This loser didn't have the guts to eat dog or cat meat. My question is why, is it because whitey wouldn't approve. So these losers are busy worshiping Whitey as the new god.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Dec 23 2006, 11:07 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 23 2006, 11:07 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What you eat remains your business only till you keep it your business. Was it so needed to show it off with such comment "in your face" on internationally telecasted TV? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well if you to want to be certified as progressive then you have to, haven't you heard of Mani Shankar Aiyar's rantings in a public speech about him eating beef despite being a Brahmin, that proved his secularism and progressiveness.
[right][snapback]62374[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The rigourous physical training that army and police imparts on its recruites is just another form of martial arts training. Why aren't these brave people coming out to defend when their community was attacked, just because they belonged to that community? <b>Did they get de-brahminized?</b> or do they care only about themselves? Why are those type of brave people not getting attacked by DK goondas?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The following is a matrimonial ad, on one of those online websites:
<!--c1-->CODE<!--ec1-->I am Major B. XXXXX, father of YYYY, our 2nd daughter. She is
working in Hyderabad.Salary 20K. I am a Hindu (Goud) and my wife is a
Christian. I am a retired Army Officer and working as Faulty in an
Engineering College at Hyderabad. Eldest is our son,PGDCA, Manager in an IT
Firm at Bangalore. Our daughter in law is MBA, a Christian, working in an
IT Firm at Hyderabad. First Daughter,M Sc(Bio Tech), married to a Hindu,
Software Engineer in Bangalore. My wife is looking after my family.We are
interested in a Working Hindu Boy (except SC/ST or Brahmin), preferably an
engineer or PG, settled or want to settle in Hyderabad. He must have a good
family back ground, religious tolerance and should not expect any
dowry. Interested persons may contact me<!--c2--><!--ec2-->
The above is not the only instance I know: An acquaintance of mine is also in a similar situation. He retired from the navy, and both his children married out of the religion.
Reflecting on these, I believe that the Indian Army does act as a vehicle for <i>national integration</i>. What this means, in effect, is the replacement of one's allegiance to a religious or caste community with allegiance to the constitution. The old "All Indians are my brothers and sisters" funda. So yes, people eventually do get de-Brahminized or de-Hinduized as the case may be. I believe this happens by the use of similar uniforms, creation of ranks and forms of address, the creation of military rituals, the concept of professional pride, a soldier's sense of "duty" and "honour" (as if all other professions were dishonorable), living in close quarters, sending children to the same schools (many of which have military traditions), etc. All these are good - for the army's agenda, which is employee retention, discipline and defense of the constitution and its creatures (the various organs of government).
But, this is not necessarily a good thing for Hinduism. This will result in the destruction or subversion of the Hindu community, in very obvious ways. It will not necessarily affect the actual person who joined the military or his spouse, because they have a non-military past that they can remember. But, <b>it will certainly affect the children</b> of the couple. We can see how the children will grow up: in an atmosphere where religion has very little to do with daily living. They grow up in a "cosmopolitan" environment, see very little of their relatives and members of the extended family. Their education will essentially din into them the need to maintain overarching loyalty to the government.
I am sure many members will be dismayed by my saying this, but perhaps, joining the Indian armed forces is not necessarily in the best interests of Hinduism?!
Please note, I am not blaming the armed forces for this - this is how any organization seeks to keep its employees loyal and satisfied. I am also not blaming the father in the above example for this - he is already doing his part to keep his family Hindu, and his wife seems like an exceptionally good person. I am merely trying to point out the logic of an organization's agenda, and how it might impact everything we hold dear.
(to my wife: No, I am not looking at matrimonial columns. It is for sociological study onlee!)
12-27-2006, 09:44 AM (This post was last modified: 12-27-2006, 10:05 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
vishwas those types are not the open minded progressives they make themselves out to be, take the above moron himself, he drums on about what everyone in his family is but tells us that the boy he is looking for can't be SC/ST or Brahmin (so he considers all Indians as his brothers and sisters all right but makes exceptions when it comes to the bottom jatis and the Brahmins), in a way that's good because we don't want half xtianised people taking in more naive morons from the Hindu community.
As for the army and dharma, the fact is that a majority of the soldiers are religious, it is the elite in the army that seem to exhibit the behaviour you described, Admiral Ramdas is an example, there is no justification for marrying outside the community whether you are in the army or in any other profession, if som1 decides that they are better off not being Hindus then the community can decide that we are also better off without such traitors and cut off all contact with them.
