The term Sanatana Dharma has been in the news and on various social media platforms for the past few days. Thanks to DMK Minister and son of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin’s son, Udhayanidhi Stalin. He made a speech comparing Sanatana Dharma with mosquitoes, dengue, malaria, and corona and said that it had to be eradicated.
Jumping on the trend, alleged historian Audrey Truschke wrote on her X (Twitter) handle, “”Sanatana dharma” is in the news. This phrase has a history… perhaps a bit more recent than many realize. I discuss it briefly here. https://cambridge.org/core/journals/comparative-studies-in-society-and-history/article/hindu-a-history/413B7D68F16E4068FBCD53E3E0DD181D… #SanatanaDharma”
She shared a link to a paper she had written which describes the “history” of the term. In the paper, she talks about the origins of the word Hindu, and then when it comes to Sanatana Dharma, she writes, “their self-description of “sanatana dharma” dates to the nineteenth-century Hindu reform movements. In this sense, it is useful to consider “sanatana dharma” alongside other terms coined in the colonial era, such as “Hinduism” and “Brahminism.”
Here at the end of this sentence, there is a footnote that reads, ““Brahminism” precedes “Hinduism” by at least several decades.” She continues, “No doubt this contextualization will surprise some followers of “sanatana dharma” who, after all, use that neo-Sanskrit phrase precisely to project their tradition as “eternal” and “universal” (Iskcon n.d.).” and links it to a definition of the term written on the website of Iskcon.
At this time, Audrey Truschke’s old tweets started resurfacing on X. She had written a long thread on Sanatana Dharma last year. She wrote
“Some Hindus prefer the term “Sanatana Dharma” for their tradition or set of religious practices. Literally, the phrase means “eternal dharma,” but y’all know there’s much more to language than literal meaning. So let’s talk history.
The term “Sanatana dharma” was coined in the 19th century, during British colonialism. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. Most terms for Hindu traditions or strands thereof — including Hinduism and Brahmanism –were coined during the British colonial period. The more specific context for “Sanatana dharma” was the Hindu Reform movements, a group of organizations and individuals, overwhelmingly upper caste, who sought to significantly alter Hindu traditions.
As I see it, “Sanatana Dharma” was, in part, a way to project quite new forms and visions for Hindu traditions–articulated by Hindu reformers–back into time. Hence, the ‘eternal’ bit. Just because a term or identity comes from, or crystalized, during the colonial period doesn’t make it illegitimate. In premodern texts, the Sanskrit adjective sanātana sometimes modifies dharma. Lots of adjectives can modify dharma + compounds like kshatriyadharma or svadharma. There are lots of other examples (and caste-based definitions of dharma are exceedingly common in premodern Hindu texts). This is all different than a sort of proper “Sanatana Dharma” to refer to Hinduism. That’s colonial-era in origin.
For a historian and someone who calls herself an authority in Indian history, she has absolutely no knowledge of our scriptures and it looks like her “history” knowledge only extends to the Common Era, more during Mughal and British rule. In this case, Audrey Truschke has attributed the origin of the term to the British period. It is a surprise she did not link it to her favourite Aurangzeb.
Debunking Audrey Truschke
As soon as her tweet came out, several netizens debunked her “colonial roots of Sanatana Dharma” fallacy pointing to how ancient the term was.
You can find the term Sanatana Dharma mentioned 157 times in the Mahabharatha, 8 times in the Ramayana, 7 times in Manusmriti, 8 times in Bhagavata Purana, 10 times in the Koorma Purana and 4 times in the Garuda Purana. In addition to this, it has also been mentioned twice in the Agnipurāṇa, 8 times in the Bṛhaspatismṛti, twice each in the Śivapurāṇa, Vāmanapurāṇa, and Parāśarasmṛti as well as 5 times in the Mahāsubhāṣitasaṁgraha.
For further reading, you can visit this link.
Upanyasaka Dushyanth Sridhar also mentioned this in his TV debate on Times Now. He said the term Sanatana Dharma appears in the Ramayana, Mahabharata, and other Hindu scriptures.
Dushyanth highlighted that Bhagawan Rama used the term “Sanatana Dharma” when discussing the eternal moral principles during his conversation with Bali, emphasising that it was against these principles to engage in a physical relationship with his brother’s wife.
In Kishkinda Kaand, Rama says to Bali
तत् एतत् कारणम् पश्य यत् अर्थम् त्वम् मया हतः |
भ्रातुर् वर्तसि भार्यायाम् त्यक्त्वा धर्मम् सनातनम् || ४-१८-१८
which translates to “Realise this reason by which I have eliminated you… you misbehaved with your brother’s wife, forsaking the perpetual tradition.”
Dushyanth also mentions this verse from Chapter 88 of Mahabharatha,
ये च वेदविदो विप्रा ये चाध्यात्मविदो जनाः ।
ते वदन्ति महात्मानं कृष्णं धर्मं सनातनम् ॥ २२ ॥
which roughly translates to “The purport is that one who has studied the Vedas perfectly, who is a perfect vipra, or knower of the Vedas, who knows what spiritual life actually is, speaks about Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Person, as one’s sanātana-dharma.”
Bhagawan Krishna refers to “Sanatana Dharma” several times when imparting the concept of the Eternal Truth to Arjuna.
Shloka 12 of 162 chapter of 12th Parv in Mahabharata reads, “सत्यं सत्सु सदा धर्मः सत्यं धर्मः सनातनः । सत्यमेव नमस्येत सत्यं हि परमा गतिः ॥ ४ , translating to “For truthful people, truth is Sanatana Dharma. Bow down in front of the truth because truth is eternal salvation.”
सत्यं ब्रूयात् प्रियं ब्रूयात् न ब्रूयात् सत्यमप्रियम् ।
प्रियं च नानृतं ब्रूयात् एष धर्मः सनातनः ॥
“He shall say what is true, and he shall say what is agreeable; he shall not say what is true, but disagreeable; nor shall he say what is agreeable, but untrue; this is the eternal law.” This is from the Manusmriti.
Several netizens questioned her knowledge of Sanskrit and also shared instances where the term appears.
Pandit Satish Sharma also mentioned the same in his tweet, “Rookie mistake; fabricated history by colonialists is so 19th Century.. everyone knows of the episode in Kishkinda where ‘Sanatan Dharma’ is stated. Rutgers Univ is churning out ‘subprime academics’ after ‘subprime finance’ followed by ‘subprime elections’ and ‘subprime pharma’, why should the world be surprised at this?”
Now that the India vs. Bharat debate is raging on social media platforms, will Audrey Truschke attribute that also to invaders?
Also, she says HinduISM is coined by the British. The precise term HinduISM may be. But the word Hindu was used by Hindus to describe ourselves for a very long time. For example, it was used by Shivaji and the Marathas to describe us repeatedly in their letters etc. Sadashiv Bhau used to sign off his letters as “Hindu Dharm ka Sevak” when writing to Hindi speaking Hindus. Of course, they did not think in English, and so had not made an English noun “HinduISM.” So what? There is hardly any point to be made here. If India had been colonized by the French, say, they would have called it Hinduissme. So? The core word Hindu, or Brahmin for that matter, is as old as we are. What is the point of saying Hinduism was coined in the 19th century? I don’t see any point here. Another pointless rant by fako Audrey.
This Audrey is an idiot, and has been proven so many times. Best not to waste time with the likes of her. Also, she happens to be closely related to some Christian evangelist bigot, if I am not mistaken.