A seminar on honour killings held in Mylapore has triggered controversy after Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) deputy general secretary Vanni Arasu made provocative remarks about Hinduism, Lord Rama, and PMK founder S. Ramadoss. He repeated the comments made on Lord Rama and connected it to Dr Ramadoss.

Speaking at the seminar, Vanni Arasu claimed that the Hindu epic Ramayana itself contained caste-based oppression, citing the episode of Rama killing Shambuka, a lower-caste ascetic. He alleged that the act symbolised killings done to preserve Sanatana Dharma and the varna system. He said, “There is a prime character in Ramayana. There was a Brahmin outside Rama’s palace. He laments with his dead child on his lap. Rama your governance has gone bad. Rama came out of the palace and enquired. They are doing bad things in the name of Dharma. The Brahmin said go see in the jungle. Rama went to the jungle with his sword and horse. There he finds a man hanging upside down from a tree. Rama asks him, ‘Who are you? What are you doing?’ The man replies, ‘I am doing penance. My name is Shambuka. I belong to the Vettuva community, a tribal caste.’ Rama then asks, ‘How can a person of low caste perform this dharma? Dharma is for each caste separately. How can you cross that boundary?’ And then Rama cuts off his head. The story even says that the blood from this act revived a dead child.”

He argued that honour killings were rooted in the same ideology, saying, “Behind such murders, behind these so-called honour killings, lies a theory. That theory is Sanatana Dharma, the Varna system. This is what Dr. Ambedkar said must be destroyed. Hinduism is a religion that should be destroyed. There is no equality in Hinduism, there is no social justice in Hinduism. That is why Ambedkar converted out of it. So where does this violence come from? It comes from the need to protect Varna. This is the subtle politics at play. Rama was not a Brahmin, but he killed for Brahmins. Ramadoss is not a Brahmin, but he acts to uphold Brahmin ideology. Both are the same. Rama is one, Ramadoss is one. This ideology continues even today. Many are still absorbing it. That is the truth.”

His comments have sparked sharp reactions, with critics accusing him of denigrating Hindu beliefs and targeting Ramadoss. Supporters, however, claimed he was highlighting caste oppression and the ideological roots of honour killings.

Reacting to this statement, BJP leader K Annamalai took to his X handle and slammed it. He wrote, “What connection does Ramayana have to Honour Killing? Have the I.N.D.I. Alliance members lost their senses? The parties in the I.N.D.I. Alliance have a deep hatred for Sanatana Dharma. Here is a VCK leader (a Member of the I.N.D.I. Alliance) speaking about a piece of fiction, the Uttara Kanda, that was never part of the Valmiki Ramayana. And this Kanda is not included in the Ramayana written by the Tamil Poet Kambar. Yet, such distortions are shamelessly paraded to malign our civilisational ethos. This is the sick political discourse of DMK & its allies in Tamil Nadu. And let it be said clearly. Sanatana Dharma has withstood countless assaults for millennia and will endure these politically motivated attacks.” 

Who Is VCK Leader Vanni Arasu?

Vanni Arasu, the Deputy General Secretary of the VCK and a close ally of the DMK, has built his political career not on genuine service but on manufactured outrage, caste baiting, and dangerous alliances.

A man who claims Dalit identity while accused of misusing SC benefits after converting to Christianity, he routinely spews venom against the RSS and Indian nationalism, even glorifying separatist movements.

His record is littered with casteist slurs on the judiciary, vile personal attacks on political opponents, and photo-ops with convicted terrorists like SA Basha of the Coimbatore bombings.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post INDI Ally VCK Leader Vanni Arasu Spews Venom Against Hindus: Says Rama Killed A Tribal For Brahmins, Links Ramayana To Honour Killings To Hit At PMK Leader Ramadoss, Quotes Ambedkar To Say There’s No Equality In Hinduism appeared first on The Commune.

