In a recent session before the Madras High Court, senior counsel G. Karthikeyan argued against the stance of Ministers Udhayanidhi Stalin, P.K. Sekarbabu, and DMK MP A. Raja, who contended that Sanatana Dharma perpetuates caste divisions based on birth. Karthikeyan emphasised that “No one is born a Brahmin, they only get initiated into the order through their deeds,”.
Presenting arguments before Justice Anita Sumanth, who is handling the writ of quo warranto petitions against the three DMK leaders, the senior counsel highlighted that Sanatana Dharma stands out as the most tolerant and inclusive religious principle globally. He clarified that, according to ancient scriptures, there is no mention of the various castes prevalent today, except for the reference to the four fundamental Varnas.
He also pointed out that revered figures like Lord Rama and Lord Krishna were not Brahmins by birth, and Vishwamitra, originally a Kshatriya, became a Brahmarishi through penance. The argument centered on the Bhagavad Gita’s assertion that individuals become what they aspire to be based on qualifications, not birth. He also added, “If it is by birth, there won’t be any Alwars and Nayanmars. One becomes what he wants to become by obtaining the qualifications. That is what the Bhagavad Gita says,”.
Citing the mantra Aham Brahmasami, he explained, “It means God is there in every soul. So, the misinformation that caste gets assigned by birth was propagated by those who had no elementary understanding of Sanatana Dharma. I really wonder if they even knew to read Sanskrit in which the ancient texts are written. Somebody wrongly translated something and all others are following it blindly.”
When Justice Sumanth inquired about the origins of the contemporary caste system in Hinduism, Karthikeyan attributed it to a lack of understanding of Sanatana Dharma and possibly flawed translations. When asked about the introduction of the present-day caste system in Hinduism, he expressed uncertainty but condemned untouchability as barbaric. He said, “I don’t know. That is a mystery. Untouchability is certainly a barbaric activity. There is no doubt about it. If there is a cataract in the eye, then it should be operated upon. The entire eye need not be plucked out. A Minister cannot say Sanatana Dharma itself should be eradicated.”
He refuted the accusation that Sanatana Dharma discriminates against women, emphasising that the naming of rivers after women across the country contradicts such a claim. Pointing to examples, he highlighted Saraswati as the Goddess of knowledge, Lakshmi as the Goddess of wealth, and Shakti as the Goddess of power, courage, and boldness, all depicting significant attributes through women. He further underscored the contribution of women to the Rig Veda’s creation.
In Tamil literature, he cited women poets like Avvaiyar, Karaikal Ammaiyar, and Aandal, along with the historical significance of brave queens such as Rani Mangammal and Velu Nachiyar who ruled the land in the past. Additionally, he referred to a Minister named Jabali in Dasaratha’s kingdom during the Ramayana period, highlighting that Sanatana Dharma encompasses atheism, asserting that an atheist can also be considered a Sanatani.
Senior counsel P. Wilson, who is representing Udhayanidhi Stalin, argued that the writ petitioner acknowledged the existence of the caste system and untouchability. Therefore, Wilson contended that issuing a writ of quo warranto against the Minister for advocating the eradication of these practices would be inappropriate.
He characterised the case against the Minister as frivolous and urged the court not to invest time in it. Additionally, he strongly objected to senior counsel T.V. Ramanujam’s assertion that the Minister delivered a “hate speech” by advocating for the eradication of Sanatana Dharma. “How can it be called hate speech? It is only an ideological clash that has been prevailing for many years… What is wrong if I hold an opinion that is acceptable to a majority of Hindus who have voted us to power?” he asked.
He also referred to news reports revealing that 33 out of 78 Union Ministers faced criminal charges, with 24 prosecuted for serious offences like murder, attempted murder, and robbery. He questioned why the writ petitioner, T. Manohar, a Hindu Munnani office-bearer, did not file writs of quo warranto challenging the authority of those Ministers to continue as legislators.
Senior counsels G. Rajagopalan, R. Viduthalai, and N. Jothi, representing one of the three writ petitioners, A Raja, and PK Sekarbabu, respectively, concluded their oral arguments before the judge granted them a week to submit their written statements.
The judge also considered brief arguments presented by advocate J. Sai Deepak, even though the intervening petition filed by the NGO he represented was not formally numbered or listed for a hearing.
(with inputs from The Hindu)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.