parallel between prevailing anti-Brahmanism in India and past anti-Semitism of europe
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->To be against Brahmanism is part and parcel of the political
correctness of twenty-first-century India. This indicates that
something is wrong with the Indian public debate. Promotion of hatred
towards a religious group and its traditions is not acceptable today.
But it becomes truly perverse, when the intelligentsia endorses it.
In Europe, it took horrendous events to put an end to the propaganda
of anti-Semitism, which had penetrated the media and intelligentsia.
It required decades of incessant campaigning before anti-Semitism was
relegated to the realm of intellectual and political bankruptcy. In
India, anti-Brahmanism is still the proud slogan of political parties
and the credential of the radical intellectual.
Some may find this parallel between anti-Brahmanism and anti-Semitism
ill-advised. Nevertheless, it has strong grounds. First, there are
striking similarities between the stereotypes about Brahmins in India
and those about Jews in the West. Jews have been described as devious
connivers, who would do anything for personal gain. They were said to
be secretive and untrustworthy, manipulating politics and the
economy. In India, Brahmins are all too often characterised in the
same way.
Second, the stereotypes about the Jews were part of a larger story
about a historical conspiracy in which they had supposedly exploited
European societies. To this day, the stories about a Jewish
conspiracy against humanity prevail. The anti-Brahmanical stories
sound much the same, but have the Brahmins plotting against the
oppressed classes in Indian society. In both cases, historians have
claimed to produce "evidence" that cannot be considered so by any
standard. Typical of the ideologues of anti-Brahmanism is the
addition of ad hoc ploys whenever their stories are challenged by
facts. When it is pointed out that the Brahmins have not been all
that powerful in most parts of the country, or that they were poor in
many regions, one reverts to the image of the Brahmin manipulating
kings and politicians behind the scene. We cannot find empirical
evidence, it is said, because of the secretive way in which
Brahmanism works.
Third, both in anti-Semitic Europe and anti-Brahmanical India, this
goes together with the interpretation of contemporary events in terms
of these stories. One does not really analyse social tragedies and
injustices, but approaches them as confirmations of the ideological
stories. All that goes wrong in society is blamed on the minority in
question. Violence against Muslims? It must be the "Brahmin-
dominated" Sangh Parivar. Opposition against Christian missionaries
and the approval of anti-conversion laws? "Ah, the Brahmins fear that
Christianity will empower the lower castes." Members of a scheduled
caste are killed? "The Brahmin wants to show the Dalit his true place
in the caste hierarchy." An OBC member loses his job; a lower caste
girl is raped? "The Brahmanical upper castes must be behind it."
This leads to a fourth parallel: in both cases, resentment against
the minority in question is systematically created and reinforced
among the majority. The Jews were accused of sucking all riches out
of European societies. In the decades before the second World War,
more and more people began to believe that it was time "to take back
what was rightfully theirs." In India also, movements have come into
being that want to set right "the historical injustices of
Brahmanical oppression." Some have even begun to call upon their
followers to "exterminate the Brahmins."
In Europe, state policies were implemented that expressed the
discrimination against Jews. For a very long time, they could not
hold certain jobs and participate in many social and economic
activities. In India, one seems to be going this way with policies
that claim to correct "the historical exploitation by the upper
castes." It is becoming increasingly difficult for Brahmins to get
access to certain jobs. In both cases, these policies have been
justified in terms of a flawed ideological story that passes for
social science.
The fifth parallel is that both anti-Semitism and anti-Brahmanism
have deep roots in Christian theology. In the case of Judaism, its
continuing vitality as a tradition was a threat to Christianity's
claim to be the fulfilment of the Jewish prophecies about the
Messiah. The refusal of Jews to join the religion of Christ (the true
Messiah, according to Christians) was seen as an unacceptable denial
of the truth of Christianity. Saint Augustine even wrote that the
Jews had to continue to exist, but only to show that Christians had
not fabricated the prophesies about Christ and to confirm that some
would not follow Christ and be damned for it.
The contemporary stereotypes about Brahmins and the story about
Brahmanism also originate in Christian theology. They reproduce
Protestant images of the priests of false religion. When European
missionaries and merchants began to travel to India in great numbers,
they held two certainties that came from Christian theology: false
religion would exist in India; and false religion revolved around
evil priests who had fabricated all kinds of laws, doctrines and
rites in order to bully the innocent believers into submission. In
this way, the priests of the devil abused religion for worldly goals.
The European story about Brahmanism and the caste system simply
reproduced this Protestant image of false religion. The colonials
identified the Brahmins as the priests and Brahmanism as the
foundation of false religion in India. This is how the dominant image
of "the Hindu religion" came into being.
The sixth parallel lies in the fact that Christian theology
penetrated and shaped the "secular" discourse about Judaism and
Brahmanism. The theological criticism became part of common sense and
was reproduced as scientific truth. In India, this continues unto
this day. Social scientists still talk about "Brahmanism" as the
worst thing that ever happened to humanity. Perhaps the most tragic
similarity is that some members of the minority community have
internalised these stories about themselves. Some Jews began to
believe that they were to blame for what happened during the
Holocaust; many educated Brahmins now feel that they are guilty of
historical atrocities against other groups. This has led to a kind of
identity crisis in which they vilify "Brahmanism" in English-language
public debate, but continue their traditions.
In twentieth-century Europe, we have seen how dangerous these
elements of anti-Semitism were and what consequences they could have
in society. The question that India has to raise in the twenty-first
century is this: Do we need bloodshed, before we will realise that
the reproduction of anti-Brahmanism is harmful? Do we need the
victory of fascism, before we will admit that pernicious ideologies
should not be sold as social science?
