The Myth of the Brahmin Ego
The Church-incited Dalits frequently harp on a pet theme, i.e. Brahmanatva, which they interpret as the feeling of casteist superiority. Interestingly, they indiscriminately apply this Brahmanatva tag to the racial pride of each and every caste and community which are absolutely unrelated to the genre of Brahmins. Nobody knows what rationale it has.. If you apply the term Brahmanatva in the sense of racial pride to all and sundry castes which you disliked and which you wanted to paint black just because they are not reserved castes like you, then the term Brahmanatva fails to cover the fullest purport of racial pride. Then it begs for another term which can broadly convey the racial pride of all castes, communities and races in the world, because the word "Brahmin" carries a physically and materially manifest connotation which can not be applied to any race other than the Brahmins, that too in an abstract way. The Brahmins are not an extinct race, nor are they fictitious or invented group of people as in a comic book or novel, to be referred to in an abstract manner, to be used like a figure of speech. They are really present here in flesh and blood, with mind and soul, large as life, in millions and crores. Got it ?
As a Sanskrit word, Brahmanatva originally stands for nothing more than 'brahminhood' which, according to Hinduism, is very difficult to attain unless one devotes himself to God in mind, word and deed for a number of reincarnations. It denotes more than taking physical birth in a Brahmin family. The physical Brahmins came to be known as the Brahmins just because they are the descendants of such noble souls of ancient times. Almost everyone born on the soil of India, including the Muslims knew that this is the original meaning of Brahmanatva. Then, why on earth are the Church copycats using "Brahmanatva" in a negative sense ? Why on earth are they particular about creating a perverse meaning for such a noble term ? Is there nothing worth learning about the Brahmin community, barring the alleged racial pride ? If it is really so, why do the Brahmins figure in the writings of every converted copycat on 40-60 per cent of occasions ? The very fact that you chose a tree to pelt stones on, amply shows that there is something special about the tree. Why don't they write on Thakuratva, Rajputatva, Baniyatva, Marwaditva, Lingayatva, Redditva and Kammatva ? Why only Brahmanatva ? Do Thakurs, Jats, Baniyas, Marwadis and Reddys have racial pride in any lesser measure ? To be frank and fair, the contemporary Brahmins are small fry compared to the money, power and clout of the above-mentioned castes which incidentally happen to be the most numerous across their respective areas of influence too. As opposed to this, their age-old poverty apart, the Brahmins present a hopeless minority demography wherever they live.
I pity the failed efforts of the copycats, for they tried their best all these years at the behest of their Church leaders to malign the high word 'Brahmanatva', to make it sound abusive on par with obscene taboo words, to artificially generate public aversion to it. But mind you, here is the catch. You are woefully ill-equipped to malign Brahmanatva because it is originally God's (Brahma the Creator) holy name and He does never allow it to be disparaged, Brahmins or no Brahmins ! Even as they failed on one hand, to paint Brahmanatva black, they have, on the other, started viewing their own nomenclature "Dalit" with deep disdain. Recently, the Union Government of India announced plans to ban the usage of "Dalit" as some belonging to the community complained that the word sounded abusive. Here, the curious thing is, just a decade ago, blanket usage of 'Dalit' was made mandatory in place of its well-known traditional and local equivalents, as the same people then complained to the government that Mahatma Gandhi's coinage "Harijan" was sounding derogatory. Funnily, now, they robbed themselves of a common identity to call themselves by. Sadly, this is the retributive paapa karma of the people who went over-board to tarnish Brahmanatva. Amen ! It serves them right.
Given the contemporary situation, any honest champion of the oppressed will fight the leaders of the above-mentioned castes who are in total control of India's public and private life. But the act of relentlessly attacking the Brahmins in newspapers, on TV Channels and Internet ? What does it mean ? What is the intention behind it ? Are these assailants and critics crazy ? What is the actual motive behind this mindless hate campaign against a poor minority community, which had for the most part long stopped participating in India's public life ?