The image of Rāma as Maryādā Puruṣottama – the best among men, the ideal man – is widespread in the Hindu psyche. Rāma is the embodiment of Dharma, always keeping with righteous action, truth and duty. Even with the rise and fall of many kingdoms and empires and despite the several ebbs and flows of Hindu civilisation, this strand of thought has remained in the Hindu mind for more than a period of two thousand years.

However, Rāma is not only the ideal man, but He is also the ideal monarch. As the archetypal ideal ruler who exemplifies Dharma, He is also responsible for safeguarding Dharma from Adharma.

The idea of a State governed under Rāma – the Rāmarājya – has influenced the foundational principles of Hindu civilisation over these past centuries. Harmony and happiness all around characterises the Rāmarājya.

What Rāmarājya is and isn’t

In the Rāmarājya, statecraft is envisioned as a partnership between the deity and the earthly ruler, with Dharma as the nucleus of the State. The earthy ruler – be he elected or born into the role – upholds Dharma.

The State protects and preserves ancient traditions and practices; it does not interfere in them by alluding to naïve ideas that are incompatible with the smooth functioning of Hindu society.

Home, Family and Social bonds are strengthened and protected; they are not diluted by progressive laws and an over-reaching judiciary.

The sovereignty of the country is protected in such a State, be it on the land or marine borders, or even on the economic frontiers. Autonomy is not handed over to a globalist, imperial power in exchange for a few paltry trinkets.

The State funds true merit in the arts and sciences and does not disburse funds and taxpayer-funded employment to groups who hold the State ransom with threats of violent riots and unfavourable electoral mandates.

Upliftment of the poor and the needy does take place, but not through draconian laws that institutionalise discrimination and persecution of certain groups. Neither does the State engage in social engineering through handouts to establish faux egalitarianism.

The State facilitates entrepreneurship and financial activity. Citizen-citizen interactions and citizen-State interactions – such as those in the realms of industry, commerce, and taxation – are not made obscure and complicated by vested interests and bureaucratic red tape. There is no place for corruption and hubris.

The ruler of such a State does not claim to be a Nanny who knows what is best for the Children. He does not seek to bring in reform for reform’s sake, as a Statist government machinery mutely stands by. The ruler does not tamper in the inherent diversity of practices and rituals; he does not seek to impose a uniform and quasi-monotheistic set of practices from up above in order to create superficial conformity and glibly, and falsely, call it unity. He is not enamoured with the State’s right to run people’s lives for them.

The elimination of Adharma as central to the preservation of Dharma

But most important of all the obligations of a Dhārmika ruler towards the People is the destruction of Adharma. The extermination of foes will involve tasks that are considered difficult and uncomfortable. These acts will be considered cruel by many. But the Dhārmika ruler does not shy away from them in order to protect one’s People.

In the Bāla Kāṇḍa of the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, there is a chapter where Viśvāmitra convinces Rāma that it is his duty to slay the dreadful Tāṭakā.

Tāṭakā was a very powerful yakṣiṇī. She devastated the land with wickedness and impiety, tearing asunder its sacredness. Therefore, the great Viśvāmitra beckons Rāma to slay her:

“O Rāma, thou must slay this wicked and impious demon Tāṭakā, who ravages the land. For the good of the Brāhmaṇas and the king, O Rāghava, accomplish this; do not hesitate to destroy this vile yakṣiṇī. It is the duty of a warrior to protect those of the four castes. A prince must not eschew deeds that are painful and difficult, for the preservation of his people. It is according to the law of eternal Dharma, O Rāma, that even deeds that appear ruthless are permitted to those appointed to protect their subjects. O Rāghava, Tāṭakā is wholly evil, and therefore must be destroyed […] Fulfill thy duty and slay this yakṣiṇī without delay.”

However, Rāma, who possesses great tolerance and kindness, is still reluctant. He says to his brother Lakṣmaṇa:

“She is horrible, versed in black magic and hard to subdue, but it is not proper to deprive a woman of her life. A woman is worthy of protection, therefore, I shall incapacitate her, by depriving her of the power of motion thus preventing her from doing further mischief.”