Jakob<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->To be against Brahmanism is part and parcel of the political
correctness of twenty-first-century India. This indicates that
something is wrong with the Indian public debate. Promotion of hatred
towards a religious group and its traditions is not acceptable today.
But it becomes truly perverse, when the intelligentsia endorses it.
In Europe, it took horrendous events to put an end to the propaganda
of anti-Semitism, which had penetrated the media and intelligentsia.
It required decades of incessant campaigning before anti-Semitism was
relegated to the realm of intellectual and political bankruptcy. In
India, anti-Brahmanism is still the proud slogan of political parties
and the credential of the radical intellectual.
Some may find this parallel between anti-Brahmanism and anti-Semitism
ill-advised. Nevertheless, it has strong grounds. First, there are
striking similarities between the stereotypes about Brahmins in India
and those about Jews in the West. Jews have been described as devious
connivers, who would do anything for personal gain. They were said to
be secretive and untrustworthy, manipulating politics and the
economy. In India, Brahmins are all too often characterised in the
same way.
Second, the stereotypes about the Jews were part of a larger story
about a historical conspiracy in which they had supposedly exploited
European societies. To this day, the stories about a Jewish
conspiracy against humanity prevail. The anti-Brahmanical stories
sound much the same, but have the Brahmins plotting against the
oppressed classes in Indian society. In both cases, historians have
claimed to produce "evidence" that cannot be considered so by any
standard. Typical of the ideologues of anti-Brahmanism is the
addition of ad hoc ploys whenever their stories are challenged by
facts. When it is pointed out that the Brahmins have not been all
that powerful in most parts of the country, or that they were poor in
many regions, one reverts to the image of the Brahmin manipulating
kings and politicians behind the scene. We cannot find empirical
evidence, it is said, because of the secretive way in which
Brahmanism works.
Third, both in anti-Semitic Europe and anti-Brahmanical India, this
goes together with the interpretation of contemporary events in terms
of these stories. One does not really analyse social tragedies and
injustices, but approaches them as confirmations of the ideological
stories. All that goes wrong in society is blamed on the minority in
question. Violence against Muslims? It must be the "Brahmin-
dominated" Sangh Parivar. Opposition against Christian missionaries
and the approval of anti-conversion laws? "Ah, the Brahmins fear that
Christianity will empower the lower castes." Members of a scheduled
caste are killed? "The Brahmin wants to show the Dalit his true place
in the caste hierarchy." An OBC member loses his job; a lower caste
girl is raped? "The Brahmanical upper castes must be behind it."
This leads to a fourth parallel: in both cases, resentment against
the minority in question is systematically created and reinforced
among the majority. The Jews were accused of sucking all riches out
of European societies. In the decades before the second World War,
more and more people began to believe that it was time "to take back
what was rightfully theirs." In India also, movements have come into
being that want to set right "the historical injustices of
Brahmanical oppression." Some have even begun to call upon their
followers to "exterminate the Brahmins."
In Europe, state policies were implemented that expressed the
discrimination against Jews. For a very long time, they could not
hold certain jobs and participate in many social and economic
activities. In India, one seems to be going this way with policies
that claim to correct "the historical exploitation by the upper
castes." It is becoming increasingly difficult for Brahmins to get
access to certain jobs. In both cases, these policies have been
justified in terms of a flawed ideological story that passes for
social science.
The fifth parallel is that both anti-Semitism and anti-Brahmanism
have deep roots in Christian theology. In the case of Judaism, its
continuing vitality as a tradition was a threat to Christianity's
claim to be the fulfilment of the Jewish prophecies about the
Messiah. The refusal of Jews to join the religion of Christ (the true
Messiah, according to Christians) was seen as an unacceptable denial
of the truth of Christianity. Saint Augustine even wrote that the
Jews had to continue to exist, but only to show that Christians had
not fabricated the prophesies about Christ and to confirm that some
would not follow Christ and be damned for it.
The contemporary stereotypes about Brahmins and the story about
Brahmanism also originate in Christian theology. They reproduce
Protestant images of the priests of false religion. When European
missionaries and merchants began to travel to India in great numbers,
they held two certainties that came from Christian theology: false
religion would exist in India; and false religion revolved around
evil priests who had fabricated all kinds of laws, doctrines and
rites in order to bully the innocent believers into submission. In
this way, the priests of the devil abused religion for worldly goals.
The European story about Brahmanism and the caste system simply
reproduced this Protestant image of false religion. The colonials
identified the Brahmins as the priests and Brahmanism as the
foundation of false religion in India. This is how the dominant image
of "the Hindu religion" came into being.
The sixth parallel lies in the fact that Christian theology
penetrated and shaped the "secular" discourse about Judaism and
Brahmanism. The theological criticism became part of common sense and
was reproduced as scientific truth. In India, this continues unto
this day. Social scientists still talk about "Brahmanism" as the
worst thing that ever happened to humanity. Perhaps the most tragic
similarity is that some members of the minority community have
internalised these stories about themselves. Some Jews began to
believe that they were to blame for what happened during the
Holocaust; many educated Brahmins now feel that they are guilty of
historical atrocities against other groups. This has led to a kind of
identity crisis in which they vilify "Brahmanism" in English-language
public debate, but continue their traditions.
In twentieth-century Europe, we have seen how dangerous these
elements of anti-Semitism were and what consequences they could have
in society. The question that India has to raise in the twenty-first
century is this: Do we need bloodshed, before we will realise that
the reproduction of anti-Brahmanism is harmful? Do we need the
victory of fascism, before we will admit that pernicious ideologies
should not be sold as social science?
Jakob<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->