Political Opportunism or Genuine Reform?

Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s latest salvo on Sanatan Dharma exposes the Left’s selective indignation.

Kerala

Pinarayi Vijayan, Kerala’s Marxist Chief Minister, has never shied away from controversy. Speaking at the Sivagiri Pilgrimage, an event steeped in the reformist legacy of Sree Narayana Guru, he lambasted Sanatan Dharma as a relic of caste oppression. He tied it to Varnashrama Dharma, accusing it of glorifying hereditary professions and stifling social progress. Beneath his rhetoric lies an uncomfortable irony: a Marxist leader invoking reform while presiding over a state where caste and communal identities continue to thrive, often under the guise of progressivism.

Vijayan’s critique of Sanatan Dharma was couched in the language of reform, citing Guru’s defiance of caste hierarchies as evidence that Hindu traditions are inherently oppressive. But this simplification ignores the complex history of Hindu reform movements. Figures like Sree Narayana Guru, Swami Vivekananda, and Mahatma Gandhi worked to dismantle caste inequities from within the Hindu fold, drawing on its spiritual ethos rather than rejecting it outright. Vijayan’s portrayal of Guru as an opponent of Sanatan Dharma erases this nuance, weaponizing his legacy for political ends.

The Chief Minister’s remarks follow a troubling pattern in Leftist politics. Marxist leaders, including Vijayan, routinely criticize Hindu traditions while maintaining a studied silence on regressive practices within other communities. This selective outrage undermines their claim to champion equality and secularism.

For instance, the state’s skewed land ownership patterns, a legacy of caste privilege that remains largely intact despite decades of Communist rule. Or consider the state’s Muslim personal laws, which permit polygamy and gender discrimination - practices that a truly progressive government would seek to reform. By focusing his critique exclusively on Sanatan Dharma, Vijayan betrays his unwillingness to apply the same reformist zeal to other faiths.

Vijayan’s selective indignation raises uncomfortable questions about the Left’s commitment to secularism. His critique of Sanatan Dharma coincided with a broader political strategy to outflank the Congress in courting Kerala’s minority voters.

Marxism, as practiced by Vijayan’s Communist Party of India (Marxist), claims to advocate for a casteless, classless society. Yet Kerala’s political landscape is riddled with caste and community-based organizations that wield disproportionate influence. Far from dismantling these structures, the Left has often partnered with them to secure electoral victories. Vijayan’s government, like its predecessors, has done little to address the enduring caste inequities in Kerala’s labour markets, educational institutions or social hierarchies.

The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was swift to respond, accusing Vijayan of maligning Hinduism to appease extremist vote banks. Whatever the BJP’s accusations, they resonate with a widespread perception that the Left’s secularism often amounts to little more than Hindu-bashing.

This perception is amplified by Vijayan’s conspicuous silence on the regressive practices of other communities. When Swami Satchidananda of Sivagiri Mutt called for ending the practice of male devotees removing their shirts to enter temples, Vijayan praised the monk’s “progressive” message. Yet, he has offered no comparable support for reformist voices within Kerala’s Muslim or Christian communities, where calls for change are often met with resistance or outright hostility.

Sree Narayana Guru’s teachings, which Vijayan invoked to critique Sanatan Dharma, were fundamentally inclusive. His slogan – ‘One Caste, One Religion, One God for All’ - sought to transcend sectarian divides rather than deepen them. By reducing Guru’s legacy to an anti-Hindu polemic, Vijayan risks alienating the very communities he claims to champion. Worse, he risks turning Kerala’s storied tradition of social reform into just another instrument of partisan politics – if it already is not the case.

Vijayan’s remarks, far from fostering unity, deepen the fissures between communities.