You must not also forget that the gov't had always tried to erase any Hindu influence in the army and to dehinduise the soldiers, remember a couple of years ago orders were given that women in the army can't wear ear studs and only sindoor will be allowed if it is covered by a beret or peak cap and that men can't wear overtly religious symbols, by this token the Sikh turban is an explicit religious symbol but the gov't never asked them to remove it (and neither should it do so), so it's obvious that the prime targets were the Hindu cadres in the army, what kind of Hindu rashtra is this (as some people claim on the basis that India is already 80% Hindu) when a Hindu woman can't wear a bindi if it's not covered up, even Pakis seem to have given better rights to Hindus, it's nauseating and disgusting to read such news but here was the original thread about that:
12-28-2006, 11:32 AM (This post was last modified: 12-28-2006, 11:43 AM by Husky.)
MahaBodhi:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So what is it that has happened? Where are those Brahmins?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You've been describing my grandparents (among many others of the older generations probably). That is why I could never describe myself as a Brahmana. I know what Brahmanas are and I know I will never in this life or probably the very next live up to that. It's an insult to their memory for me to refer to myself as belonging to the same kind of people as they are.
In my childhood I had also known many Hindus of that older generation who, though they were not from the brahmin community, deserved the term sooner than I will.
I'm a vegetarian, don't kill any insects and all. All that's easy as. It's easy to have respect for lifeforms that are at my mercy. I don't need to go out of my way to prevent myself from harming animals including the little things. But that's where my humanity ends. I'm impatient when it comes to humans.
And renunciation is but a noble idea to me, one which I've never carried out. But I know my grandparents did that all the time. When I'm hungry, I will eat all the food and not think one second of the poor Indians or Africans or others starving somewhere until I've had my fill. When I see the poverty and starvation on TV I feel miserable, but that does not stop me from coming first when it gets down to it. What sheer sense of compassion and will it must have taken for my grandparents to have always thought of others first. I don't think it is human. I'm a human and I can't do it. To me, they were incarnations of Gods.
So I have less than zero respect for brahmoons or whatever they call themselves who eat beef live on TV, screaming that they're brahmoons just so everyone 'knows', and think it is something secoolar and plooralistic and a sign of proogress.
Less than zero respect, because I know very young Indian Hindus here not of brahmin background who have renounced all animal meat and refuse to wear leather and check packed foods for whether they contain gelatine or animal fats. They do it because they feel it is Right. They are well on their way to becoming a Brahmana in this or the next life. And I know atheist non-Indians who are vegetarians by choice.
Then how hard is it for someone who was raised in a vegetarian household like some of those famous brahmoons who've been parading their beef-eating skills to see that there is a valid reason why their ancestors chose to be vegetarian? A Kshatriya needs meat because of who he is and the immense job he/she does. There is no sin incurred for people to eat meat when they are not Jain or Brahmana. Hindu men and women have had to undergo many laborious tasks and so they need whatever food they can get and the nourishment. In such cases, their hunting animals for food is like the native American killing the Carribou (sp?) with respect. But for a Brahmana (or Jain), whose is willing to renounce so much, is it oh so terribly hard to eat without purposefully harming other creatures? Especially in this day and age when one can get any plant-based product from the stores.
'Progress' in India today means to renounce all respect for one's ancestors and one's ancestral religion (Hinduism) and Dharma. But it's okay to be open-minded about christoislamic terrorists and stuff. Shouldn't offend their 'sensibilities' or their incomprehensible ideas of morality. Vegetarianism is an offence (unless it is currently popular in western countries in which case it's cool unless you were actually already doing it for Dharmic reasons), but don't you dare say one word about Halal or Haram foods. Or the stupidity of abstinence versus sensibility of family planning/condoms. You'll offend the islamochristoterrorists. Abstinence when carried out from a christo perspective is progress, don't ya know, they don't care that many Africans converted to christoterrorism are dying of AIDS.
Things in the world today have been turned upside down. Adharma has been labelled good and Dharma as bad and backward.
There is no shame in doing things because they are the Right thing to do. Right is always progress. Principles do matter. One's principles determine one's strength. I am always reminded of the Jewish prisoner in Bergen-Belsen or Auschwitz or some concentrationcamp who was only ever offered horse-meat by his taunting nazi guards. That went against his morality, so he preferred to starve himself than let them have the ultimate triumph over him by stripping him of all that he had left through destroying his principles: his identity.
