If Sanatan is Eternal, Why Did It Change? The Forgotten Mahabharata Challenge

 

One of the most powerful claims made in contemporary religious and political discourse is that "Sanatan Dharma" is eternal, unchanging, and timeless. The very word Sanatan means eternal. It evokes an image of an ancient truth that has remained constant across millennia, untouched by human intervention. But what happens when one turns to the scriptures themselves? Surprisingly, the Mahabharata offers a story that raises uncomfortable questions about this claim.

In the Adi Parva of the Mahabharata, we encounter the sage Uddalaka and his son Shvetaketu. The episode begins with a shocking incident. A Brahmin approaches and takes Shvetaketu's mother away by the hand in full view of her husband and son. The young Shvetaketu is enraged. To him, this is an intolerable violation of family and marital norms.

Yet his father Uddalaka responds calmly. He tells his son not to be angry because this practice is "Dharma Sanatana" or "Sanatan Dharma." He explains that in ancient times women were free and unrestricted, and such social arrangements were accepted. In other words, what Uddalaka called Sanatan Dharma was not a sacred scripture, a temple ritual, or a theological doctrine. It was a social custom that existed in a particular historical context.

The story becomes even more significant because Shvetaketu refuses to accept his father's explanation. He rejects the custom and establishes a new social code governing relations between men and women. The Mahabharata explicitly states that he created a new maryada, a new social boundary and norm.

This raises an obvious question. If the practice described by Uddalaka was truly Sanatan, how could it be abolished by the next generation? If it was eternal, how could it cease to exist?

The answer may be that the concept of dharma in ancient India was never as rigid as modern interpretations often suggest. Dharma was not merely a fixed set of commandments. It was a living principle that adapted to circumstances, communities, and changing social realities. Different texts present different duties for different ages. What was considered appropriate in one era could be modified or discarded in another.

The history of the Indian subcontinent itself demonstrates this constant evolution. Vedic sacrifices gave way to philosophical inquiry in the Upanishads. The rise of Buddhism and Jainism challenged existing religious assumptions. Bhakti movements questioned ritual hierarchies and opened spiritual paths to ordinary people. Reformers from Basava to Kabir, from Nanak to Ambedkar, challenged inherited traditions and demanded change.

Even practices once defended in the name of religion have disappeared or been transformed. Child marriage, untouchability, restrictions on widow remarriage, and numerous caste based customs have all faced criticism and reform. Society changed because human beings changed. Moral understanding evolved. Laws evolved. Institutions evolved.

The story of Uddalaka and Shvetaketu therefore reveals something profound. The real history of Indian civilization is not the history of an unchanging order. It is the history of debate, dissent, adaptation, and reinvention. Every generation has interpreted inherited traditions in the light of its own values and circumstances.

This does not necessarily diminish the significance of Sanatan Dharma. Instead, it suggests that its endurance may lie not in rigidity but in its capacity to evolve. The Mahabharata itself records a moment when a son challenged a tradition that his father called eternal and successfully replaced it with a new norm.

Perhaps the greatest lesson of the episode is that no social arrangement becomes sacred merely by being old. Traditions survive not because they are ancient, but because each generation finds meaning in them. What is called Sanatan may therefore be less about permanence and more about continuity through change.

The Mahabharata's forgotten story leaves us with a provocative conclusion: what remains eternal is not any single social custom, but the human capacity to question, reform, and redefine the meaning of dharma itself.

Author Introduction

Siddhartha Shankar Mishra is an advocate at the Supreme Court of India and a commentator on law, politics and society. His writings blend legal insight with social critique and aim to provoke reflection on power, justice and public conscience.