Politics Should Focus on Public Issues Rather Than Anti-Sanatan Narratives

In the contemporary landscape of Indian politics, a discourse has steadily emerged that has shifted political debate away from core public concerns such as development, education, healthcare, employment, and social justice, and instead centered it around religious identity and faith. This discourse revolves around “support for Sanatan versus opposition to Sanatan.” On one side are those who regard Sanatan culture as the eternal foundation of Indian civilization and life, while on the other are certain political statements and tendencies that many perceive as being opposed to Sanatan values. The issue is not whether one agrees or disagrees with a particular ideology; rather, the real question is whether religion should become the central axis of politics, or whether politics should remain focused on the actual concerns of people’s lives.

India’s democracy is founded upon a secular Constitution, where the role of the State is neither to promote nor oppose any religion, but to safeguard the rights of all citizens equally. Political parties, too, bear the responsibility of prioritizing public welfare, development, and national unity. However, in recent years, religious discourse has increasingly occupied the center stage of political debate. Sanatan is not merely a religious term; it represents the cultural consciousness, philosophical outlook, and value system of Indian civilization. Ideals such as “Satyam Vada, Dharmam Chara” (Speak the truth, follow righteousness), “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (The world is one family), and “Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah” (May all be happy) are integral expressions of this worldview.

Therefore, when political statements employ derogatory or aggressive language regarding Sanatan, their impact extends beyond religion and touches the cultural and emotional fabric of millions. The controversy surrounding the remarks made by a leader from Tamil Nadu comparing Sanatan Dharma to a disease became widely debated precisely because it was perceived as hurting the sentiments of a large section of society. Several opposition parties attempted to distance themselves from the statement, recognizing that remarks perceived as offensive toward the faith of millions could create political discomfort in a country like India. It is important, however, to understand the historical and social context behind movements such as the Dravidian movement. Their original struggle was against social inequalities and caste-based dominance. Yet, when the discourse of social reform begins to appear as opposition to an entire faith or culture, it risks losing broader public acceptance. It is equally true that many opposition parties do not describe themselves as anti-Sanatan; rather, they claim to oppose social evils, caste discrimination, and inequality. Their emphasis is on social justice and constitutional values—a viewpoint fully legitimate in a democracy, as every tradition requires introspection and reform.

Indian civilization itself has a long tradition of dialogue, debate, and self-reflection. Great reformers and spiritual leaders such as Gautama Buddha, Mahavira, Kabir, Guru Nanak, Dayananda Saraswati, and Mahatma Gandhi questioned social distortions, but their objective was reform—not division. The problem arises when political language loses balance. When criticism shifts from reform to rejection, it creates social polarization. In a pluralistic nation like India, such tendencies are not conducive to democratic health. Under the leadership of Narendra Modi, the discourse of cultural nationalism and civilizational identity has gained greater prominence over the past decade. Initiatives such as the construction of the Ram Temple, redevelopment of cultural and spiritual centers, and revival of heritage spaces have strengthened cultural confidence among many sections of society and have also yielded political benefits.

At the same time, several opposition parties have at times appeared uncomfortable in adapting to this changing political sentiment. In some cases, they struggled to balance secularism with public faith; in others, statements by individual leaders created political challenges. Electoral trends across states have shown that caste equations and traditional vote banks alone are no longer sufficient. Voters increasingly value cultural identity, development, and national narratives alongside economic concerns. Yet, there is another side to this debate. Should politics be driven primarily by religious identity? Should pressing concerns such as unemployment, education, healthcare, environmental degradation, agrarian distress, economic inequality, and social fragmentation recede into the background? These questions are equally vital.

Over recent years, certain remarks by leaders from parties such as Congress, Samajwadi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party, Trinamool Congress, DMK, and others regarding Sanatan and Hindu faith have been interpreted by sections of society as insensitive toward Hindu sentiments, and political consequences have followed. However, this issue cannot simply be reduced to “Hindu opposition versus political opposition.” India is a democratic and pluralistic nation where every political party has the right to oppose governments, policies, or leadership. Yet, when such opposition appears to conflict with the cultural and religious sentiments of the majority, it may carry political costs.

Sanatan in India is not viewed merely as a religious identity; it is widely regarded as a symbol of philosophy, culture, tolerance, tradition, and civilizational continuity. Consequently, insensitive language or negative signaling toward it often evokes strong public reactions. At the same time, democratic maturity requires that political discourse remain centered on governance, policies, and public welfare rather than religious polarization. Political parties must preserve the balance between criticism and respect for the nation’s cultural consciousness and religious sensitivities because, ultimately, people support leadership that understands their emotions, traditions, and national ethos.

Indian politics must rise above a “religion versus religion” framework and move toward a discourse centered on “people and their problems.” Citizens seek both temples and employment, faith and opportunity, culture and modernity. Religious polarization alone cannot become the foundation of sustainable national progress. Political parties should move beyond accusations of “anti-Sanatan” or “anti-Hindu” politics. If reforms within traditions are needed, they should be pursued through respectful language and constructive engagement. Social justice should not imply cultural rejection, and cultural nationalism should not mean denial of alternative perspectives. The strength of Indian civilization lies in its diversity and tolerance. India embraces Shankaracharya and Buddha, Mahavira and Kabir, the Vedas and the Constitution alike. It has always valued dialogue above conflict. Therefore, politics too must adopt a language that unites society rather than divides it.

At a time when the world is struggling with conflicts, cultural tensions, and identity-based politics, India possesses the message of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam”—the world as one family. This, indeed, reflects the true spirit of Sanatan: inclusion, compassion, and coexistence. Political parties must introspect and ask themselves: Do they wish to lead society toward religious confrontation or toward national reconstruction? If politics remains trapped in disputes over faith, the real issues of public life will continue to be neglected. But if it respects culture while prioritizing development, education, healthcare, and social harmony, India can emerge as a stronger and more balanced nation.

Sanatan means eternal, and the eternal is that which embraces all. Therefore, neither blind opposition nor blind support can offer solutions. What India needs is balanced politics, thoughtful vision, and a commitment to national interest above all else. The maturity of Indian democracy lies in respecting faith while ensuring that politics remains a vehicle of public welfare. Only then will democracy become stronger, and society more harmonious.