Sanatana Dharma ruined India, not a religion: Sharad Pawar's NCP leader

NCP-SCP MLA Jitendra Awhad made strong statements against Sanatan Dharma while speaking to the media on Saturday. “Sanatan Dharma has ruined India. There was never a religion called Sanatan Dharma. We are followers of Hindu Dharma,” Awhad said.

The four-time MLA added that Sanatan Dharma was responsible for denying Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj his coronation and for defaming Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj. He also alleged that its followers tried to assassinate social reformer Jyotirao Phule.

“They threw cow dung and filth at Savitribai Phule. This Sanatan Dharma conspired to kill Shahu Maharaj. It did not allow Dr B.R. Ambedkar to drink water or attend school. Ambedkar opposed Sanatan Dharma, burned the Manusmriti and rejected its traditions,” he added.

Jitendra Awhad said that people should not hesitate to call Sanatan Dharma and its ideology perverted.

Awhad began his political career in the 1980s as a student activist during anti-fee hike protests. He later rose through the ranks of the Congress’s student wing, NSUI and served as a Member of the Legislative Council from 2002 to 2008.

He was elected to the Assembly in 2009 and has retained his seat since then. Awhad has served as a minister in both the Congress-NCP and the Maha Vikas Aghadi governments. He held portfolios such as Housing, Medical Education, Minority Development, and Aukaf.

Awhad holds a PhD in socio-religious movements and belongs to the OBC Vanjari community. In 2018, the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad claimed that there was a plot by extremists to target him. Awhad has used this claim in his political messaging.

In a separate development, the Supreme Court earlier this year refused to entertain three writ petitions seeking criminal action against Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin over his 2023 remarks on 'Sanatana Dharma'.

The petitions, filed by B Jagannath, Vineet Jindal, and Sanatan Suraksha Parishad, alleged that Stalin's speech amounted to hate speech and hurt religious sentiments.

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Prasanna B Varale questioned the maintainability of the petitions under Article 32. Following this, the petitioners withdrew the pleas with the liberty to seek other legal remedies.

- Ends