Varna system not accountable for caste ferocities, says HC

CHENNAI: Holding that the ancient varna system is not entirely accountable for the caste ferocities that prevails in the society, the Madras High Court (MHC) wrote that the Sanatana Dharma remarks of ministers Udhayanidhi Stalin, P K Sekar Babu and A Raja, member of parliament (MP) amount to disinformation and hate against specific members of the society.

The varna system does not contemplate division on the basis of birth, but based on avocation, however, the origins of the caste system as we know it today are less than a century old, wrote Justice Anita Sumant disposing the writ of quo-warranto petitions preferred against the ministers and the MP.

The varna system was designed to work towards the smooth functioning of society centuries ago where the chief avocations were identified based on the then needs of society, the relevance of such a system today, is itself moot point, read the judgment.

Unequivocally that there are inequities based on caste present in society today and that they are to be eschewed, wrote the judge. The State is a cacophony of pulls and pressures of this ferocity among persons belonging to different castes, which is also, in part, on account of the benefits made available to them, read the judgment.

Equating Sanatana Dharma to HIV AIDS, leprosy, malaria, and corona, by the ministers and MP have revealed an alarming lack of understanding of Hinduism. Their statements, whatever may be their personal ideology, are perverse, divisive, and contrary to Constitutional principles and ideals and tantamount to gross dis or misinformation, wrote the judgment.

If the leaders in a State wish to lead an egalitarian land with equal sharing of resources among all the people, they must set an example by exhibiting fairness in approach, moderation in speech, and a sincere desire to understand the differences between their people.

While restraining to issue quo-warranto against the ministers and MP, the judge wrote that despite the allegations of the petitioners exactly on point. While FIRs are stated to be pending in various states in regard to the offending statements, admittedly, there has been no conviction as on date. Thus, the relief of quo- warranto as sought for by the petitioners is premature as no cause of action arises at this juncture of time for such issuance.