Sanathana dravidam

I recently received my voter ID card, and as someone who has never cast a vote in my life, I decided to analyze the options available before making my decision. A few years ago, I thought I’d vote for NOTA (None of the Above), but now I understand that it serves little purpose. This led me to compare two dominant ideologies shaping Indian politics today: Sanatan vs. Dravidian ideology. As a native Tamilian, I was naturally inclined towards the Dravidian ideology. However, the more I analyze it—especially in the context of the DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam)—the more I feel that it mirrors the very flaws it claims to oppose. Here’s why: 1. Hierarchy and Nepotism: Sanatan vs. DMK Sanatan Dharma enforces rigid hierarchies, claiming that “the supreme borns are always supreme.” Ironically, the DMK, which claims to oppose this, practices something similar. The party’s leadership remains confined to a single family, sidelining grassroots workers who have contributed significantly to its growth. For instance, Udhayanidhi Stalin, without years of political struggle, is poised to become Deputy Chief Minister. It’s almost a given that Inbanithi Stalin will follow the same trajectory, further cementing dynastic politics. This undermines the contributions of loyal party workers, councillors, and ministers. Dravidianism was supposed to challenge hierarchies, yet it seems to have replicated them in a different form. As B.R. Ambedkar once said, “Hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and eventual dictatorship.” 2. Periyar’s Atheism vs. DMK’s Religious Hypocrisy Periyar propagated atheism, advocating for a rational worldview that questioned all forms of superstition and religious dogma. However, the DMK seems to have misunderstood or misused this idea. Their atheism appears less about questioning religion and more about being selectively antagonistic towards Hinduism. Hinduism is indeed an umbrella term, but gods like Kotravai, Murugan, and Thirumal are rooted in Tamil culture and history. By radicalizing opposition to modern Hinduism, the DMK risks erasing these ancient Tamil traditions, which are an integral part of our heritage. As Periyar himself said, “Wisdom lies in thinking. The spearhead of thinking is rationalism.” The DMK should focus on rational critiques rather than blind opposition, preserving the rich cultural identity of Tamil Nadu while addressing modern challenges. 3. Casteism and the Misuse of the Term ‘Dravidian’ The Dravidian movement often takes pride in rejecting caste surnames, presenting this as a Tamil achievement. However, Tamil Nadu’s political and social system remains deeply entrenched in caste politics. While the word Dravidian is used to unify South Indians under one identity, it often comes at the expense of Tamil pride. For instance: • Tamils proudly identify as Dravidians, but Kannadigas or Malayalis rarely do so. • Historical artifacts and idols discovered in Tamil Nadu are frequently labeled as “Dravidian” instead of “Tamil,” diminishing our unique cultural identity. This blanket term, Dravidian, risks homogenizing the diverse and vibrant Tamil culture. Just as the term Hinduism erased native Tamil religious practices, the term Dravidian is slowly eroding the distinct honor and legacy of Tamil Nadu. Ambedkar wisely noted that “Caste is a notion; it is a state of the mind.” While the Dravidian movement aimed to eradicate caste, the reality is that it remains deeply ingrained in the system, often manipulated for political gains. 4. The State of Political Leaders in DMK As I observe, many local-level DMK leaders, such as councillors and mayors, are individuals with questionable backgrounds—often habitual offenders or those involved in criminal activities. While there are exceptions, it’s troubling to see how individuals with little to no connection to Dravidian ideology have secured positions of power. Meanwhile, individuals who genuinely understand and uphold the party’s founding principles are sidelined. This disconnect between ideology and leadership weakens the party’s credibility and moral authority. On the other hand, while I strongly oppose BJP’s ideology, I do notice one stark contrast: BJP appears more meritocratic in its leadership structure. Almost anyone, regardless of their background, can rise to a leadership position in the party. They don’t operate as a monarchy where power remains confined to a single family. This inclusivity, despite their divisive ideology, is worth acknowledging. Conclusion The DMK, under the guise of Dravidianism, has strayed far from the ideals of Periyar and Ambedkar. Dynastic politics, selective atheism, caste-based discrimination, and the dominance of questionable leaders continue to plague the system, making it no different from the hierarchical structure of Sanatan Dharma. As a first-time voter, I find myself disillusioned. While the Dravidian ideology once offered hope for equality and rationalism, it now feels like another facade for power consolidation. Perhaps it’s time to revisit the original principles of Periyar and Ambedkar—rationalism, equality, and true social reform—and hold political parties accountable for their deviation from these ideals. Please comment your thoughts!