Were the Cholas Hindu or not? Decoding the history behind the Kamal Haasan-PS1 controversy.

“Special Thanks Mr. Kamal Haasan”. This is how Mani Ratnam’s historical epic Ponniyin Selvan: I (PS1) opens. But now the veteran actor has become part of a controversy around the Chola dynasty, the Tamil empire that is touched upon in the film’s historical fiction narrative.

Based on Kalki Krishnamurthy’s five-part novel of the same name, PS1 is a retelling of Rajaraja Cholan I’s early days while focusing on the internal conspiracies and external threats that the empire faced at the time. Ever since actor Vikram’s speech on the historical significance of Cholas went viral, several people began highlighting the achievements of Cholas and some even labelling them as “Hindu rulers”. 

How Vetrimaaran started the debate: However, Tamil director Vetrimaaran (the man behind some of Dhanush’s recent hits such as Vada Chennai and Asuran) has now spurred controversy as he openly stated that branding Cholas as Hindu is an attempt to “saffronise” their legacy. 

Speaking at the 60th birthday celebrations of MP and Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi leader Thol Thirumavalavan on October 1, Vetrimaaran was invited as a chief guest at the event. 

Kamal Haasan backs Vetrimaaran’s claim: While many (including political parties like BJP) have criticised Vetrimaaran, frequent Mani Ratnam collaborator Kamal Haasan has spoken in the director’s support. 

Haasan agrees that Raja Raja Cholan cannot be called a “Hindu” ruler given that Hinduism as a singular religious identity wasn’t established back then. 

To put it in his own words,

But then what was the religion of the Cholas? It is true that Hinduism has not had a singular origin unlike the Abrahamic religions and other faiths. The dieties that Cholas and their subjects aligned to have now been accommodate within a larger umbrella term of Hinduism. 

Based on the Chola inscriptions and their artistic legacy, the dynasty subscribed to Shaivism, the (now) Hindu tradition of worshipping Shiva as a chief deity. Even Thanjavur’s Brihadeshwara Temple, arguably the greatest structure the Cholas built, was dedicated to Shiva. Most of the temples built between 800 and 1200 CE were similarly all Shaiva structures. 

According to historian Mahadev Chakravarti’s 1986 work The Concept of Rudra-Śiva Through The Ages, Shaivism traces its roots from pre-Vedic traditions. It was in the final centuries BCE, Chakravarti argues, that these traditions started getting aligned to the Vedic god Rudra and eventually, Shiva and his worship got included within a Brahmanical fold. 

More than just Shaivism: However, despite the common notion of Cholas being Shiva’s followers, it cannot be concluded that Shiva was their only deity. There were exceptions such as the second Chola emperor Aditya I who also built temples dedicated to Vishnu. 

In The Royal Temple of Rajaraja, Geeta Vasudevan similarly argues that another major Chola emperor Parantaka I was a self-professed Vishnu follower even praying to him before his military campaigns. 

While other South Indian dynasties like Pallava and Pandava dynasties also embraced Buddhism and Jainism, none of the two faiths emerged as the state religion. In fact, there is no inscription to prove that Shaivism was a state religion. The faith of the empire ultimately decided on the personal preferences of the monarch. 

For instance, as even PS1 hints, Rajaraja Cholan even patronised Buddhist seers. In fact, he is also associated with the construction of the Chudamani Vihara, a Buddhist monastery in Tamil Nadu’s Nagapattinam. The Vihara is unfortunately in ruins today and remains one of the last remnants of Buddhism in South India. 

The final verdict: So, even if Hinduism didn’t exist in its current form back then, the Cholas primarily drew their religious beliefs from gods and philosophies that can be considered Hindu and they can be generalised as "Hindu kings" by one school of thought. Even Kamal Haasan’s statement does acknowledge that sects such as Shaivism (Shivam) and Vaishnavism (Vaivanam) existed during the Chola regime. So, Haasan’s words demand to be taken in their entirety instead of just mentioning a line or two out of context.

As for Mani Ratnam and his cast, none of them have issued any statements in response. Vetrimaaran’s claims, however, are drawing mixed responses, with some finding him to be unnecessarily promoting his personal ideology and other praising him to speak up as a politically conscious director.