The first and foremost thing to bear in mind is, that the copycats are not acting on their own. They are just handy tools and present a political front for the seditious class of the foreign-funded Christian evangelist clergy who are not yet tired of trying the stale modus operandi of ostracising, isolating and alienating the Brahmins from the rest of the Indian population. The local copycats are instigated and hired by the Church to indulge in this hate campaign which aims at discrediting and weakening the rival faith and turning its followers to its own fold by hook or crook. What a downfall for a religion which ostentatiously claims to be spreading love and peace ? In their eyes, the Brahmins do still pose a formidable obstacle on the way to converting the Hindus en masse. One beggar is always the enemy of another. Similarly, if a Christian cleric looks around for possible enemies in india, the first creature that engages his attention is the Brahmin who has been representing Hinduism for millenia. Thus, the impoverished Brahmin priest stands as the worst enemy of the dollar-rich Christian evangelists, who deserves be finished off on a priority basis. This, they can not do directly and openly. So, they employ the ignorant, half-knowing, impressionable local converts and their descendants whose sole claim to distinction is their graduation on state subsidies given out of the tax money paid by the upper castes.
The entire argument of anti-Brahminist ideology is woven around perceived Brahmin ego. The ultimate objective of this argument is to wipe out all traces of the Brahmin defence, subject the Brahmins to guilty consciousness and effectively shout them down. It is singularly aimed at distancing the entire Hindu society from the Brahmins and silencing them for good so that they dare not question any more the missionary activities in India.
Brahmins have self-esteem just like all other civilized races. They value their religion and its age-old practices just like the adherents of all other religions. By temperament, they like to keep the company of the accomplished and cultured as they have been an educated race since time immemorial. Everyone is entitled to a right to decide for himself who he should move and interact with. If a Brahmin keeps aloof from a non-Brahmin, it must always be either because of his likes and dislikes at a personal level or because he is unable to mix with those of a dissimilar upbringing. Should it be construed as the Brahmin ego ? If it is true, what about lakhs and millions of the Brahmins who mix freely with their classmates and colleagues in colleges and offices across the vast expanse of India ? Why is their instance not highlighted anywhere by these converted copycats ? If nationalism and nationalistic pride are acceptable to you, casteism and caste pride too are equally acceptable to me, because the former are no way better than casteism in their pandering to narrow interests,
Again, whenever a Brahmin expresses his respect for his caste, it is being construed as casteist arrogance. Then again we witness a hectic campaign to shout him down as if he has committed a horrendous crime against humanity. I think this campaign aims at robbing the Brahmins of their self-respect and keeping them subjugated so that they should not raise again. I don't understand what wrong is there in loving one's own caste in which one was born. Actually, it is there in the very nature of man to love all the things in his immediate surroundings to which he got accustomed as a child. One's own parents, house, locality, friends, relatives, caste, religion and language and first music he listened to as a child - all these are objects of love for every innocent kid. They have got an unassailable sanctity about them. Innocent love of one's own surroundings need not necessarily mean any offense to anybody. It is only natural because we have all originally descended to the earth as holy beings of pure bliss and pure love with mental impurities making their entry only later. If anyone gets offended at others' expression of self-esteem, it just lays bare his deep-rooted psyche of inferiority complex. It is way cynical to dub a natural sentiment as something condemnable, for it amounts to asking people to behave themselves in a way they are not naturally inclined to.
Brahmins have never been narrow-minded and closed on account of their caste. Just like all other inhabitants of India, they too carry the age-old baggage of caste on their back. But they have always been open to new people and new ideas regardless of the considerations of sectarian significance. The plain physical fact remains that - it is highly impossible for narrow-minded ones to become intelligent and dominate others. If the Brahmins are really narrow-minded and opposed to reform, they would have been just there where the mullahs of Pakistan find themselves now, training terrorists and asking people to lead a bigoted life dating back to middle ages. All the gods that the Brahmins worship and advise others to worship are non-Brahmins. There is not a single Brahmin god in Hinduism. Was Rama a Brahmin ? Was Krishna a Brahmin ? Was Shirdi Saibaba a Brahmin ?
By virtue of their priestly vocation as also their traditional dependence on the non-Brahmin castes, Brahmins have personally been associated with each and every household in their locality since time immemorial. As priests and ayurvedic doctors, they always stood by the people of all castes in the society through their joys and sorrows, inspite of living in their own Brahmin neighbourhoods. I fail to see any scope for displaying one's casteist arrogance in all this. Traits like ego and arrogance are purely personal and it ill-behoves one to attribute them to an entire race, especially when the race in question is a widely distributed one. That kind of attribution reflects poorly on the intelligence of the attributors. Everyone on the earth has got pride and ego, not just Brahmins. Dalits have an SC,ST (Prevention of Arocities) Act to show their ego whenever they feel offended by perceived poor manners of others. Of late, they started wearing their caste on their sleeve every now and then in the name of Dalit self-respect and Dalit literature etc. But curiously, the Brahmin is barred from declaring his Brahminhood and expressing his sense of satisfaction at the fact of being born as one. He has no right to make a public claim of his ancient saintly heritage. He should not practice his family customs, nor should he express his deep reverence for them. If he does, he is dubbed as an unpardonable casteist. How fair ?
