The narrative is shockingly similar

THE NARRATIVE IS SHOCKINGLY SIMILAR

Recently, I attended a seminar on our country’s secularism. The keynote speaker was the writer Tamilselvan, a prominent functionary of the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers and Artists Association—a well-known intellectual wing of the CPM in the state. Tamilselvan is the author of many books and a significant Left-wing leader. Surprisingly, he delivered his speech using a PowerPoint presentation, which I felt impeded his natural flow. 

As one of the party’s most prolific orators, he is usually at his best when speaking spontaneously. By using a digital aid, he may have been trying to embrace modern technology, but in my view, it did not enhance his delivery.

In a speech lasting about an hour and a half, he attempted to cover everything from human evolution and the historiography of races in the Indian subcontinent to contemporary Hindutva politics. His central theme was "Who We Are," which reminded me of Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi’s book Who Am I?. He discussed the history of human civilization at length, frequently quoting Yuval Noah Harari, author of Sapiens. This was unexpected, as Left-leaning intellectuals typically avoid Harari; the author is not particularly complimentary toward Communism and does not grant it a prominent place in human history. Harari even classifies Communism as a "humanity-based religion," a label few "worth-their-salt" Communists would accept.

What prompted me to write this piece, however, were Tamilselvan’s passing remarks regarding India’s freedom movement. He suggested that Gandhi led the struggle at a "leisurely pace," organizing only three major movements across three decades: the Non-Cooperation Movement (1919–1922), the Salt Satyagraha in the 1930s, and the Quit India Movement in 1942. He claimed that, outside of these windows, Gandhi essentially "declared leave." He further opined that India did not achieve independence because of the Congress or Gandhian struggles. He questioned why, if the "heat" of Quit India was the cause, it took the British five years after 1942 to leave.

He concluded that independence was granted primarily because of the revolts and fissures within the British Indian Army, triggered by the heroic armed struggle of Subhas Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army (INA). This made the British realize they could no longer rely on the military to control the populace.

This narrative—positioning the INA as the primary catalyst for independence—has gained significant traction recently, especially since 2014. The BJP often promotes this version to diminish the role of the Congress and the Gandhi-Nehru duo. Interestingly, this view was historically shared by certain British politicians; Winston Churchill, for instance, predicted India would fragment within twenty-five years of independence. Many Right-wing politicians and certain leaders of the Dravidian movement echoed these sentiments. In fact, Periyar E.V.R. went a step further, pleading with the British to continue ruling, at least in the South. The British, however, did not heed his advice.

It is not my intention here to debate the roles of various movements. The INC and CPI were competitors for political space, and Communists were often more harshly oppressed by the British because they advocated for armed rebellion rather than non-violence.

Shockingly Similar

What I find truly striking is the mocking tone the Leftist speaker adopted toward the freedom movement. His views are shockingly similar to those of Right-wing provocateurs like Sai Deepak and Anand Ranganathan. In my opinion, this dismissal of the freedom movement stems from the fact that modern Tamil Nadu CPM leaders are becoming more influenced by Dravidian political narratives than by traditional Marxist ones.

The "Outside" Origins of Sects

During his speech, the writer claimed that every religion in India—not just Islam and Christianity—came from "outside." He asserted that even Shaivism and Vaishnavism, as practiced today, are not indigenous. While he didn't elaborate deeply, he pointed to Nadukkal (hero stone) worship and prehistoric ancestral worship as the only truly local traditions. He implied that "proper" religious sects evolved later through heavy borrowing from foreign philosophies.

Curiously, he did not apply this "foreign" label to Buddhism or Jainism, likely because of their anti-Vedic stance. He also spoke about the migration of four racial groups into India and how their intermingling means no one in India is "racially pure" according to modern science. If these races mixed long before the birth of these religions, forming a singular ethno-racial clan, it is ironic to then claim that Shaivite and Vaishnavite philosophies originated outside the subcontinent. For a talk supposedly centered on secularism, the speaker discussed almost everything except the actual historical context of the word.

           ##############################