If we care about who we are and what we represent, we must live up to that. If we don't respect it, no one else will.
12-29-2006, 09:10 AM (This post was last modified: 12-29-2006, 10:09 PM by Bodhi.)
HuskyNarayan,
If we need to be grateful, it is towards our ancestors. They sure did what they had to do, and lived as was needed. And did it best under their powers in their times. Let us take inspiration from them and cheer ourselves to march to the ideals set forth for us.
But many times I sink in the darkness of disappointment too. Things just look upside down. What is Dharma seems confusing, and Adharma all around including in the own Chitta. Days look nights and nights look mahashivaratris. Bars are high. Living upto them not easy at all, sometimes hardly possible. Path shown by ancestors seems all covered up under thick fog of ignorance that prevails. Even what the goal is, seems all mixed up. Where to look for the direction? But as Bhagwan Gautama Buddha has said - App Deepo Bhava - become your own lamp. Seems no other way too.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Karunanidhi emulates the Buddha</b>
PK Balachandran
Colombo, January 23, 2007| 16:38 IST (Hindustan Times)
The rationalist Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi has said that he always wears a yellow shawl or scarf not because he has become superstitious, but because the Buddha wore a similar one.
<b>Gautama Buddha is viewed in Tamil progressive circles as a rationalist, who fought against the caste hierarchy, Brahminical ritualism and Hindu superstitions.</b>
According to the Colombo-based Tamil daily Thinakkural, Karunanidhi had given this explanation at a public function held in Chennai last week to honour the visiting Sathya Sai Baba of Puttaparthi.
The Baba had asked him why he insisted on wearing a yellow shawl ignoring taunts from his detractors.Â
"I told him that the Buddha's angavastram was a piece of yellow cloth and that was why I was wearing it. The Baba was amused," Karunanidhi said.
An avowed follower of the iconoclastic Tamil leader Periyar EV Ramaswamy Naicker, who broke idols of Lord Ganesh in virulent campaigns against idol worship and Hindu superstitions, Karunanidhi had started wearing a yellow shawl about eight years ago, touching off speculation that in the evening of his life, he was reverting to religion like many of his colleagues in the rationalist "Dravidian" movement.
<b>History made</b>
History was made when, breaking a taboo, Sai Baba visited Karunanidhi's residence in Gopalapuram this time. He was the first Hindu religious leader to do so.
While Mrs Dayalu Karunanidhi worshipped the Baba in the traditional Hindu style by touching his feet, Karunanidhi himself welcomed him with just a namaste.
The two leaders talked for about 45 minutes. At the end of it, Karunandhi scotched rumours that the subject of discussion was religion.
"He did not talk about religion and I did not talk about politics. We talked about the Tamil language. The Baba speaks Tamil well," Karunanidhi told eager newsmen outside his residence.
Much interest among Lankan Tamils
The close encounter between the two opposites - Karunanidhi and the Sai Baba - has excited much interest among Sri Lankan Tamils, with the Tamil press in the island covering the event well.
<b>Sri Lankan Tamils, deeply Hindu though they may be, tend to get disturbed when "Dravidian" or radically "pro-Tamil" leaders like Karunanidhi become Hinduistic and join the All-India "Aryan" mainstream.
They fear that this may dilute the leaders' commitment to the cause of Tamil assertion in general and Tamil rights in Sri Lanka in particular.
They find Karunanidhi's swings between "Dravidam" (Tamil nationalism) and "Desiyam" (Indian nationalism) a bit disconcerting.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>No Brahmins to run temples</b>
Chennai, Jan 26: The DMK government headed by chief
minister M. Karunanidhi, well known for his atheist views, has ensured
that no Brahmin is appointed as trustee in any of the major temples
across Tamil Nadu. Perhaps this is the first time that the
community, closely identified with priesthood, has been so comprehensively
kept out of temple administration. While the norms that a dalit and a
woman should be accommodated in the five-member temple committees have
been followed, the state Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department (HR&CE), which administers most of the temples
in Tamil Nadu, has ensured that the Brahmins are kept out of these
prestigious positions.
