Amid the political debate over Tamil Nadu chief minister MK Stalin’s son Udhayanidhi Stalin’s controversial ‘Sanatana Dharma’ comment, Union Minister of Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal on Sunday said that disrespecting a religion is like disrespecting the Constitution. He cautioned the leaders, saying that the person holding a constitutional position should respect all religions.
“We want to ask him if they (Opposition) agree with the statements made by KC Venugopal, Karti Chidambaram, and Priyank Kharge?… Those holding constitutional positions should respect all religions. Why disrespect ‘Sanatana Dharma’? This means they are also against the Constitution,” Mr Meghwal, a BJP leader, said.
DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin recently caused a storm as he alleged that Sanatana Dharma is against social justice and that it should be eradicated.
On September 2, while likening Sanatana Dharma to the coronavirus, malaria, and dengue, Udhayanidhi Stalin, the son of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin, said that such things should not be opposed but destroyed.
Notably, Udhayanidhi Stalin’s remark on Sanatana Dharma has sparked a massive controversy across the nation. Several BJP leaders and Hindu priests have strongly criticised his statement. The BJP has demanded an apology from MK Stalin’s son. Leaders from the BJP have also blamed the INDIA bloc for his remark, claiming such an agenda was discussed during the recent meeting that was held in Mumbai.
However, the Madras High Court in its September 15 order said that Sanatana Dharma is a set of ‘eternal duties’ that can be gathered from multiple sources relating to Hinduism or those practising the Hindu way of life and includes “the duty to the nation, duty to the King, King’s duty to his people, duty to one’s parents and Gurus, care for the poor, and whole lot of other duties”.
The comments came from Justice N Seshasayee, who was hearing a petition filed by one Elangovan, challenging a circular issued by a local government Arts College. The college reportedly asked students to share their thoughts on the topic ‘Opposition to Sanathana’.
The court also said that when free speech is exercised in matters pertaining to religion, it is necessary for one to ensure that no one is injured and “free speech cannot be hate speech”.
(This story has not been edited by String Reveals staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)