2) A Warning Against Corruption and Unethical Practices
The Kural contains numerous aphorisms warning of the social consequences of corruption, exploitation, and injustice.
It reminds us that judicial impartiality and restraint in punishment alone deliver long-term stability; repression or one-sided action may produce temporary peace but destroys social trust. This is a direct question to government decisions that order the demolition of old mosques in the name of removing encroachments, while remaining silent on other cases.
3) The Political Dividend of Pluralism and Social Harmony
The Kural's secular, caste-free, and universal voice urges the ruling party to rise above narrow identity politics and deliver "governance for all."
When the ruling party speaks the language of ethics, compassion, and collective responsibility, its moral legitimacy strengthens despite opposition criticism — a far more durable asset than electoral advantage.
In simple terms, the Kural reminds the ruling party that the purpose of power is not merely to win, but to govern justly.
The Kural as a Political-Ethical Agenda
The Thirukkural is not merely India's heritage but a moral action plan. For citizens: the personal practice of truth, non-violence, restraint, and responsibility. For the state: justice, transparency, public welfare, and balanced punitive policy. For the world: a shared ethical framework of peace, human dignity, and social justice.
For a ruling party evading scrutiny, this text is a mirror — asking whether power is being used ethically, or merely for political gain.
India is a democracy where tension between policymaking, administration, and public expectation is constant. That is precisely why restraint, equanimity, and justice must be practised on the ground, not merely celebrated in books.
At the Ram Mandir donation theft, an already wounded Hindu society received its bitterest dose of quinine without honey from RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat in America: "One who opposes Muslims is not a Hindu."
He had earlier said India does not need to be made a Hindu Rashtra — because it has been a Sanatan Hindu Rashtra for thousands of years. Note: he did not say Sanatan civilisation and culture, whose name is Bharat, not Hindu Rashtra. The word "Hindu" comes from ancient Persian tradition. When the Vedas were being composed in India, the Zend Avesta was being written in Iran. Iranians called India the land of Sapta Sindhu. In their pronunciation, 's' became 'h' — so Sapta Sindhu became Haft Hindu, and the word Hindu entered common usage.
The Sindhu river now flows in Pakistan. That is why the Sangh gradually shifted from "Hindu" to "Sanatan." The RSS was founded in 1925; Sanatan, Hindu Mahasabha and Arya Samaj traditions predate it in the public mind.
The Sangh-BJP has made strenuous but failed attempts to appropriate every symbol and great figure of Indian civilisation — using them as weapons, never adopting their conduct. They build statues of Patel but do not embrace his ideas. They invoke Swami Vivekananda but ignore his thought.
Following the British Policy of Divide and Rule
The Sangh is accused of adopting Cicero's strategy — propaganda, venom, and character assassination against opponents as a calculated conspiracy. In 1948, false propaganda was spread against Gandhi, and his assassination was justified by his alleged love for Pakistan. But why did Godse's sympathisers attack Gandhi in 1937, when he was fighting for Dalit rights and Pakistan did not even exist?
Gandhi was never in favour of Partition. The foundation of Partition was laid by the Sangh itself, through the two-nation theory. To say "Hindustan for Hindus" was to indirectly endorse Jinnah's "Pakistan for Muslims." No Sangh leader ever said Muslims should be sent to Afghanistan or Iran. Sympathisers also argue that Gandhi, under Partition terms, demanded Rs 55 lakh for Pakistan. The logical answer: a nation that had already surrendered millions of acres, armies, and a portion of its air force under Partition terms — what face would it show the world if it reneged on a mere Rs 55 lakh?
There is a difference between criticism and baseless venom and character assassination. Criticism — whether of anyone — grounded in truth or logic refines democratic values. Hence the famous Sanskrit aphorism: vāde vāde jāyate tattvabodhaḥ — through dialogue, discussion, and debate alone does true knowledge arise. Not through venom and character assassination.
Yet the BJP, which opposed Gandhi on that very falsehood, wrote into its own constitution the adoption of Gandhian Socialism. It spoke of replacing "secularism" with "positive secularism."
Without understanding the Kural's essential spirit, this will remain merely a new symbolic form of the politics of many faces. Gifting Putin a Russian translation is good — but the text should also be translated and disseminated in India's regional languages.
In 1909, Gandhi wrote Hind Swaraj. Reading it, on 7 September 1910, from Kotchety, the great Russian philosopher Leo Tolstoy wrote in his last letter to Gandhi: "I received your journal, Indian Opinion, and was glad to see what it said of those who renounce all resistance by force." In that same letter, Tolstoy introduced Gandhi to the "Hindu Kural" — the Thirukkural — which Gandhi read in prison. Today Rahul Gandhi speaks in that same vein of "Hara Bhara Swaraj." If Modi now understands this message through the Thirukkural, he must not only read it but follow it. ( Concluded)