• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
1
ANTIANTIANTIANTI –––– BRAHMINISMBRAHMINISMBRAHMINISMBRAHMINISM ::::THE NEW COMMUNALISM OF MODERNTHE NEW COMMUNALISM OF MODERNTHE NEW COMMUNALISM OF MODERNTHE NEW COMMUNALISM OF MODERNINDIAINDIAINDIAINDIA
By David FrawleyBy David FrawleyBy David FrawleyBy David Frawley
new communalism and social prejudice has come to grip modern India, whichappears to be acceptable to most groups both inside and outside the country.This is anti-Brahminism, the idea that the Brahmins are the bad guys or villains,and that the difficulty any other groups may experience in India is through nofault of their own but simply due to their oppression at the hands of the cruel Brahmins.Brahmins are vilified in negative slogans and stereotypes as oppressors, higherclass villains, fascists and Nazis. Not only the Hindu lower classes and untouchables butMuslim and Christian minorities commonly portray the Brahmins as their oppressors, asdo leftist groups in India. Most of the problems of modern India are attributed to thereligious, social and economic oppression allegedly perpetrated by the cruel Brahmins,and the Brahmins are not given credit with anything good.Laws are passed to restrict the number of Brahmins in the educational system andin various occupations and promote the number of non-Brahmins, as if this were themagic route to social equality and social advancement. Brahmins of high merit areexcluded, while members of other social groups are preferred even if they have nocorresponding merit. These restrictions on Brahmins in India are probably more extremethan any quota system or affirmative action anywhere in the world.They are not simply restrictions but severe limitations bordering on exclusion of Brahmins altogether. Above all, the lower classes of India are taught to blame theBrahmins for their backward state economically or educationally. This anti-Brahmincommunalism masks itself as anti-communalism, as if the existence of Brahmins as agroup was the basis of all other communal problems.Anti-Brahminism has been put forth as a way of rectifying class inequalities, as if these were all the fault of the Brahmins. The Brahmins are decried as the corrupt "upperclasses," as if they were in control of the wealth and power of the country. But instead of bringing about social integration this anti-Brahminism promotes division in society andreinforces communal identities. It does not address the core issues of social inequality butrather turns the Brahmin class into a scapegoat.
A
 
2
Putting down the Brahmins is not going to raise up the lower classes of India, though itmay bring votes to certain political parties whose concern is short term electoral gains.On the contrary, it is bound to depress the intelligence of the country and to removeattention from the real problems, which are poverty, lack of education, overpopulationand corruption, and rigid class and religious identities of all types.Traditional Role of the Brahmins and the History of AntiTraditional Role of the Brahmins and the History of AntiTraditional Role of the Brahmins and the History of AntiTraditional Role of the Brahmins and the History of Anti----Brahminism:Brahminism:Brahminism:Brahminism: Anti-Brahminism has a long history in India, being a dominant theme of the longperiod of foreign rule. In the last thousand years India was primarily governed by non-Hindus - Muslims and Christians - who certainly cannot be called pro-Brahmin in theirpolicies. When India was invaded by foreign powers, the Brahmins proved to be a greatobstacle, particularly against religious conversion.Muslim rulers made special efforts to convert or even kill Brahmins. Theydestroyed Hindu temples in order to deprive the Brahmins, who were mainly templepriests, of their influence and their income. The British rulers of colonial India targetedthe Brahmins and dismantled the traditional educational system that the Brahminsupheld.However, the same groups which attacked the Brahmins found that they had touse the Brahmins at times, who represented the intelligentsia of the country, to helpadminister the country. So occasionally they compromised with the Brahmins andallowed them certain privileges. But the Brahmins had little power under their rule, andwere officially discredited as heathens.Hence the Brahmins were the main oppressed community in India over the lastthousand years and the main target of Muslims and Christians trying to control andconvert the country. This historical oppression of the Brahmins has been lost on modernIndians, primarily because of anti-Brahmin propaganda of various types. Somehow thisoppressed group has been stereotyped as the ruling oppressors!As Brahmins are vilified as the oppressive ruling elite one would expect that theBrahmins routinely ruled the country. Not only was this not true in the period of foreignrule, it wasn't true in the period of classical India either. In this regard it is important tolook at the social role traditionally held by Brahmins. In traditional India Brahmins servedas the priestly class, providing teachers of all types as well performing religious sacramentsand temple worship.The traditional Brahmin was given to a life of poverty, social service, and spiritualpractice. Brahmin families usually gave one of their sons to become a monk and led livesof religious austerity. The Brahmins therefore had neither economic nor politicaladvantage. Their status was on a religious and intellectual level. They were praised asreligious leaders, not as a political or economic elite.
 
3
The Kshatriyas or the noble class, who were taught the arts of government andwarfare, traditionally ruled India. The Vaishyas, the merchant and agrarian class,administered the wealth of the community. The Brahmins as the priestly class did notcontrol the military or economy of the country except when individual Brahmins steppedbeyond the traditional limits of their class, which was rare.As a class Brahmins were not allowed to carry weapons or to accumulate wealthand property. Each village had its Brahmins to guide the community and perform religiousceremonies, whom the villagers would in turn provide with modest food and shelter.Village Brahmins were on par with other village folks and most Brahmins were of thistype. Hindu kings also had their chief priests or purohits, their special Brahmins to guidethe kingdom.Only these Brahmins in service to kings and princes gained social status throughroyal patronage and the affluence that could come with it. The Kshatriyas or the nobleclass, who were taught the arts of government and warfare, traditionally ruled India. TheVaishyas, the merchant and agrarian class, administered the wealth of the community.The Brahmins as the priestly class did not control the military or economy of thecountry except when individual Brahmins stepped beyond the traditional limits of theirclass, which was rare. As a class Brahmins were not allowed to carry weapons or toaccumulate wealth and property. Each village had its Brahmins to guide the communityand perform religious ceremonies, whom the villagers would in turn provide with modestfood and shelter.Village Brahmins were on par with other village folks and most Brahmins were of this type. Hindu kings also had their chief priests or purohits, their special Brahmins toguide the kingdom. Only these Brahmins in service to kings and princes gained socialstatus through royal patronage and the affluence that could come with it. These royalBrahmins served as counselors and advisors, educating the princes and performing staterituals.However, a few of them by their advisory powers did manage to come intopositions of political power. In some instances they wrongly interfered in political matters,in violation of the rules of their class. Other times they stepped in to help weak kings andprotect the country. This political action of the Brahmins in the face of a weak Kshatriyawas considered proper and was not regarded as a violation of their prescribed role insociety. When the Kshatriyas failed to protect the people, for example, a few Brahmingroups, like the Peshwas in Maharashtra, took power and themselves became Kshatriyas,but this was only to save the country.Often kings would honor the Brahmin families under their patronage with landsand property, mainly for establishing schools and temples. This was a point at which somecorruption did occur. Sometimes these patronized Brahmins fell from their traditional
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...