01-09-2007, 10:59 PM
You need to separate out actual Brahmin behavior as described by Harish from the "Hypothetical Brahmin" who was typecast in a particular (and hateful) mold by various agents of history. It is that mold that is is lampooned and criticized by the Pakis and that is the very model that was held up as reprehensible in Indian society by invaders who sought change.
It seems to me that Pakis the RAPE (the elite) succeeded in the trick of casting themselves in that mold while dissociating themselves from caste, claiming that they were Muslims. They (Pakis) have in my opinion, ended up mirroring every hateful characteristic applied to the hypothetical Brahmin, and have simultaneously to portray themselves as saviours of all Indians, especially Muslims, from this hateful hypothetical Brahmin. "See these Hindu Brahmin bastards? Defeat them. Only Muslims can be Brahmin bastards" - if you get what I mean.
It would be useful in this connection to list out the characteristics of the cliched archetypal hypothetical Brahmin as seen by the Packee, and then see how closely PAKRAPE behavior actually mirrors that. It is almost as if Pakis are saying "If this is Brahminical behavior - it is good to treat all non Muslims this way, and let us Muslims be the new Brahmins".
-------------------------------------------
When Islam came to the Indian subcontinent, it faced instititutional resistance thanks to the varna system, which was not the case when it faced other social-religious civilizations, such as the Indo-Buddhist one. I those, quickly disposing of the bald priests- the monks, and taking care of the Hindu ruler and his cohorts (Dahir) was enough to knock the system out of kilter.
But in the case of Hinduism- here you have a system, wherein the Brahmin acted as a repository of religious and cultural knowledge, and the Kshatriya picked up weapons repeatedly to fight against the spread of Islam. Therein started the demonization. If the Brahmin "goes" from the setup, who will quote scriptures or interpretation therein to insist that conversion is a grave sin? Which is why, in every pogrom, the Brahmins would be the first to be targeted- whether it was the Delhi Sultanates or Aurangzeb offering a bounty for every hairpiece or the like. In the meanwhile, Hindu civilization as a whole, under repeated knocks, became insular. All the taboos against xyz doing this, that became reinforced.<b>
This was but to be expected when a civilization is under threat, as conservativism and survival become the keywords.</b> Come the British, and while religious repression was significantly reduced vis a vis the Muslim rulers and the like, again it became a conflict between Missionaries and the Hindu religious system. In the modern era, apart from the above- you have the Communists- again, who by applying an European concept of the class system and feudalism to India, equated Brahmins and the kshatriyas to the bloodsuckers, and then of course the hated money lenders- the banias who supported this gross injustice.
This is not to deny that severe social ills have been caused by the mutated caste system in India, for which many brahmins have also been part of the problem. But India as a country, as a culture, as a people, has been far too diverse for only one group of people or community to exert all this- in fact, north to south, even the role of communities changes, as you are undoubtedly aware. <b>It is just that its historically useful to use one community as a sticking point, especially when it neither has the numbers or political space to back it up. </b>
But to get back to your hypothetical brahmin, the reason the Pakistanis have such hatred against the Brahmins is because they are again cast in the Islamic role- ie as mullahs and the gatekeepers of Hinduism. <span style='color:red'>If the brahmins were to be removed, the oppressed lower castes would automatically move towards the lofty ideals of Islam. This world view (eg. They bemoan the sanskritization of OBCs and SC/ST's without even realizing that this very thing proves how fluid the Hindu religious ethos can be, and that its their right to do so, if they choose. ), has influenced them prior to the creation of Pakistan, and I daresay one will find many Indian Islamists and communists who also hold to a very similar view (which I have seen in my own personal experience).</span>
Please see Chaudhry Rehmat Alie's concept of Dinia for example- it is the perfect example of an Islamist worldview and intellectual zeal, which continues to reappear. The presence of kaffirs and polytheists and that too flourishing, is a grave offence to Islamists, and they cannot reconcile to its existence.
Are the Brahmins the only ones demonized- definitely not- because we have the banias. Again, recent history comes into play. The business community dominated what is today Pakistan, and memories of the rich, prosperous "blood sucking" lalas die hard. The Kshatriyas are not similarly demonized, because many Pakistans firmly believe in their caste identity- and what better way then to adopt the most glamorous one, that too of the "Rajputs". So every Pakistani Punjabi Muslim of note will claim that he is a "Rajput". But never a converted Lala or Brahmin- these are too effete in the Islamist worldview, their's after all, is the belief of conquerors!