This is where Viśvāmitra comes in, with compelling and eye-opening arguments on why the resplendent Rāma must rid himself of such a perspective:

“Enough, she does not deserve further mercy; should you spare her, she will gain strength through her magic powers and will again break up our holy rites. The evening is approaching and in the evening rākṣasās are overcome with difficulty; slay her, therefore, without delay.”

Viśvāmitra’s argument on how wickedness and evil grow stronger upon being spared is noteworthy. Stress is also laid on the symbolism of a sacred land being bereft of ritual due to Adharma. Dharma rests on the efficacy of sacred conduct and that of conducting sacred and holy rites. Adhārmika foes destroy the traditional Hindu way of life.

However, a frequent and misplaced argument is made that such methods make Hindus akin to their Adhārmika foes, resulting in a “spiritual defeat”.

This misplaced argument can be answered in a chapter from the Yuddha Kāṇḍa of the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa. When the Ocean does not appear in his personal form before Him after requests and a wait of three nights, the enraged Rāma says:

“Indeed calmness, forbearance, kind spoken-ness and straight-forwardness – these qualities of noble men give weak results, when directed towards those having no virtues. This world honours that man, who boasts himself, is corrupt and shameless, runs about in all directions advertising himself and commits every kind of excess. In this world, it is not possible to obtain fame, glory or victory at the end of a battle, by conciliation. O, Lakṣmaṇa! Behold now this ocean, having its water made suffocated soon with its crocodiles floated on all sides and broken asunder by my arrows […] I will make the ocean with its multitude of conches, oyster shells, fishes and crocodiles, dry up now in this great battle. This ocean is considering me as an incapable man endowed as I am with forbearance. It is a great mistake to show forbearance to such an individual.”

And it is then, after Rāma has let loose fiery arrows which nearly dry up the seas, that the Ocean appears before Him and affords Him of a way to travel to Laṅkā with His army.

Thus, in any State where Rāma – and consequently, Dharma – is central, the annihilation of Adharma must be swift and thorough. As long as Adharma persists, the People cannot live in harmony and prosperity.

Rāmarājya is not a mere metaphor and neither is it an ideal of the past. It is an aspiration of the future that we must strive towards in the present, not just to maintain sublime principles, but for the sake of our people and our children. It is the goal that we must never forget.

Click here to subscribe to The Commune on Telegram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post A note on Rāmarājya appeared first on The Commune.

If there is one mythological character who has captured the imaginations of the Tamils on a large scale, it has got to be Ravana. Stories of him being a devotee of Lord Shiva are to be found in the Hindu puranas and also in the Nayanmar poems, which incidentally also claim that Lord Ram was a Shiva devotee.

After Robert Caldwell opened a Pandora’s Box by talking about a racial divide among the Indians, an entirely new dimension was introduced to the narrative so as to claim that Ravana was a Dravidian king and that Rama was an Aryan ruler. To this day we can see self-styled historians claiming that the very existence of the Sinhala language in Sri Lanka is the result of the Rama-Ravana war.

In 1946, a whole new book called Ravana Kaaviyam was written in 1946, to project Ravana as the hero and Rama as the villain. The author of the book was Pulavar Kuzhandhai, who had leanings towards the Dravidar Kazhagam, an aetheist movement that was started to challenge the Brahminical dominance.

Such a stream of thought had lost steam over the years, but of late, linguistic chauvinists in the state like Seeman and Thirumurugan Gandhi have picked it up again. We can also see some demands by fringe groups to conduct a Raavan Leela, in response to the Ram Leela.

At the same time, we can also see that the traditionalists and the people of Tamil Nadu at large, have repeatedly questioned these claims and written them off as fake narratives peddled with an ulterior motive to divide society.

With this being the case, it becomes imperative to look into the ancient Tamil scriptures to see which of the claims are substantiated by evidence.

The earliest references to the Ramayana in Sangam Tamil literature is to be found in the text Puranaanooru in the 378^th poem.

