BHARATA BHARATI

A fresh political controversy has erupted in Tamil Nadu over remarks targeting Sanatan Dharma, with a legislator from actor-politician Vijay’s party drawing sharp attention months after similar comments by Udhayanidhi Stalin had triggered a nationwide row.

Speaking outside the Tamil Nadu Assembly, S. Mustafa, an MLA of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), reportedly said the party had “entered the field only to eradicate Sanatan Dharma,” while invoking social reformers Periyar and Ambedkar.

“We also have Periyar and Ambedkar. We have entered the field only to eradicate Sanatan Dharma,” Mustafa said, reigniting the politically sensitive debate surrounding religion and Dravidian politics in Tamil Nadu.

The remarks immediately drew political reactions online, with critics accusing the party of targeting Hindu beliefs for political mobilisation.

This comes just days after Leader of Opposition in Tamil Nadu Assembly and DMK MLA, Udhayanidhi Stalin, on Tuesday reiterated his remarks calling for the “eradication” of Sanatan Dharma in the Tamil Nadu assembly.

During his address as Leader of Opposition in the Tamil Nadu assembly, Udhayanidhi said the opposition “will not permit” any attempt to sideline “Tamil Thai Vazhthu”, the Tamil invocation song.

The controversy also revived discussions around earlier statements made by Udhayanidhi Stalin, who had compared Sanatan Dharma to diseases such as dengue and malaria during an event in 2023, remarks that had sparked outrage from several Hindu organisations and BJP leaders across the country.

Udhayanidhi has made such remarks in the past as well, and invited a strong criticism not just from political leaders but also from the court.

On January 21, this year, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on January 20 quashed the FIR registered in 2023 by the Tiruchi city police against BJP leader Amit Malviya for allegedly “distorting the comments” made by Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin on Sanatana Dharma.

Justice S. Srimathy, while allowing the petition, observed that the remarks made by Udhayanidhi amounted to “hate speech.” Elaborating on the issue, the judge said the minister’s speech must be examined in its entirety.

“He stated that Sanatana Dharma should not merely be resisted or opposed, but should be abolished or eradicated. In Tamil, the expression used was not Sanatana ethirppu (opposition to Sanatana), but Sanatana ozhippu (eradication of Sanatana),” Justice Srimathy noted.

Amid the renewed row, entrepreneur Sridhar Vembu weighed in with a detailed social media post analysing why the term “Sanatanam” did not initially trigger widespread backlash among Tamil-speaking Hindus.

According to Vembu, the word “Sanatanam” is not commonly used in Tamil vocabulary, unlike “Dharmam” or “Aram,” which are more culturally familiar and closely associated with Hindu religious identity in the state.

He argued that had the attack been framed directly against “Dharmam,” it would likely have provoked a much stronger public reaction. Vembu further claimed that repeated attacks on Hindu symbols and beliefs had historically contributed to a strong anti-DMK political sentiment in Tamil Nadu.

In his remarks, Vembu also suggested that the recent electoral setback suffered by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) reflected growing voter resentment over such rhetoric, while noting the emergence of TVK as a new anti-DMK political force in the state.

The latest comments are expected to intensify political sparring in Tamil Nadu, where debates around Dravidian ideology, religion and identity continue to dominate the political landscape ahead of future electoral battles. – Republic, 14 May 2026