The sheer one-sided-ness of this propaganda with no matching provocation, protest or retaliation on the part of the Brahmin community clearly brings in to focus how mean, misguided and motivated all this is.
As a Sanskrit word, Brahmanatva originally stands for nothing more than 'brahminhood' which, according to Hinduism, is very difficult to attain unless one devotes himself to God in mind, word and deed for a number of reincarnations. It denotes more than taking physical birth in a Brahmin family. The physical Brahmins came to be known as the Brahmins just because they are the descendants of such noble souls of ancient times. Almost everyone born on the soil of India, including the Muslims knew that this is the original meaning of Brahmanatva. Then, why on earth are the Church copycats using "Brahmanatva" in a negative sense ? Why on earth are they particular about creating a perverse meaning for such a noble term ? Is there nothing worth learning about the Brahmin community, barring the alleged racial pride ? If it is really so, why do the Brahmins figure in the writings of every converted copycat on 40-60 per cent of occasions ? The very fact that you chose a tree to pelt stones on, amply shows that there is something special about the tree. Why don't they write on Thakuratva, Rajputatva, Baniyatva, Marwaditva, Lingayatva, Redditva and Kammatva ? Why only Brahmanatva ? Do Thakurs, Jats, Baniyas, Marwadis and Reddys have racial pride in any lesser measure ? To be frank and fair, the contemporary Brahmins are small fry compared to the money, power and clout of the above-mentioned castes which incidentally happen to be the most numerous across their respective areas of influence too. As opposed to this, their age-old poverty apart, the Brahmins present a hopeless minority demography wherever they live.
I pity the failed efforts of the copycats, for they tried their best all these years at the behest of their Church leaders to malign the high word 'Brahmanatva', to make it sound abusive on par with obscene taboo words, to artificially generate public aversion to it. But mind you, here is the catch. You are woefully ill-equipped to malign Brahmanatva because it is originally God's (Brahma the Creator) holy name and He does never allow it to be disparaged, Brahmins or no Brahmins ! Even as they failed on one hand, to paint Brahmanatva black, they have, on the other, started viewing their own nomenclature "Dalit" with deep disdain. Recently, the Union Government of India announced plans to ban the usage of "Dalit" as some belonging to the community complained that the word sounded abusive. Here, the curious thing is, just a decade ago, blanket usage of 'Dalit' was made mandatory in place of its well-known traditional and local equivalents, as the same people then complained to the government that Mahatma Gandhi's coinage "Harijan" was sounding derogatory. Funnily, now, they robbed themselves of a common identity to call themselves by. Sadly, this is the retributive paapa karma of the people who went over-board to tarnish Brahmanatva. Amen ! It serves them right.
Given the contemporary situation, any honest champion of the oppressed will fight the leaders of the above-mentioned castes who are in total control of India's public and private life. But the act of relentlessly attacking the Brahmins in newspapers, on TV Channels and Internet ? What does it mean ? What is the intention behind it ? Are these assailants and critics crazy ? What is the actual motive behind this mindless hate campaign against a poor minority community, which had for the most part long stopped participating in India's public life ?
The first and foremost thing to bear in mind is, that the copycats are not acting on their own. They are just handy tools and present a political front for the seditious class of the foreign-funded Christian evangelist clergy who are not yet tired of trying the stale modus operandi of ostracising, isolating and alienating the Brahmins from the rest of the Indian population. The local copycats are instigated and hired by the Church to indulge in this hate campaign which aims at discrediting and weakening the rival faith and turning its followers to its own fold by hook or crook. What a downfall for a religion which ostentatiously claims to be spreading love and peace ? In their eyes, the Brahmins do still pose a formidable obstacle on the way to converting the Hindus en masse. One beggar is always the enemy of another. Similarly, if a Christian cleric looks around for possible enemies in india, the first creature that engages his attention is the Brahmin who has been representing Hinduism for millenia. Thus, the impoverished Brahmin priest stands as the worst enemy of the dollar-rich Christian evangelists, who deserves be finished off on a priority basis. This, they can not do directly and openly. So, they employ the ignorant, half-knowing, impressionable local converts and their descendants whose sole claim to distinction is their graduation on state subsidies given out of the tax money paid by the upper castes.
