'What are we gonna achieve by doing research?' : You must read Actor Sarathkumar's detailed circular on 'Raja Raja Chola issue'

(This article is authored by Alar)

After Vetrimaran’s remarks on Raja Raja Chola, at MP and Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) leader Thol Thirumavalavan’s (VCK) 60th birthday celebrations on October 1, and following the release of director Mani Ratnam’s magnum opus Ponniyin Selvan 1, the ongoing discussion accelerated whether noting the king as Hindu is right or wrong. Famed and senior celebrities like Kamal Hassan, Kushbu Sundar, Karunas, Perarasu, and much more stated their perspectives.

The recent extensive article from well-known actor Sarathkumar on Saturday is now the talk of the town. He makes a point by going back to the earliest forms of culture in the history of humanity, pointing out how decades of growth have changed and made it simpler to classify particular groups, and how going back in time is not a good idea. He claims, "What kind of ape did man descend from as a species? If the monkey is an animal, then who named it a human? Now shall we call the man an ape? What if we said that man has evolved into a monkey? Are any of these discussions necessary for the country?" In the Manirathnam film series Ponniyin Selvan, Sarathkumar portrayed Periya Pazhuvettarayar which was released on September 30th.

The well-detailed report was shared on his Twitter handle, which reads, "In the eighth century AD, people worshipped Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti, Murugan, Surya, and Ganesha. Adi Shankara divided his followers into six sects: Saivism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism, Kalamaram, Selaram, Ganapathy, and Smartham. Saivism, Vaishnavism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and all folk religions are collectively referred to as Hinduism in the Indian Constitution.

The Maruvia Hindus from the Indus River were included when the British compiled the laws in the 1790s; they were major sectarian religions that did not include Christianity and Islam. What was the ancestor of the ape, from which man descended? Who named the animal a human if the monkey is an animal? Shall we now refer to a man as an ape? Or should we say that man is now a monkey? Are all of these debates essential for the nation? What are we hoping to accomplish with that kind of research? Could choosing to use the original name rather than the one that was later changed be wise? Do we still refer to the human species as Homosapiens given that development is inevitable, time-based governance, and integration?

He adds, "Saivism and Vaishnavism did exist, it is true. What additional research are you conducting on top of the fact that those religions have been combined to form Hinduism? These are all theologically based. It is painful that disputes keep escalating in a nation where people worship God in accordance with their religious convictions and cooperate with secularism."

"Is this factual when examining religion without giving any thought to forward-thinking concepts for the welfare of people or without looking back into the accomplishments of past kings? Is it appropriate to bring it up frequently and produce content that is contentious? It would be wonderful if this interest in spreading the fame of Raja Raja Chola, the valiant Tamilian, to the world, who dedicated the great famous temple of Tanjore to the people, which can be admired among the wonders of the world, were present when tomorrow's man is planning to build a path to space and when he is thinking of settling on the planets of Mars, without addressing what religion Raja Raja Chola belongs to,"