The famous places of worship, including Madurai Meenakshi
temple, Rameswaram Ramanathaswamy temple, Palani Dandayuthapani
temple, Tiruchendur Subramania Swamy temple and Mylai Kapaleeswarar
temple, do not have a Brahmin as arangaavalar in the administrating
committees.
In the Thanjavur-Kumbakonam which has a large Brahmin
population, not a single member of the community has found place in the
committees of the dozens of well-known places of worship such as the
Thirumanjeri Udweganathaswamy temple, Uppiliappan temple,
Thirunageswaram Naganathaswamy temple and Patteeswaram Thenupureeswarar
temple.
"The Brahmin community has not been given any representation in temple
administration. This is because the DMK believes that Brahmins are
against the party and support the rival AIADMK of Jayalalithaa. This
is not fair. We will take it up with the government after our
organisational elections, now in progress, are over in a
couple of months," said Mr N. Narayanan, president of the Tamil Nadu
Brahmins' Association (TAMBRAS).
Said the Mylapore legislator S.V.Sekar of the AIADMK, "By keeping the
Brahmins out of the temple committees, the DMK government is only
baring its inborn vengeance for our community. Why is chief
minister Karunanidhi appointing his party members as arangaavalars
(trustees) even while claiming that the DMK is a rationalist party?
There will be divine justice and God will punish these people some day. I
am not saying this as a politician but as a believer in God."
However, the DMK organizing secretary T. K. S. Elangovan
dismissed the charge that the government had targeted the Brahmin
community for unfair treatment in the appointment of temple trustees.
"This action is not aimed at the Brahmins. We are only acting in favour
of the people who had been so far kept out of temple
administration. We have given such sections a chance now to be in charge of temple administration," said the ruling party functionary.
While the Brahmins are upset with the DMK government, there
is however support from unexpected quarters for the elaborate exercise
of keeping the Brahmins out of temple administration. The founder of
Hindu Munnani (Hindu Front) Rama Gopalan said it was not
necessary that only Brahmins should be appointed trustees of temples. "It is
enough if the trustees are believers and do not indulge in
misappropriation of temple properties. The Brahmins should not feel offended
that they are being kept out of temple administration. Besides, why get
into these committees and later share the blame for misuse of temple
funds?," he said.
Interestingly, there is a Brahmin as a trustee in just one
templeâat the Swaminathaswamy temple at Swamimalai in Thanjavur
district. The trustee R. Ganesh is the lone Brahmin in this famous temple
and is said to have got the post because of his DMK leanings.
Also, at the Madurai Koodalalaragar temple, two women, one of them a
Dalit, have been appointed as trustees. Besides, a tahsildar in Madurai
has been appointed as a trustee in the world-famous Meenakshi temple
because it is claimed, he is close to the DMK.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->'Brahmins behind Gandhi murder'
Press Trust Of India
HARD TRUTH: Tushar Gandhi says Brahmin community were behind the
murder of Mahatma Gandhi.
New Delhi: The Brahmin community was behind several bids on Mahatma
Gandhi's life as the community wanted to make India a Hindu nation,
Tushar A Gandhi, the great-grandson of the father of the nation,
claimed on Tuesday.
"I want to condemn the theory of the Sangh Parivar that Gandhi was
killed because he was responsible for the vivisection of the
motherland and because he forced the Indian Government to give
Pakistan Rs 55 crore," Tushar said at an event where his book Let's
Kill Gandhi was launched.
"These are all excuses which are not true and the Brahmin community,
which wanted to make India a Hindu nation, were behind all the
attempts and the murder of the father of the nation," he added.
"Gandhi's killing was not an assassination. It was a premeditated
murder. Gandhi was targeted by Brahmins who wanted India should become
a Hindu nation and they would remain a dominant community."
"Before he was eventually murdered on January 30, 1948, there were
several attempts on his life and Pune was linked to all the attempts
on his life," he said after the book was launched.
Presenting the hard-hitting facts, Tushar said the first attempt on
the Mahatma's life was made at Pune in 1935 when a grenade was hurled
at him during a Harijan yatra, but Gandhi escaped the attempt. Other
bids on his life were made at Panchgani and Wardha in Maharashtra.
"Narayan Apte, Nathuram Godse and their gang of extremists were
involved in the three attempts. Worse, there were a lot of lapses in
arrangements made to protect Gandhi," Tushar said.
The book presents an analysis of events from 1944 to 1949. Tushar
started working four years ago on the book, which was written on the
basis of archival records, records of the Mahatma's murder trial and
investigation and verbal history.
