As the sun painted the skies over Kamarajar, Chennai on 2nd September 2023, it bore witness to an event that has shaken the foundations of many believers and has raised eyebrows across the political spectrum. The event in question was the "Eradicate Sanatanam Conclave," orchestrated by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers and Artists Association. If one delves into the annals of history, the conclave bore a striking resemblance to the controversial "anti-Hindu Dismantling Global Hindutva" conference of 2021.

Such open discussions that dare to touch upon the very destruction of Hindu Dharma aren't just debates; they inevitably raise profound concerns regarding the political temperament prevailing in the state. One wonders whether it's the quest for enlightenment and evolution or simply a cauldron of divisive politics being stirred in the heart of Tamil Nadu.

Enter Thol. Thirumavalavan of the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK), a not-so-silent partner of the I.N.D.I. Alliance. His presence and subsequent remarks at the conclave did little to diffuse the already charged atmosphere. Thirumavalavan didn’t mince words when he brazenly declared, “Credits should be given to the Progressive Writers Association for conducting the ‘Abolish Sanatanam Conclave’ amid the crisis.” He further lauded the Tamil Nadu spirit, saying, "It is only in Tamil Nadu that conferences like this are held in India and fascists are challenged. It is the specialty and pride of Tamil Nadu.” Evidently, according to him, Tamil Nadu stands singularly in this struggle, as he commented on the rarity of such fierce opposition to Sanatanam elsewhere in India.

However, it's essential to dissect Thirumavalavan's interpretation of Sanatanam. In his words, "Sanatanam signifies permanence, suggesting that it lacks a commencement or conclusion, birth or demise." While many would nod in agreement to the eternal nature of Sanatanam, his critique doesn't stop there. He goes on to pit Sanatanam against the very laws of nature, arguing that its eternal nature contradicts the inherent principle that everything must undergo change. His bone of contention? The supposed belief that Sanatanam perpetuates a birth-based inequality. Thirumavalavan boldly concludes, “Sanatanam opposes the concept of social equality, and it is incumbent upon us to challenge this ideology.”

There's no denying the impassioned argument presented. But one must pause and reflect: Are these statements the true sentiments of Tamil Nadu or merely the voice of a political entity wishing to make waves in a turbulent sea? As we tread these murky waters, the quest for understanding and clarity has never been more significant.

Thiruma's Distorted Views on Secularism and Hinduism

In a recent statement that has sparked controversy, Thiruma, of the I.N.D.I. Alliance, put forth a series of questionable interpretations on Gandhi, Nehru, and the broader strokes of India's socio-political history. His attempt to tie together distinct historical figures and events reveals more about his political motives than an accurate understanding of India's past.

Thiruma suggests that Godse, a believer in Hindutva, targeted Gandhi due to his secular beliefs, conveniently sidestepping the deeper nuances of this tragic event. He almost implies that Gandhi's devout adherence to Hinduism was some form of shield, a bizarre assertion that grossly oversimplifies the complex factors that led to Gandhi's assassination. Moreover, his insinuation that Nehru's decisions post-independence were primarily governed by Gandhi's whims rather than his own convictions belittles the stature of one of India's foremost leaders.

Regarding the period of the Emergency, Thiruma hastily credits Indira Gandhi for "enshrining secularism in India’s constitution", demonstrating either a willful oversight or a deep ignorance of history. The Indian Constitution, which celebrates secularism at its core, was adopted in 1950, much before the Emergency. Thus, associating the Congress party's secular credentials solely with the Emergency period is misleading at best.

But Thiruma's assertions grow even murkier when he touches upon the RSS and the Indian constitution. While it's true that various groups had disagreements over the drafting of the Constitution, his attempts to paint the RSS as being in total opposition to values like social justice, liberty, and equality are a gross exaggeration.

His final swipe at Hinduism is perhaps the most perplexing. Drawing a direct lineage from the Manusmriti to contemporary Hindu practices, Thiruma insinuates that today's Hinduism inherently endorses casteism and gender inequality. Such sweeping generalizations not only show a lack of understanding but also seem to be a deliberate attempt to misinform.

In the end, while Thiruma's statement appears to be a calculated move to cater to his political base, it does a disservice to the rich and diverse history of India. One can only hope that his constituents will discern political rhetoric from factual history.

The I.N.D.I. Alliance MP's Divisive Rhetoric: An Assault on Unity?

In a recent public discourse, the I.N.D.I. Alliance MP, with not-so-veiled allusions, took a controversial dig at the Brahmin community, accusing them of leveraging Sanatana Dharma for personal and economic gain. These allegations are not only divisive but also dangerously oversimplified, threatening to sow discord in the fabric of Indian society.

The MP's characterization of the Brahmin community, implying that they have been enjoying "a lifestyle of consuming ghee and lentils without engaging in labor for countless centuries", betrays a reductive and myopic understanding of a complex societal structure. Historically, various communities in India, including the Brahmins, had diverse roles, and not all Brahmins led a life of privilege or affluence as the MP suggests. By focusing solely on dietary habits and using it as a metaphor for perceived privilege, the MP undermines the varied lived experiences of individuals across different regions and times.

His narrative then takes an even more concerning turn as he hints at a divide between the OBCs, Sudhras, and Brahmins. By propagating that "OBCs in India are looking at Sudhras as their enemies instead of Brahmins", he seems to be driving a wedge, further stoking fires of discord among these communities. Such statements, rather than fostering unity, only serve to exacerbate tensions based on castes and further fragment society.

His conclusion, suggesting the need to "turn OBC against FC (Forward Caste)", not only promotes animosity but is also a fundamental contradiction to the tenets of social justice, unity, and harmony that many leaders have aspired for. True progress can only be achieved when communities work collaboratively, understanding and respecting each other's differences and shared histories. The path to eradicating any form of prejudice does not lie in breeding a new one.

It is imperative that leaders, especially those in prominent positions, exercise caution and responsibility in their rhetoric, keeping in mind the broader interest of societal harmony. Polarizing statements, regardless of their origin, need to be approached with skepticism, and the larger goal of a united and harmonious nation should always take precedence.