Dear Reader,
In 1973, 50 years before Udhayanidhi Stalin’s statement that Sanatana Dharma should be eradicated, equating its religious tenets with “mosquitoes, dengue, malaria, and corona,” M.T. Vasudevan Nair wrote and directed Nirmalyam in Kerala. The film featured the wretched, impoverished, and misery-filled life of a Hindu oracle (Velichappadu), with the iconic P.J. Antony portraying the oracle and Kaviyoor Ponnamma as his helpless spouse. Nirmalyam, an adaptation of MT’s own short story Pallivalum Kalchilambum, revolves around a temple in a feudal village and the lives of those dependent on it. The film concludes with a scene in which the oracle, who had blindly believed in the local deity’s powers throughout his life, realises the futility of his faith and existence. In a fit of frustration, he enters the sanctum sanctorum of his beloved deity, enacts an eerie ritualistic dance, and strikes himself with the sacred sword. After his act, the bleeding oracle spits at the deity’s well-adorned idol, and collapses.
In hindsight, this scene could have sparked a significant controversy in contemporary India.
MT was barely 40 years old when he made Nirmalyam, and Pallivalum Kalchilambum was penned during his early twenties. However, instead of inciting controversy, Nirmalyam went on to become one of the most iconic and respected works of Malayalam cinema. It received the National Award for Best Feature Film and the Kerala State Film Award for Best Feature Film in 1974, just about a year before India would face the Emergency. Why didn’t a film like Nirmalyam, created by a Hindu writer-filmmaker, with a team that included a Muslim associate director (M. Azad) and a Christian actor portraying the Hindu oracle, lead to calls for boycotts or bounties? This is because we now realise that it was a different India back then. Despite its flaws, people were generally more tolerant of diverse, radical, and critical perspectives on religion. Certainly, Nirmalyam may have unsettled some radical Hindus, but even for them, MT’s right to challenge a belief system for his own reasons was widely accepted, and the film’s intent was normalised over generations. To this day, the film remains available for viewing, even on platforms like YouTube.
It would be meaningful to consider Udhayanidhi’s comments on Sanatana Dharma in this context. While not everyone may agree with the DMK leader’s remarks, they should not come as a surprise to those familiar with the socio-political history of Tamil Nadu and the DMK. Udhayanidhi’s grandfather, M. Karunanidhi, was a vehement critic of Sanatana Dharma-powered Hinduism. While Udhayanidhi and the DMK certainly have political motives for making and standing by such a statement, the outrage these comments generated across the country, particularly in the northern regions, highlights a remarkably different India today.
As many independent experts have already pointed out, the controversy could serve as a catalyst for initiating a debate on the principles and ethos of Sanatana Dharma, Hinduism, and the caste system, along with the impact of these on society. We should also explore potential improvements and alternatives. In fact, in the past, individuals such as E.V. Ramasamy Periyar, or Thanthai Periyar, envisioned an India built on the principles of Samadharma rather than Sanatana Dharma. Samadharma goes beyond criticising religion; it entails a commitment to equality and a secularism that can guarantee it, as noted by Karthick Ram Manoharan, a social sciences professor at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, in his essay.
Please read the article and tell us if you think it is sacrilege to criticise Sanatana Dharma or if criticism is the first step to reform.
Wishing you a meaningful week ahead,
Team Frontline
We hope you’ve been enjoying our newsletters featuring a selection of articles that we believe will be of interest to a cross-section of our readers. Tell us if you like what you read. And also, what you don’t like! Mail us at frontline@thehindu.co.in
