Mahavishnu Is A Distraction — The Real Problem Is Dravidianist Indoctrination In Tamil Nadu’s Schools

On Teachers' Day (5 September), a new controversy erupted in Tamil Nadu. Mahavishnu, a young stand-up comedian turned guru, was invited by the authorities of a government school to deliver a motivational speech.

This upcoming guru is quite young and runs an impressive quantum of humanitarian services. In the middle of his speech, he spoke about punya and sin, rebirth and karma.

When he related karma to being born differently abled, one of the teachers who was differently abled, intervened in an agitated manner and reminded him that he was to deliver a motivational speech and not a spiritual discourse.

Mahavishnu on his part countered the teacher, accusing him of ‘ego issues’ right in front of the students. The students seemed to support the charismatic speaker.

Mahavishnu claimed that ancient Indians possessed mantras capable of bringing rain of fire and magically teleporting individuals and that the British destroyed these mantras. The video clips of these claims went viral. Mahavishnu, who leads the ‘Paramporul Foundation,’ uploaded the video himself.

There are five points to be noted here:

1. The speech of Mahavishnu was not divisive nor excessively fundamentalist. But it was definitely non-rational, insensitive and non-factual. Mahavishnu and his increasing number of supporters fail to see that this is merely propaganda rooted in belief and lacks factual support. In the long run even from the point of view of spiritual development of the students, this will do more harm than good.

Punya and sin resulting in the present birth are beliefs. Karma is a central tenet of the Hindu family of religions. The Vedic, Jain, and Buddhist traditions believe in karma and rebirth. However, can this be used to justify or rationalise inequality and the condition of differently-abled persons?

Liberated enlightened masters of Sanatana tradition like Surdas and Ashtavakra clearly show the fallacy of associating with karma with such a view. It was colonialism which caricatured Karma as fatalistic associating it with rationalising inequality and with inhuman indifference to suffering.

A spiritual speaker should have been more decolonised and empathetic. A government school platform should be neutral to a belief system. It is better to avoid speaking about belief systems to children.

2. That being said, surely there have been crackpot Dravidianist ideologues given access to school platforms. A Loyola College Christian priest even openly stated that he inserted his agenda when he was given curriculum preparation. Ideology is also a belief system. School platforms should remain neutral and avoid promoting ideological agendas.

Unfortunately, this has not been the case for generations, both in Tamil Nadu and across India. Marxists, Nehruvians, and Dravidianists have continuously promoted their ideological agendas through the curriculum. In comparison, the violation of children's fundamental rights mentioned by Mahavishnu was relatively minor.

In his speech, there was neither hatred nor racism. The government's extreme reaction in transferring the principal should be condemned as excessive.

3. There should be clear guidelines in the school to invite speakers. The speakers may belong to any religion and ideology. But their speeches should be free from ideological biases and prejudices of their beliefs. If stating that karma is a reality is a belief, then calling karma a superstition is also a belief. When political parties who call themselves secular openly speak of karma as superstition, they are not being secular.

The incident has opened a floodgate for Dravidianist commissars to take over a crucial component of education and make it their fiefdom. This is a danger which should be countered entirely and intelligently.

4. Hindu organisations should focus on training motivational speakers for students, rather than taking sides in this issue. The motivational speakers should be well-trained in Upanishadic literature, Tamil Bhakti literature, Thirukkural, and the teachings of Vallalar, Swami Vivekananda, and Sri Aurobindo.

They should also understand the basics of cosmology, evolution, psychology, sociology, and current developments. They should be trained to bring through their speeches true genuine Dharmic motivation. The Santana injunction of speaking the truth and speaking the truth sweetly and usefully should be the guiding principle here. They should be trained in such a way that irrespective of ideology every school should want them to talk to their children.

If Hindu organisations fail to act, the vacuum for motivational speakers will be filled by Christian evangelists and Dravidianist or Marxist ideologues. The harm from this could be as bad as radiation's lingering toxicity.

5. Finally, the chief minister's statement deserves commendation. He refrained from attacking any belief system, which is uncommon in Dravidianist politics. He could have taken a jibe at the concepts of rebirth and karma. After all the juvenile anti-Santana tantrums done before the 2024 elections by his party and allies, this response was quite measured and mature.

Dravidianist politics appears to be reinventing itself, significantly toning down its anti-Hindu rhetoric while maintaining its core principles of Dravidian racialism. This is evident from the fervour with which school education minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi attacked the self-styled guru, announcing he would not spare him. That was too much of a reaction. He also honoured the differently-abled teachers. It was a clever move and good optics.

This Janus-faced approach to such issues is the new strategy the DMK is adapting. Conversely, the Hindutva forces in the state reacted in a Pavlovian manner, readily embracing the problematic self-styled guru.