கடுந்தெறல் இராமன் உடன் புணர் சீதையை

வலித்த கை அரக்கன் வௌவிய ஞான்றை

நிலஞ்சேர் மதர் அணி கண்ட குரங்கின்

செம்முகப் பெருங்கிளை இழை பொலிந்து ஆங்கு

Sita,who was the wife of the ferocious Rama, was kidnapped by the demon Ravana, who had strong arms. Sita threw her ornaments in the vicinity of monkeys who were squatting on the ground. The monkeys, which had reddish faces, were bewildered by seeing the ornaments.

The poet, Onn Podhi Pasingudaiyaar, takes this as a reference to narrate the bewilderment and ecstasy which poets feel when they receive gifts from the Chola King Ilanchet Cenni.

Please note that Ravana is reffered to as a demon and not as a leader of Tamils, anywhere in the poem.

We find another reference to the Ramayana in another Sangam Tamil text, Aganaanooru in the 70^th poem.

வென்வேற் கவுரியர் தொன்முது கோடி

முழங்கிரும் பௌவம் இரங்கும் முன்றுறை

வெல்போர் இராமன் அருமறைக்கு அவித்த

பல்வீழ் ஆலம்

Rama, who was victorious in the war, came and sat under a banyan tree in Dhanushkodi, which was ruled by the Pandian Kings, along the sea shore. When Rama was reading his texts, he Banyan tree was engulfed by silence.

This incident is used by the poet as a reference to explain how a village that used to gossip about the love of a Tamil couple, stopped gossiping and became silent once they got married (just as how the Banyan tree was engulfed by silence once Rama sat under it to read his texts).

Note how Rama’s victory over Ravana is celebrated in this poem by calling him as a victorious king.

The very fact that the Ramayana story is not actually narrated, but used as a parable to explain the nature of something else, in both of these poems, is proof of the fact that Ramayana was revered in Tamil Nadu.

We also find various references in the later Tamil texts like Pazhamaozhi Naanooru, Silapathikaaram and Manimeekalai which sing praises of Rama. Nowhere do we find the acts of Ravana, being celebrated or he being referred to as a Tamil King.

Another interesting aspect is that the very name,Ravana,is not a permitted word,as per the rules of Tamil grammer, which state that no word should started with the syllable “Ra”.

The Tamil text Nanool, has the below sutra.

ரவ்விற்கு அம்முதலாம் முக்குறிலும்
லவ்விற்கு இம்முதல் இரண்டும் யவ்விற்கு
இய்யும் மொழிமுதல் ஆகி முன் வருமே

Meaning:The phoenetic “Ra”(ர) should be prefixed with “Ae”(அ)/E(இ)/OU(உ). The phoenetic la(ல) should be prefixed with E(இ)/OU(உ).

This sutra is drawn from the earliest Tamil work, Tholkaapiyam, which defines the rules as to how Sanskrit words in Tamil should be used without violating the rules of Tamil Grammar.

வடசொல்–கிளவி வட எழுத்து ஓரீஇ,
எழுத்தொடு புணர்ந்த சொல் ஆகுமே

Meaning:While writing Sanskrit words in Tamil,they should be modified in such a way that they don’t violate the rules of Tamil grammar.

This is the reason why the Sanskrit word ராவணன் is written as இராவணன் in Tamil, so that the rules of Tamil grammar are not violated.

While today we find Tamils giving Sanskrit names to their children, this was not the case with ancient Tamils. So it becomes amply clear that Ravana did not have Tamil origins.

The Hindu Puranas also claim that Ravana was born in today’s Uttar Pradesh and later settled down in Sri Lanka, thus explaining why he had a Sanskrit name instead of a Tamil one.

Today’s Ravana fanatics like Seeman do have the dubious history of sharing stage with Kashmiri separatists like Yasin Malik, so it is no surprise that they claim that a demon like Ravana is their leader.

If the friendship grows in leaps and bounds, and if the people of Tamil Nadu, were to fall for tricks of such people, we would soon see him assigning new heroes to the Tamil population, based on his own “discoveries”.

Hopefully they don’t call Osama Bin Laden as a ‘muppattan’ (ancestral grandfather).

The post Was Ravana a Tamil King? appeared first on The Commune.