Gitanjali J Angmo writes: Problem is not Sanatan Dharma. It’s what politics has done to it

Recently, writer Gitanjali J Angmo argued that the protest "Sansad Chalo" was not an act of "Sanatan Dharma", but rather a manifestation of what politics has done to the concept. Young people from diverse backgrounds came together for the cause of education, transcending their differences and forming a community based on shared values.

However, this display of unity faced significant backlash, with labels like "Sanghi", "BJP stooge", and "RSS sympathiser" being thrown at the activists. This led Angmo to question whether the issue lies not in "Sanatan Dharma" itself, but in the way politics has corrupted it.

To better understand this, it is important to look back at the sentiments of Indian citizens in 2014. They were not just seeking economic growth, but also a renewed sense of self. The BJP, recognizing this longing, positioned itself not just as an alternative government, but as the guardian of India's Hindu heritage. This led to the definition of what "Hindu" politics should look like.

However, the author wonders if much of what is now associated with this politics is contradictory to the tradition it claims to uphold. "Sanatan Dharma" is not an identity to be defended against others, but a way of life that includes principles such as following the truth over propaganda, justice over power, courage over intimidation, considering opposing viewpoints before indoctrination, and the welfare of all over one's tribe.

In contrast to these ideals, intolerance and stereotyping have become prevalent, with questioning the government leading to accusations of being anti-national or foreign-funded. This shift in the discourse troubles the author, as Hindu thought traditionally accommodated diverse perspectives, viewing disagreement as evidence of its vitality.

The author also highlights the troubling presence of stereotypical depictions in popular culture, which perpetuates harmful biases. They argue that great storytelling should challenge prejudices rather than confirm them. Additionally, the author connects issues like population control and social reform to education and development, suggesting that addressing these concerns can lead to positive change.

Furthermore, the author emphasizes the importance of secularism, which should mean equality before the law, rather than allowing governments to run religious institutions differently. They argue that religious freedom should not equate to unequal citizenship and that a Uniform Civil Code should be a platform for open debate on such issues. The ultimate goal is to reform what needs reform through democratic processes, education, and reason.

The author suggests that the real challenge for the BJP lies in embodying the principles it claims to defend. If "Sanatan Dharma" is truly a heritage worth protecting, it should be visible in the conduct of ministers, the fairness of institutions, and the behavior of activists. Sri Aurobindo's quote about "Sanatan Dharma rising" signifies the need for inner transformation above outer conquest, recognizing a deeper unity beneath our differences.

The BJP was given the mandate and moment to reclaim "Sanatan Dharma" by building a modern India based on its principles, such as being confident enough to question, just enough to protect dissenters, and inclusive enough to embrace diversity.

Ultimately, the author believes that if the BJP can live the dharma it seeks to defend, it could play a significant role in helping India fulfill its destiny. However, if it fails to do so, another instrument will emerge to carry the tradition forward. The author concludes by emphasizing that "Sanatan Dharma" does not need the BJP to survive, but rather the BJP needs to become worthy of it.