Yesterday, when I first watched the viral video clip of Udhayanidhi Stalin’s speech in the Tamil Nadu Assembly on May 12, 2026, I could not believe it to be authentic. It looked prima facie a fake on social media. I hastened to go online to do an immediate Fact-Check. I was aghast in discovering that the speech was indeed true as fully checked below:
Mr Udayanidhi Stalin welcomed the new Joseph Vijay (TVK) government as Leader of Opposition (LoP) after DMK’s loss, congratulating CM Vijay and pledging constructive opposition. Udhayanidhi Stalin spoke during the 17th Tamil Nadu Assembly session following the swearing-in of MLAs and election of the Speaker. As the new LoP, he thanked his Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni voters, DMK allies for 1.54 crore votes, and praised leaders like Periyar, Anna, Karunanidhi, and MK Stalin. He wished the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, noted sharing a college (Loyola) with CM Vijay, and offered DMK’s “senior” governance experience since 1967.
The speech ended with: “நன்றி வணக்கம். வெல்க தமிழ் வாழ்க தமிழ்நாடு மக்களை பிரிக்கும் சனாதானம் நிச்சயம் ஒழிக்கப்பட வேண்டும்” (Thanks, salutations. Long live Tamil, long live Tamil Nadu. Sanatanam that divides people must certainly be eradicated).
- Authentic speech and video: Confirmed via full transcripts from recent Assembly videos (May 2026).
- Welcomes Vijay govt: Yes, explicitly congratulates the new CM and government multiple times.
- “Sanatanam eradicated” line: Accurate quote at the end, aligning with his 2023 remarks comparing Sanatan Dharma to diseases like dengue/malaria that must be eradicated.
The full speech (14+ minutes) also focused on cooperation, Tamil pride (e.g., criticizing Tamil Thai Vaazhthu placement at the previous day’s “sweraring in ceremony”), and development. Udhayanidhi Stalin then said, “Yesterday, the CM came and got wishes from our leader and many others. That political civility should continue in this House also. Even if we are on different rows as the ruling government and opposition party, we all should work together for Tamil Nadu’s development. This is the wish of people also. CM and the opposition leader, we studied at the same college. But in politics, we are seniors. We would like to share our experience and knowledge. You also be ready to accept our suggestions.”
The last line above sounded like a veiled threat to the new Government that if they acquiesced with main Opposition’s “suggestions” — such as “eradication of Sanatanam” — then it would received all support and cooperation. Otherwise, the rug under CM Vijay Joseph’s feet would be pulled any time…
***** ***** *****
Following the controversial statement of the new LoP in the new State Assembly, today a muted uproar was heard in both the mainstreet and social media with the BJP’s national and state spokespersons, Shehjad Poonawala and C.R.Kesavan (great grandson of Rajaji) issuing respectively the usual putative but inconsequential condemnations.
“What about reactions from the Tamil Brahmin community itself?“, I asked myself and found that apart from the usual sound and fury fulminations here and there on Facebook, there was hardly any outpouring of outrage over the blatant insult that their community had received from the Leader of the most powerful Opposition Party in the new Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu on the inaugural day.
Privately, through online messaging apps, I tried to gauge the mood of the Tambrahm community within my own small but well-informed and intelligent circle of family, relatives, friends, professional colleagues and acquaintances. The mood as I sensed it was more sullen, peeved and petulant rather than hurt, offended or outraged. The reactions were understated, varied but truly revealing of the Tambrahm’s mind and thought-processes:
(a) One dear friend told me , “You shouldn’t take these things seriously They don’t know anything about or care too much about sanatana dharma”. What she meant was that this was all about the usual politics of Tamil Nadu of the last 100 years… nothing to get too riled about. Its all business as usual for Tamil Nadu politicians.
(b) Another reaction was even more typical and nonchalant: “Tambrahms have shrunk so much in numbers today…. Population size and clout are not in our favour.” The implied message was that with such a miniscule population, the community in Tamil Nadu has to accept its political insignificance and shrug these insults off with good humour.
(c) Then there was another nuanced point of view: “Why bother about what Udayananidhi says in public when we know that his mother Durga is a practising Hindu and Joseph Viijay’s mother is a Hindu by birth? We should take all these insults in our stride. We can only silently despise…but we must accept that we cannot dispose off this calumny of Sanatana Dharma in the political life of our State”.
(d) Yet another typical Tambrahm reaction I came across was this: “Why should we as Brahmins get offended? After all Sanatana Dharma faithfuls include everyone… so many other very large Tamil Hindu communities as well. When they are all quite unperturbed by these insults to the faith, why should Brahmins alone get unduly fazed and agitated? Let it pass… for this too will all pass off in time”.