"The attempts on the Mahatma's life were intended to kill his legacy
and subvert his philosophy," he said.
Tushar said the Kapoor Commission, which was constituted in 1968 to
investigate the larger conspiracy behind the killing of Gandhi, came
out with many startling revelations.
He claimed the feeling of "hatred" between Hindus and Muslims still
persists in the country and the Government needed to take steps for a
harmonious relation between both communities. "Hindus and Muslims are
still a divided lot. If steps are not taken, the country will be
fragmented," he said.
01-30-2007, 09:47 PM (This post was last modified: 01-30-2007, 09:51 PM by agnivayu.)
Hateful little grandson of Gandhi: What's your problem you commi b@st@rd ? I am a Brahmin with a bad attitude, why don't you grow some balls and tell this to my face ?
No Brahmin runs anything in India. You liar communist christoIslamic terrorist bastards do. So if anything is wrong in India, it's your f*cking fault, and not Brahmins. Brahmins have a 40% poverty rate in India (twice the National average). You racist bastards (working with the Christo terrorists no doubt) are trying to use Constantine like tactics to convert India to Christianity. You will fail because there are many people like me who know what you are upto, and we will work tirelessly to ensure failure of your mission. We will NEVER submit to Abrahamic tyranny.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->cnn-ibn has now removed the article about Brahmins killing Gandhi, wonder what happened?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Realized that Gandhi himself was a brahmin?
Or realized that another Gandhi grandkid had in past hinted (in a argument reported in print media with another IF member) that brahmins under another brahmin PM (Nehru) didn't do much to protect Gandhi despite threats?
Please feel free to add.
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Jan 31 2007, 04:50 AM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Jan 31 2007, 04:50 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->cnn-ibn has now removed the article about Brahmins killing Gandhi, wonder what happened?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Realized that Gandhi himself was a brahmin?
Or realized that another Gandhi grandkid had in past hinted (in a argument reported in print media with another IF member) that brahmins under another brahmin PM (Nehru) didn't do much to protect Gandhi despite threats?
Please feel free to add.
[right][snapback]63805[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think the Mahatma was a brahmin. From what I gather, he was a Vaishya. The way the Hindu once explained it, the word "Gandhi" comes from "gandh", which either means sandalwood or perfume. So, he belonged to a family that, long ago, traded in perfumes.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't think the Mahatma was a brahmin. From what I gather, he was a Vaishya.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes Gandhi was a bania not Brahmin.
Aaree bhai... it's <i>unees-bees ka pharak</i> for these guys only. It's like say the dorks term current CM of Gandhi state as 'brahminical facist upper caste blah...blah..' now and then to make an argument.
Nevertheless I do stand corrected.
BTW, this is not a new opinion. He said exactly the same thing in a Rediff chat in Jan 1998.
<!--c1-->CODE<!--ec1-->
Mr Tushar Gandhi (Fri Jan 30 1998 10:31 IST)
Jayesh: Bapuji was killed because the gang of killers were afraid that if Bapuji succeeded in his crusade, the social dominance of the Brahmins would end. The same gang were involved in three previous unsuccessful attempts on his life, when there was no question of the partition of India or 55 crores to Pakistan. After the massacres of innocent refugees in Pakistan, Bapuji had in anguish said that it is no longer Pakistan but Papisthan.<!--c2--><!--ec2-->
Ram Swarup, New Delhi, is a leading thinker in the contemporary dynamics of Hindu renaissance ideology. Here he recounts the tragic decimation of Hinduism's religious leadership -- its priestly brahmins. He reveals the motivations and historical forces underlying the continuing propaganda against, and oppression of, Hindu clergy. The unedited text is on our web site.
A country is never fully defeated as long as its martial and intellectual leaders exist. A self-conscious imperialism undertakes to reduce them as its first important task. Muslims coming to India found brave, armed men and a brahmin class providing cultural and spiritual leadership.
Dr. Ambedkar, quoting Muslim historians, says the first act of religious zeal by Mohammad bin Qasim, the first Arab invader, was circumcision of brahmins. "But, after they objected, he put all above the age of seventeen to death."
When the Portuguese came, St. Xavier wrote to the king of Portugal, his patron, "If there were no brahmins, all pagans would be converted to our faith." He hated them with hatred that evangelists alone are capable of. He called them a "most perverse people." Brahmins became a persecuted people. Next the British came. They physically disarmed India. Then missionaries and orientalists led an ideological disarmament.