The entire argument of anti-Brahminist ideology is woven around perceived Brahmin ego. The ultimate objective of this argument is to wipe out all traces of the Brahmin defence, subject the Brahmins to guilty consciousness and effectively shout them down. It is singularly aimed at distancing the entire Hindu society from the Brahmins and silencing them for good so that they dare not question any more the missionary activities in India.
Brahmins have self-esteem just like all other civilized races. They value their religion and its age-old practices just like the adherents of all other religions. By temperament, they like to keep the company of the accomplished and cultured as they have been an educated race since time immemorial. Everyone is entitled to a right to decide for himself who he should move and interact with. If a Brahmin keeps aloof from a non-Brahmin, it must always be either because of his likes and dislikes at a personal level or because he is unable to mix with those of a dissimilar upbringing. Should it be construed as the Brahmin ego ? If it is true, what about lakhs and millions of the Brahmins who mix freely with their classmates and colleagues in colleges and offices across the vast expanse of India ? Why is their instance not highlighted anywhere by these converted copycats ? If nationalism and nationalistic pride are acceptable to you, casteism and caste pride too are equally acceptable to me, because the former are no way better than casteism in their pandering to narrow interests,
Again, whenever a Brahmin expresses his respect for his caste, it is being construed as casteist arrogance. Then again we witness a hectic campaign to shout him down as if he has committed a horrendous crime against humanity. I think this campaign aims at robbing the Brahmins of their self-respect and keeping them subjugated so that they should not raise again. I don't understand what wrong is there in loving one's own caste in which one was born. Actually, it is there in the very nature of man to love all the things in his immediate surroundings to which he got accustomed as a child. One's own parents, house, locality, friends, relatives, caste, religion and language and first music he listened to as a child - all these are objects of love for every innocent kid. They have got an unassailable sanctity about them. Innocent love of one's own surroundings need not necessarily mean any offense to anybody. It is only natural because we have all originally descended to the earth as holy beings of pure bliss and pure love with mental impurities making their entry only later. If anyone gets offended at others' expression of self-esteem, it just lays bare his deep-rooted psyche of inferiority complex. It is way cynical to dub a natural sentiment as something condemnable, for it amounts to asking people to behave themselves in a way they are not naturally inclined to.
Brahmins have never been narrow-minded and closed on account of their caste. Just like all other inhabitants of India, they too carry the age-old baggage of caste on their back. But they have always been open to new people and new ideas regardless of the considerations of sectarian significance. The plain physical fact remains that - it is highly impossible for narrow-minded ones to become intelligent and dominate others. If the Brahmins are really narrow-minded and opposed to reform, they would have been just there where the mullahs of Pakistan find themselves now, training terrorists and asking people to lead a bigoted life dating back to middle ages. All the gods that the Brahmins worship and advise others to worship are non-Brahmins. There is not a single Brahmin god in Hinduism. Was Rama a Brahmin ? Was Krishna a Brahmin ? Was Shirdi Saibaba a Brahmin ?
By virtue of their priestly vocation as also their traditional dependence on the non-Brahmin castes, Brahmins have personally been associated with each and every household in their locality since time immemorial. As priests and ayurvedic doctors, they always stood by the people of all castes in the society through their joys and sorrows, inspite of living in their own Brahmin neighbourhoods. I fail to see any scope for displaying one's casteist arrogance in all this. Traits like ego and arrogance are purely personal and it ill-behoves one to attribute them to an entire race, especially when the race in question is a widely distributed one. That kind of attribution reflects poorly on the intelligence of the attributors. Everyone on the earth has got pride and ego, not just Brahmins. Dalits have an SC,ST (Prevention of Arocities) Act to show their ego whenever they feel offended by perceived poor manners of others. Of late, they started wearing their caste on their sleeve every now and then in the name of Dalit self-respect and Dalit literature etc. But curiously, the Brahmin is barred from declaring his Brahminhood and expressing his sense of satisfaction at the fact of being born as one. He has no right to make a public claim of his ancient saintly heritage. He should not practice his family customs, nor should he express his deep reverence for them. If he does, he is dubbed as an unpardonable casteist. How fair ?
The sheer one-sided-ness of this propaganda with no matching provocation, protest or retaliation on the part of the Brahmin community clearly brings in to focus how mean, misguided and motivated all this is.
0 comments:
Post a Comment