(e) Finally, came the pièce de résistance of archetypical Tambrahm complacency bordering on truly historic imperious self-glorification: “We have to look at this way: Sanatana Dharma has been challenged more seriously and more gravely in its long history through the centuries in this land when adversaries more powerful than the DMK today we imagine to be… If they haven’t been able to do us in so far, they are not likely to succeed. Sanatana Dharma doesn’t discriminate … If it had been a system of discrimination, Sanatana Dharma would not have survived until today, and even in Tamil Nadu. Do you think any force on earth can thus “eradicate” this timeless faith and ethos? Not a chance, no matter what the likes of Udayanidhi or his cohorts go about crusading for the destruction of our creed. We have survived hundreds of centuries, so why fear for the future? Sanatana Dharma is an invincible spiritual credo. They can’t do anything about it”.
***** ***** *****
The variety of Tambrahm reactions above made me deeply reflect over the community’s socio-political attitudes towards what it saw were its place, identity and its prospects today in the larger milieu of Tamil Nadu politics. It made me wonder how in Joseph Vijay’s rule, the Brahmins of Tamil Nadu will fare — economically, culturally and demographically. And reflecting so deeply, I could not help but come to the conclusion that the Tambrahm community has today fully lulled itself into a catatonic state of complacency and inertia — a state of mind that that has been afflicted by what can be called (a) the “doormat” syndrome (b) the “whipping boy’s” masochism and (c) the blithe “(ostrich) neck-in-the-sand” attitude. Each of the afflictions are explained in the following passages.
Why is a scurrilous attack on Sanatana Dharma chosen at the very outset and delivered so vehemently in an important inaugural speech in the new Assembly? If it is not to be taken seriously, should it be laughed off as a harmless joke ? As regular, continual and almost ritualistic political propaganda, this practice of heaping insult on Sanatanam as a faith only succeeds in perpetuating the toxic myth of Tambramhs being inherently evil. It will now again seep into the collective Tamilian social consciousness and perpetrate the myth endlessly. Our children and grandchildren are already growing up thinking that they are a special breed of outcastes simply because they are born Sanatani… a class of socially engineered misfits pejoratively called Sanghi. Joseph Vijay wont be able to change that, will he?
The ad hominem attack targeting Sanatana Dharma by important young politicians like Udayanidhi is modern Goebbelsian “psy-ops” and it has already become irreversible over time. So, it is getting even harder and harder to fight it if chosen to be ignored or un-resisted. But then, on the other hand, it makes it easier and easier to deny or curtail opportunities for the Tambhram community — in education, employment, public service — as well as normalise the systemic cultural depredation of temples and religious practices and customs that Brahmins for centuries have preserved and protected…
One way of looking at the ritualistic denigration Tambrahms is as a creeping , invisible, covert form of socio- cultural genocide. However, the Tambrahm community itself seems to have over the last 100 years lulled itself into believing that Sanatana Dharma will always somehow survive and is invincible. Which is another myth … and a soporific one .
It is only by accepting that the invincibility of Santana Dharma is a complete myth that one can correctly identify Udayanidhi Stalin’s speech sign-off as deliberate political signaling, and hence not to be taken as a joke. It is rooted in Periyarite ideology that frames Sanatana Dharma as a divisive caste tool and to see it as part of a long-term psy-ops is also to understand that the repeated propaganda normalizes myths of Sanatana as “evil,” impacting Brahmin younger generations’ self-perception.
Why do I say that this attitude of Tambrahms is “soporific”? “Soporific” refers to something sleep-inducing or dulling awareness i.e. here critiquing the belief that Sanatana Dharma is “invincible” or eternally resilient despite threats. This complacency lulls the Tamil Brahmin community into passive acceptance, ignoring gradual erosion via politics and culture. It implies that the myth perpetuated by speeches as those of Udayanidhi acts like a sedative, preventing resistance to “creeping genocide.”
There should be no doubt at all that, yes, the ritual propaganda of this Udayanidhi kind extends Goebbelsian propaganda logic (repetition creates “truth”) to ever increasing minority self-delusion. It aligns with Tamil Nadu’s history: Dravidian policies (e.g., temple control since 1970s) reduced Brahmin roles, shrinking their share from 3.2% (1931) to ~0.7% of the State population today amid migration/job biases. Psychologically, “soporific myths” parallel denial in declining groups, as per many credible academic studies on cultural resilience.
WHAT CAN JOSEPH VIJAY DO TO DETER GOEBBELSIAN MYTH PERPETUATION?
Vijay, with his Hindu mother Shoba Chandrasekhar and mass appeal cutting across castes, campaigned for “Tamil pride without division,” and meeting ex-CM MK Stalin (with Udhayanidhi), yesterday, signaled reconciliation. But to counter or resist Udayanidhi’s own unseemly attack on “Sanatanam” in the Assembly, the new Chief Minister had nothing to say… not even a weak word praising DMK’s cooperation but subtly rebuking divisive rhetoric. Josephy Vijay seemed to be not too bothered about appeasing Hindu voters (60%+ of TN) because he knew he could not alienate his most important ally with any hint even of a contrarian position taken.
