History of Hate Speech on Sanatan Dharma

 

History of Hate Speech on Sanatan Dharma

 Attack on Samanatan Dharm is reported to be an accepted Norman in India. Only  country in the world where majority religion is criticize to the effect that the words uttered fulfill the basic ingredients of hate  speech. Hate speech includes  speech which brings disrespect, animosity, humilation of the article of faith , practices , rituals etc of the particular community. This  subject warrants  navigationof the law of the land which deals hate speech in India. It refers to section153(A), 153(B),295(A)298, 505(1)of CrPC  now in , Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita   under section 196, 197,299,302,353, Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita which deals the eventualities  or the conduct which has the potential of disturbing law in order and incitement  to violence in India. If the same type of words are uttered against  the non majority communities. The result thereof is well known .

Matter of concern is Udayanidhi Stalin , Minister of Tamil Nadu has a history of misconduct of hatespeech  to the effect that the High Court of Madras  had an occasion to deal the hate speech of  this Minister .

Udaynidhi Stalin in his address to meeting in 2023  said ““Few things cannot be opposed, they should be eradicated. We can’t oppose dengue, mosquitoes, malaria or corona, we have to eradicate them. In the same way, we have to eradicate Sanatana (Sanatan Dharma), rather than opposing it.”

 The judgment is must read to understand the dynamics of the term hate speech. The High Court referred to the directions passed by the supreme court in Ashwini Upadhyay case, where a duty is cast t upon the state authorities to initiate criminal proceedings suo Motu  against  the persons attributed for mischief of hate speech. The High Court concludes the hard observations  with the directions that those who are responsible for hate speech are moving free and the one who responding to is facing harassment through criminal proceedings. This  is  the case of abdication  of the duty by the law enforcement agencies in the state of Tamilnadu . Hatespeech against Sanatan Dharm has a long history  which reminds a befitting reply to  William Archer Who wrote a book bearing tittle  India and future. Responding to the attack on Sanatan Dharma Aurobindo Ghosh wrote the essays under the editorial title the foundation of Indian culture.

 They were originally published in the monthly review magazine bearing title Arya(1918-19) under  various headings like  Renaissance  of India, Is India  civilized, Indian culture and external influence, defense of Indian culture. It is said to be read by all Indians  who wants to evaluate the true and right perspective of Indian culture.

 Aurobindo Ghosh  sets forth parameters  to evaluate the greatness of any  culture on three parameters.First is to know essential spirit of the culture. and the highest achievements and the best accomplishments.Lastly, the power of the survival, endurance, assimilation, synthesis ,integration  and adaptation to new phases of the permanent needs of the race.

 

This brings into mind, the speech(फरवरी 27, 1895) of Swami Vivekananda, where he mentions the various accomplishments  and the gift of India  to the world in the field of spirituality ,science, literature, art ,culture, mathematics,etc

 Sanatan Dharm is widely misunderstood to the effect that the critics of the Sanatan Dharm say that one who takes birth must dies hence there is no avatar.Avatar can not be divine . There is a catch in this premise. Sri Aurobindo in his Essays on Geets writes that the conception of the universe where the world is nothing but  manifestation of the transcendent in time and space following the process of the evolution, The role of Avatar is to effect future movement is the most logical conclusion.

Hence, Sanatan Dharm view of the divine in terms of the transcendental, Universal and the individual is missed by the critics because of lack of understanding of Indian philosophy and spirituality.

As to the practice of the untouchability, it has been acknowledged by all the reformers  merits that like in law there are principal laws and some provisions which are called rules.Therefore, the practice of the untouchability is found in rules, not in the principal law . All reforms without any exception has strongly condemned practice of untouchability which breeds inequality.

 

A difference between the Verna system in the Jaati system must be understood to the effect that the Verna system Ppropounds classificationof work based on the Karma and swabhav and jaati system is classification which is  birth which is gainst the spirit of Sanatan Dharma.It is relevant to underline  that hate speed is against the concept of the fraternity and the social democratic Dr Ambedkars underlined the significance of the social democracy on the 25th November 1949, in his significant speech in the constant assembly.

 The law of the land is found in the constitution of India. Fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression  is not absolute but reasonable restrictions are permitted.Not every discussion, advocacy, or criticism is termed as hate speech. Supreme Court in its various judgments and The Law Commission, reports lays great emphasis on the scope in the definition, among others, like mens rea, attending circumstances, incitement to violence, where  important aspect is how reasonable person shall react to the objectionable speech? Hence it can be said that such reasonable man is expected to know the foundation of the Indian culture who believes in Vasudev Kutumbakam where all are equally endowed with the potentiality of realizing  the perfection . In modern times without appreciating the works of Ram Krishna Paramhans, Swami Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo any appreciation of Indian culture shall be  incomplete , distorted and will not do justice to Sanatan Dharama.  

 Stalin having found guilty of hate speech by the constitution court.Now making hate speech from Vidhan Sabha of the Tamil Nadu on 13 May 2026 . He is reported to have said that Sanatan Dharma is required to be abolished as a leader of opposition.He stands exposed.He is a coward .He has no courage to stand  by his words. It was a black day in the constitution that hate speech monger was repeating the mischief of heat speech and Vijay, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu  did not object to this highly unacceptable conduct of Stalin.Like Arvind Kejriwal took the shelter of the  privileges to members of legislation for freedom of speech and expression in Legislative Assembly. Stalin  is following footsteps of  Arvind Kejriwal and  Mamta Banerji.  No wonder same destiny shall be the future for Stalin also.