“No one is born a Brahmin, they only get initiated into the order through their deeds,” senior counsel G. Karthikeyan argued before the Madras High Court on Thursday, while disputing the stand taken by Ministers Udhayanidhi Stalin, P.K. Sekarbabu and DMK MP A. Raja that Sanatana Dharma was being opposed by many because it divides people on the basis of caste assigned by birth.
Appearing before Justice Anita Sumanth, who is seized of writ of quo warranto petitions filed against the three DMK leaders, he said Sanatana Dharma was the most tolerant and inclusive religious principle in the world. No ancient scripture, he said, related to it speaks about the numerous castes that are in practice today but for referring to four basic Varnas.
“Neither Lord Rama, nor Lord Krishna was a Brahmin. Vishwamitra was a Kshatriya, but he wanted to become a Brahmin. He involved himself in deep penance and became a Brahmarishi. So, it is not by birth. 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,” the counsel argued.
Referring to the mantra Aham Brahmasami, he said: “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 wanted to know when the present day caste system got introduced into Hinduism, 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 also denied the charge that Sanatana Dharma does not accord equal treatment to women, and said if it was so, almost all rivers in the country would not have been named after women. “The Goddess of knowledge is Saraswati, Goddess of wealth is Lakshmi, the Goddess of power, courage and boldness is Shakti. Everything is depicted only through women. The Rig Veda is created by women,” he added.
He referred to women poets such as Avvaiyar, Karaikal Ammaiyar and Aandal in Tamil literature and brave queens such as Rani Mangammal and Velu Nachiyar having ruled the land in the past. “During Ramayana period, a Minister named Jabali in Dasaratha’s kingdom was a proclaimed atheist. Sanatana Dharma encompasses atheism too. An atheist can be a Sanatani too,” he added.
Senior counsel P. Wilson, representing Mr. Udhayanidhi Stalin, said the writ petitioner himself had admitted prevalence of caste system and untouchability and, therefore, a writ of quo warranto could not be issued against the Minister for wanting to eradicate such evil practices.
He said it was a most frivolous case filed against the Minister and that the court need not waste its time on it. He further took strong exception to senior counsel T.V. Ramanujam’s claim that the Minister had actually delivered a “hate speech” by calling 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.
Referring to news reports of 33 of 78 Union Ministers facing criminal cases and 24 of them being prosecuted for serious charges such as murder, attempt to murder and robbery, Mr. Wilson asked why didn’t the writ petitioner, T. Manohar, a Hindu Munnani office-bearer, file writ of quo warranto petitions questioning the authority under which those Ministers were continuing to be legislators.
Senior counsel G. Rajagopalan, R. Viduthalai and N. Jothi, representing one of the three writ petitioners, Mr. Raja and Mr. Sekarbabu respectively, also wound up their oral arguments before the judge granted them a week to submit their written arguments.
The judge also heard brief arguments advanced by advocate J. Sai Deepak though an intervening petition filed by an NGO, represented by him, was not numbered and listed for hearing.