Rev. C. Buchanan said Indians should be baptized because "it attaches the governed to the governors." They thought that brahmins came in the way of their dream of a baptized India. They started blackening and discrediting them. A brochure called The Book of Wisdom in 279 verses was widely circulated by missionaries under William Carey, touted as the father of the Indian press. It was one of the first he printed and is addressed to the "mean, despicable Brahmins." The brochure promises hell for heathens and salvation through Christ.
The administration found brahmins to be the only "national" caste, held in much respect and capable of providing political leadership. This was enough. They fomented anti-brahmin movements in different parts of the country which are still very powerful in today's secular India. Their fears were well-founded. Brahmins were the intellectual leaders of the Independence struggle.
Thus anti-brahminism was a construct of the last two centuries. And though learnt under the colonial-missionary aegis, it became an important category of future social thinking and political action. Brahmins began to be described as cunning, parasitic exploiters and authors of the iniquitous caste system. Much scholarship and intellectual labor was put into this thesis before it acquired its present momentum and currency. Anti-brahminism originated in, and still prospers in anti-Hindu circles. It is particularly welcome among Marxists, missionaries, Muslims, separatists and casteists of different hues. When they attack brahmins, their target is unmistakably Hinduism. They know their only chance is a disintegrated India.
The success of their mission is seen today in the brahmins' new poverty. Sorokin describes brahmins as "world's poorest aristocracy," as a "caste of priests without church organization; teachers without state educational institutions; moral and social leaders without wealth, army and support of state organization." It is a faithful description.
In the past, their poverty was voluntary --renunciation was their way of life; but the old glory has gone. Their new poverty, not chosen but imposed by circumstance, is also ideological and cultural. In the past, brahmins were connected with temples which were also great centers of learning. When these were destroyed, brahmins became poor as well as illiterate. A nation bereft of fighters now lost its teachers and thinkers.
When the British came on the scene, they were already destitute. Independence brought no relief; they remained the poorest section in the country, followed probably by Rajputs. A Government study of incomes was made in Karnataka State. The figures given in its Assembly in 1978 show that brahmins were the poorest, poorer than scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Among the brahmins themselves, the poorest are those connected with Vedic learning, temple service and religious functions. At Tamil Nadu's Ranganathaswamy Temple, priest's monthly salary is Rs.3 (us8 cents, from Census Department studies) and a daily allowance of one measure of rice. The government staff at the same temples receive Rs.250 plus per month.
But these facts have not modified the priests' reputation as "haves" and as "exploiters." In Marxist-secular social sciences, social facts do not change social theories. The destitution of Hindu priests has moved none, not even parties known for Hindu sympathy.
Traditional India is long-suffering and used to neglect. But how will a nation fare which treats its temples and priests so shabbily? And brahmins themselves should take up this challenge -- not in any narrow spirit, but by recovering their old vocation, by fearlessly speaking for dharma and by again becoming brahma-vadins, God beings. The world needs it, and needs them.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Total Population: 5.6 crore
Poor Brahmins: 13%
Rich: 19%
Literacy levels above the age of 18: 84%
Graduates: 39%
Brahmin chief justices between 1950 to 2000: 47%
Associate justices between 1950-2000: 40%
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src='http://www.outlookindia.com/images/india_brahimns_map_20070604.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Down in the Cow-belt
Falling percentage of Brahmin MPs elected in the Hindi belt
1984: 19.91%
1989: 12.44%
1998: 12.44%
1999: 11.3%
2007: The present Lok Sabha has only 50 Brahmin MPs nationwide. Thatâs 9.17 per cent of the total strength of the House.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
05-30-2007, 10:25 PM (This post was last modified: 05-30-2007, 10:30 PM by ramana.)
The Cachnama also records the Islamic antipathy towards Brahmins. The issue is this. The Brahmins being the repository if knowledege are the legitmators of the rulers since historical times. You see this in the Maurya dynasty onwards to Mayawati. What MN Srinvas calls "Sanskritization". There is always upward movement in India society provided there is no external factors. The two colonizations shocked the Hindu society into a frozen state and its only the post Independence era that we are seeing the slow movement out of the state of shock. This is the reason why the outsiders have so much antipathy towards Brahmins.
