related note, does the Udhayanidhi episode not expose the convenient malleability of the definition and application of “hate speech” in this country, and the institutional reluctance to take cognisance of a statement that, under the law, offends Dharmic sentiments? Do Dharma and its adherents not enjoy equal protection of and under the laws of the land which are pressed into service by our institutions with great alacrity to protect non-Dharmic systems and the sentiments of their followers? Whither equality, justice and constitutional morality?
The writer is a commercial and constitutional litigator who practises as a counsel before the Supreme Court of India, High Court of Delhi, NCLAT and CCI. He is the author of India that is Bharat: Coloniality, Civilisation, Constitution, and India, Bharat and Pakistan: The Constitutional Journey of a Sandwiched Civilisation