Vijay’s silence, thus, isn’t indifference—it’s strategic. A redress (e.g., “Sanatana unites, not divides”) would signal Tambrahm inclusion, and that would the DMK would find utterly repugnant.
THE MYTH ABOUT BRAHMINISM BEING DIFFERENT FROM HINDUISM WHICH TAMBRAHMS CANNOT DEMOLISH
Sanatana Dharma is being differentiated in Tamil Nadu from Hinduism by projecting it as casteist. In other words , the narrative is that Hinduism is not Brahminical as Sanatana is … So, the Hindu population is not the real target of Udayanidhi but Tambrahms are. The Dravidian narrative in Tamil Nadu deliberately differentiates Sanatana Dharma from a broader, “folk” Hinduism to frame the former as Brahminical and casteist, positioning Tambrahms as the primary target rather than the state’s ~88% Hindu population.
Periyarite ideology (DMK/DMK’s root) posits Sanatana Dharma as Vedic-Sanskrit-Brahmin imposition on indigenous Tamil spirituality—e.g., Murugan worship, folk rituals predating “Aryan” influence. Hinduism is thus recast as egalitarian Tamil folk faith, that which is sought to be “absorbed” by casteist Sanatana.
Udhayanidhi’s “eradicate” rhetoric thus attacks “divisive” Brahminism, not Amman temples or mass Hindu cutoms and practices. (His mother Durga Stalin as regular temple-goer thus, ipso facto, gets exonerated!) Non-Brahmin Hindus (~80% OBC/BC) thus become allies in Dravidian politics (wherein policies like archaka training (non-Brahmin priests since 2021) have signaled inclusivity and social justice). DMK rhetoric and propaganda however continues to vilify “Sanatanam” to evoke Brahmin “oppressors,” and that’s how they justify quotas/temple control and many more similar policies that sidelined the Tambrahms (e.g., 69% in higher education reservation excluding most Brahmins).
Th above cleverly created split lets DMK critique “casteism” while retaining Hindu voters— which is precisely why Jopseph Vijay’s TVK critiques DMK excess but is careful to avoid direct defence of Sanatana Dharma, thus being able to maintain Dravidian mass appeal. The “psy-ops” insight thus fits perfectly here: it isolates Tambrahms psychologically without alienating the Hindu base.
Joseph Vijay’s calculus as new CM will thus most certainly prioritize the minuscule Tambrahm population (~0.7% of TN) as electorally negligible, making token defence of them unproductive amid DMK’s opposition clout. After all, Joseph Vijay’s TVK victory did hinge on consolidating non-Brahmin Hindus (~80% OBC/BC voters) with Tamil nationalist rhetoric, and not minority advocacy. So, he just cannot and will not dare to cross Udhayanidhi—who commands DMK’s massive cadre and ~35% vote share—over “Sanatanam”. Why would he want to risk alienating allies for zero electoral gain, especially the post-reconciliation staged optics (of their May 10 meeting)?
The “ostrich lull” fits again perfectly: Tambrahms’ shrinkage leaves them voiceless, but Vijay’s inaction reinforces the psy-ops narrative—eroding Sanatana without mass backlash.
***** ***** ******
Considering all the aforestated analyses and explanations, there was only conclusion which I could thus come to:
The Tambrahm “lull” of complacency can be aptly characterized using three vivid metaphors, each capturing a distinct facet of passive endurance amid socio-cultural pressures in Tamil Nadu.
“Doormat Syndrome”: This fits as habitual self-subordination, where the Tambrahm community absorbs relentless Dravidian rhetoric (e.g., Udhayanidhi’s “eradicate Sanatanam”) without pushback, mirroring a doormat trampled yet remaining in place. It reflects decades of yielding temple priesthoods, educational quotas, and public narratives to Periyarite ideology, fostering learned helplessness.
“Whipping Boy’s Masochism“: Here, the “lull” evokes masochistic acceptance of scapegoating—Tambrahms as the perennial “oppressors” in DMK lore, internalizing verbal lashes as deserved penance. This derives from historical caste critiques, where enduring insults (e.g., as “divisive Sanatanam”) becomes a twisted virtue, numbing resistance despite demographic shrinkage.
“Ostrich Attitude“: Most blithe of the three, this depicts head-in-sand denial: ignoring policy erosions (temple control, job barriers) by chanting Sanatana’s “invincibility,” which I have critiqued as “soporific myth.” It risks extinction of the Tambrahms through inaction, while they pretend threats like psy-ops propaganda aren’t existential but mere propaganda and peformative political posturing.
Sudarshan Madabushi