On August 3, 2025, actor and politician Kamal Haasan made headlines once again, not for a film release or electoral announcement, but for a controversial remark targeting Hindu tradition. Speaking at the Agaram Foundation event in Chennai, Haasan stated, “Education is the only weapon that can break the chains of dictatorship and Sanatan.”
The statement, which directly equates Sanatan Dharma with oppression, has drawn criticism from multiple quarters, including Hindu groups and political opponents. Critics argue that such comments are not isolated instances but part of a sustained ideological campaign that Haasan has engaged in for years, both through his political platform and artistic work.
Haasan’s Position and the Public Response
During his speech, Kamal Haasan warned against taking up “anything else” apart from education, cautioning that “majority fools” could defeat knowledge, and implying that social change is possible only by dismantling the entrenched majority belief system, namely, Sanatan Dharma. The implication that Hinduism functions as a dictatorial system requiring “breaking” was viewed by many as an extension of the anti-Sanatan rhetoric popularised in recent years by elements of the Dravidian political ecosystem.
Reacting strongly, Tamil Nadu BJP leader Tamilisai Soundararajan condemned Haasan’s remarks, stating that he was “raising religious issues to create division based on sentiments.” She suggested that such remarks are not only hurtful but also politically motivated, aimed at currying favour with DMK allies who have made similar statements in the past.
A Repeated Pattern, Not an Exception
This is not the first time Kamal Haasan has drawn ire for his remarks on Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma. Over the past decade, he has:
-
In 2017, claimed that “extremism has spread among Hindus” and that Hindu right-wing groups were abandoning peaceful dialogue in favour of violence.
- Advertisement - -
In 2019, controversially said that “independent India’s first terrorist was a Hindu,” referring to Nathuram Godse.
-
In 2022, echoed the widely discredited claim that there was “no Hindu religion” during the Chola period, suggesting instead that the British coined the term ‘Hindu.’
- In 2023, Kamal Haasan defended Udhayanidhi Stalin’s remarks that called for the “eradication of Sanatan Dharma,” stating that Stalin was only following in the footsteps of earlier Dravidian reformers like Periyar.
These instances suggest a long-standing ideological opposition to Hindu religious and cultural identity, framed repeatedly under the guise of rationalism or social reform.
Misrepresentation of Hindu Traditions
One particularly concerning aspect of Haasan’s rhetoric is the consistent effort to divide Hindus internally, often by mischaracterising the theological diversity within Hinduism. In his 2022 comment, he stated that during Raja Raja Chola’s time, only Shaivites and Vaishnavites existed and that there was no Hinduism. While it is historically accurate that multiple sects existed, the conclusion that Hinduism did not exist is misleading. Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism, and other schools have always been part of the diverse views within the broader Sanatan framework. This attempt to disaggregate these traditions serves to weaken the collective Hindu identity.
Much like how colonial narratives distorted the varna system into a rigid birth-based caste hierarchy, undermining the original social philosophy of duty and conduct, this selective reinterpretation of sectarian identities could be seen as an effort to fracture Hindu unity. Haasan’s statements follow a similar trajectory, aiming to portray internal diversity as fundamental disunity.
Anti-Hindu Messaging in Cinema
Apart from political speeches, Kamal Haasan has also faced criticism for embedding anti-Hindu sentiment in his filmography. Examples include:
-
Depicting Lord Murugan comically in Kaadhala Kaadhala (1998).
-
Showing Lord Shiva blowing bubble gum in Pammal K. Sambandam (2002).
-
Labelling The Kerala Story, a film about conversion and radicalisation, as “propaganda,” while defending controversial themes in his own films.
Such portrayals, while defended as artistic freedom, raise concerns about selective insensitivity towards Hindu deities and religious symbols. When viewed in conjunction with his public statements, these choices suggest a pattern of disdain rather than satire.
Political Desperation or Deliberate Agenda?
Haasan’s recent remarks come at a time when the political landscape in Tamil Nadu is witnessing subtle shifts. With a growing number of Hindus becoming politically assertive and vocal in their cultural identity, especially in urban centres, there is speculation that such rhetoric is a response to declining political traction. Aligning with the anti-Sanatan stance of DMK figures like Udhayanidhi Stalin may provide short-term relevance, but it risks alienating a significant portion of the electorate.
What is concerning is not just the rhetoric, but the impunity with which such statements are made. While other religions see swift legal and social consequences when publicly maligned, Hindu beliefs are often targeted without fear of reprisal, under the pretext of rationalism or progressivism. Kamal Haasan’s remarks are part of this broader asymmetry.
Final Thoughts
Kamal Haasan’s call to use education to “break the chains of Sanatan” is neither accidental nor isolated. It reflects a long-standing ideological bias that has increasingly found expression in both political and artistic arenas. The deliberate framing of Hindu tradition as oppressive, the misuse of sectarian diversity to divide, and the consistent ridicule of deities in media point to a systematic campaign, not simply an opinion.
In a pluralistic democracy, critique is essential. But when critique becomes demonisation, and when cultural faith is equated with dictatorship, the line is crossed. Kamal Haasan’s remarks, and the ecosystem that supports them, demand scrutiny, not silence.
India’s civil discourse must protect the right to dissent, but it must also uphold the dignity of its civilisational roots. The time has come for Hindus to respond not emotionally, but intellectually, legally, and collectively. The cost of silence will not be borne individually; it will be cultural.
