Hindu sentiments outraged as Congress MLA endorses DMK leaders call to eradicate Sanatana Dharma
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India 
11 May, 2026
Case Summary
In Tamil Nadu, Congress MLA Jamal Mohideen Haaroon Aassan Maulaana openly supported the call for the eradication of Sanatan Dharma made by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader Udhayanidhi Stalin during the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly proceedings on 12 May 2026. Backing Udhayanidhi Stalin’s anti-Sanatan remarks, Aassan Maulaana stated, “Sanatana Dharma is already out in Tamil Nadu. What Udhayanidhi Stalin said is right.” Through this statement, the Congress leader publicly endorsed the demand for the eradication of Sanatan Dharma and justified the remarks made against Hinduism inside the Assembly. He further attacked Sanatan Dharma by alleging that it promoted caste discrimination and social inequality. The controversy arose after Udhayanidhi Stalin, while addressing the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly in the presence of the newly elected Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay stated, “Sanathanam, which separates people, should be eradicated.” His remarks triggered criticism because they repeated his earlier public calls for the destruction of Sanatan Dharma despite the Madras High Court previously observing that his 2023 speech against Sanatan Dharma amounted to hate speech against the Hindu community. Following the uproar over Stalin’s remarks, Congress MLA JMH Aassan Maulaana came out in support of the DMK leader and defended the anti-Sanatan statement. While speaking to the media, he asserted that Sanatan Dharma no longer existed in Tamil Nadu and maintained that Udhayanidhi Stalin’s remarks were correct. He further stated that Sanatan Dharma was responsible for dividing society through caste and inequality. His statements effectively endorsed and amplified the earlier call made against Sanatan Dharma. It is noteworthy that the Congress party is not formally part of the DMK alliance in Tamil Nadu, yet the remarks made by JMH Aassan Maulaana demonstrated convergence between Congress and DMK leaders in publicly targeting Sanatan Dharma. The Congress MLA openly defending and endorsing the DMK leader’s anti-Sanatan statement intensified criticism against both parties and fuelled beliefs that sections of Congress and the DMK were united in hostility towards Hindu beliefs and traditions.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of - Hate speech against Hindus. The sub-category selected here is- Anti-Hindu subversion and prejudice. Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which leads to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Media plays a specific and overarching role in perpetuating prejudicial attitudes towards a community owing to unfair, untrue coverage and/or misrepresentation/misinterpretation, selective coverage and/or omission of facts of/about issues affecting a specific religious group. This type of bias can dehumanise the victim group, making it easier for others to justify harmful actions against them, which aligns with the objectives of hate speech laws aimed at preventing such harm. It is often observed that the media takes a prejudicial stand against the Hindu community, driven by their need to shield the aggressor community, which happens to be a numeric minority; however, that is the one perpetrating violence against Hindus. For example, the media is often quick to contextualise religiously motivated crimes against Hindus, omit or misrepresent facts that point towards religiously motivated hate crimes, justify and/or downplay religiously motivated hate crimes, or simply present fake news to stereotype Hindus. Such media bias leads to the denial of persecution and is often used to dehumanise Hindus, leading to justification for violence against them. For example, the media covered several fake allegations of Hindus targeting Muslims and forcing them to chant Jai Shree Ram. Most of these cases were proved false and fabricated after police investigation. These fake news reports were subsequently never retracted or clarified. Such fake news led to the justification of violence and dehumanisation of Hindus based on the argument that since Hindus targeted Muslims and forced them to chant Jai Shree Ram, the dehumanisation of Hindus and violence against them was par for the course and merely a retaliation. Such media bias leads to prejudicial portrayals of Hindus and offers a justification for violence against them and, therefore, is considered hate speech under this category. This case constituted a clear instance of religiously motivated hate speech because the Congress MLA publicly endorsed and defended a call for the eradication of Sanatan Dharma, the spiritual and civilisational foundation of Hinduism. Although he did not himself directly issue the original statement, his explicit approval of remarks advocating the elimination of Sanatan Dharma amounted to legitimising hostility towards the Hindu faith and its followers. Supporting rhetoric that calls for the destruction of a religion followed by millions transformed the statement from mere political commentary into a targeted expression of prejudice against Hindus and their religious identity. The conduct also reflected deep-rooted bias and ideological hostility towards Hindu traditions. By asserting that “Sanatana Dharma is already out in Tamil Nadu” and declaring that the anti-Sanatan remarks were “right”, the accused attempted to normalise and justify rhetoric directed against Hindu beliefs. His statements demonstrated clear prejudice because he chose not to engage in reasoned criticism of specific social practices, but instead endorsed sweeping remarks against the entire religious framework of Sanatan Dharma. Such endorsement indicated an underlying antagonism towards Hindu civilisational identity rather than a neutral social or political position. Furthermore, the repeated portrayal of Sanatan Dharma solely as a source of caste oppression and inequality amounted to a selective and reductionist representation of Hinduism designed to delegitimise the faith in the public sphere. The remarks ignored the spiritual, philosophical, and cultural dimensions of Sanatan Dharma and instead reduced it to negative stereotypes. This reflected a prejudicial narrative that framed Hindu traditions as inherently regressive and divisive, thereby reinforcing hostility and contempt towards the Hindu community. The fact that the accused publicly defended the earlier eradication call despite widespread outrage and previous judicial observations describing similar remarks as hate speech further strengthened the inference of deliberate bias. Rather than distancing himself from rhetoric targeting Hindus, he amplified and validated it in the legislative and public domain. Such conduct contributed to the normalisation of anti-Hindu hostility in political discourse and deepened the perception that sections of the political establishment viewed attacks on Hindu beliefs as socially and politically acceptable. Therefore, this case was added to the tracker.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
