The Politics of Selective Outrage in Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu often prides itself on being the land of rationalism and social reform. Yet, over the decades, what has frequently passed off as “rationalism” has, in practice, become selective criticism aimed predominantly at Hindu beliefs, symbols, and traditions.

In the 1970s, E.V. Ramasamy (so-called Periyar) engaged in provocative acts such as breaking the idols of Hindu deities, burning images and publicly insulting Hindu deities. Much of Tamil society remained silent. There was neither widespread outrage nor meaningful condemnation. Even sections of the media hesitated to question or challenge such actions. Whether this silence arose out of fear, political convenience, ideological alignment, or social indifference, history must honestly acknowledge that Hindu sentiments were expected to simply absorb the insult.

Even today, political discourse in Tamil Nadu continues to celebrate this ideological legacy. From time and again, one has to prove himself as a rationalist from such a legacy and accrodingly have to make certain rhetoric comments. Udhayanidhi Stalin’s statement in the Assembly that “Sanatan Dharma must be eradicated because it divides people” was not an isolated remark. It was a continuation of a long-standing political culture where attacking Hindu traditions is often projected as intellectual courage or rationalism.

What is more concerning is the forum in which such remarks were made. The Legislative Assembly is meant for governance and public policy, not for provocative ideological messaging unrelated to the subject under discussion. Yet neither the ruling establishment nor the Speaker found it necessary to object, intervene, or expunge the remarks. Selective secularism has become so normalised that statements targeting Hindu traditions are often treated as politically acceptable.

True secularism cannot be selective. A society cannot claim to uphold equality while permitting mockery or hostility toward only one faith tradition. If respect for religious sentiments is expected in one context, it must apply uniformly across all religions and communities.

Tamil society itself demonstrates how deeply spirituality remains woven into public life. Millions gather at temples, undertake pilgrimages, observe fasts, and participate in festivals with immense devotion. Such faith cannot be erased through political slogans or rhetorical grandstanding. Ironically, even many leaders who publicly endorse anti-Sanatan rhetoric come from families that continue to practice Hindu rituals and temple worship privately.

For decades, Hindu-bashing has often been normalised in Tamil Nadu’s political ecosystem, sometimes disguised as anti-caste politics, social justice, or rationalist reform. Simultaneously, anything perceived as culturally Hindu is frequently projected as “anti-Tamil.” This manufactured binary has shaped political narratives for generations.

The larger issue, however, goes beyond one speech or one individual. Hindus cannot continue to remain the default punching bags of selective secularism. A mature democracy must ensure that criticism, debate, and reform apply equally across all ideologies and religions — not exclusively toward one community.

At present, very few political forces openly challenge such rhetoric, largely due to electoral calculations and ideological compulsions. Until a broader political and social shift takes place, such statements will continue to surface from time to time in Tamil Nadu’s discourse.

But societies evolve. Public consciousness changes. The expectation that Hindus alone must silently tolerate ridicule in the name of rationalism may not continue indefinitely. The days ahead may witness a stronger demand for balanced secularism, mutual respect, and equal standards for all faiths.