Rohith Vemula, this name
is echoing in media from many days. Suicide of anyone either of a upper caste or
a Dalit is tragic. A healthy society should contemplate about the reasons and
causes and solutions to avoid suicides. But for this a whole community should
not be targeted blindly or politically. For personal gains or for political
gains many so called leaders target a whole community for any wrong doing in
society. Ironically there is not a single person is Brahmin in
Rohith Vemula case.
In this case they are targeting Brahmins. According to Wikipedia Brahmins
are priests, teachers (acharya) and protectors of sacred learning across generations
Hinduism. Because they are priests or teachers they gained respect among
Hindus. But as they are protectors of sacred learning, they are hated widely
among those who hate Hinduism or convert Hindus to their religion.
For targeting Brahmins, they use a
term Brahmanism. According to Encyclopedia Britannica Brahmanism is
an Indian religious tradition in which religious rites are performed by Brahmins.
Wikipedia doesn’t have this term but interestingly Wikipedia have
another term ‘Anti-Brahminism’. Brahmanism is the term which was
originated in 18th century and Anti-Brahminism originated in
19th century. These both terms were planted by religious invaders
and missionaries to keep Brahmins marginalized from Hindu society.
That was the time when british came to India. They did not only want the wealth
of India but also convert Hindus of India. This conversion is not same as conversions
done in Muslim Era, it was not through sword or extra taxes. But it was more
through cunning means, by diplomat ways and more importantly through division
of Hindu society. They use Brahmin bashing for politics and conversions. This
was not the first time when rulers used Brahmin bashing, but from earliest
attacks of Muslim invaders to British, they moved their laws and
society against Brahmins. This is happening even today.
During
this period of oppression, Brahmins were not only victimized but were targeted
because of their sacred knowledge gained through generations. They were
tortured to death, brutally killed in masses. Their sacred religious books were
burned, sacred threads (Janeu) were broken and Shikha were cut.
Their houses were burned and they were heavily taxed. Not only this, there are
many rulers who bared Sanskrit as spoken language.
Although
history is filled with examples of Brahmin oppression but to keep this
article short we will see some of them.
The earliest record of Brahmin
hatred goes back to invasion of Alexander. During his campaign of western
part of India there was a town known as Sehwan
(then called Sindemana), a flourishing town on the banks of the Indus river. A
king, Sambhos who ruled Sehwan accepted the rule of
the Greeks, but the Brahmins of this town rose to the occasion and refused to
open the gates of the forts to the Greeks. Irked by this, Alexander vigorously
fought the resisting battalion and after the conquest ordered the killing of
each and every Brahmin. Humiliated
by this even he looted the place and killed all the Brahmins there. Notes H. T,
Lambrick, a former commissioner of Sindh, and author of the ‘Sindh before
Muslim Conquest’: “There was a subtle power in Sindh which created the
will to resist the foreigner, the influence of the Brahmins.” Alexander never
excused the Brahmins for persuading the Sindhi kings to run for cover. However,
he was so impressed with the intellectual prowess and spirit of the Brahmins
that he captured and kept with him ten of them.
Brahmins
from ancient times were against any foreign invaders. This
was another reason for hatred against Brahmins.
It is
well known fact that how much Greeks hated Chanakya and other Brahmins.
During
the Islamic conquests in India, it was a typical policy to single out every
Brahmin for slaughter. Even the Portuguese in Malabar and Goa followed this
policy in the 16th century.
Islamic
conquest of India started with invasion of Sindh by Muhammad bin-Qasim in 712 CE. Chachnama records Muhammad bin-Qasim in Debal put the males above seventeen years of age
to the sword and enslaved the women and children. The 700 beautiful women had
taken refuge in temples, this made Qasim to cut the throat of every single
Brahmin within the town. Famous Muslim historian Al-Biladuri have
written ‘was taken by assault, and the carnage endured for three days… the
priests of the temple were massacred.” Not only Debal but his attack on
Rawar, Brahamanabad and Multan lakhs of Brahmins and Hindus were killed or made
captives.
The cows, the
Brahmins, and the Sadhus invited their special attention in mass murders of
non-combatants. The temples and monasteries were their special targets in an
orgy of pillage and arson. And they did all this as mujahids (holy warriors)
and ghazls (kafir-killers) in the service of Allah and his Last Prophet.
Hindus found it very
hard to understand the psychology of this new invader. For the first time in their history,
Hindus were witnessing a scene, which was described by Kanhadade Prabandha (1456 AD) in the following words
"The conquering
army burnt villages, devastated the land, plundered people's wealth, took
Brahmins and children and women of all classes captive, flogged with thongs of
raw hide, carried a moving prison with it, and converted the prisoners into
obsequious Turks."
With
every destruction of cities and temples, first target was Brahmins. Islamic rulers did not target the lower-caste Hindus who were
incapable of effectively supporting the Turkish, Afghan and later Mughal elite.
They left these poor neoconverts to the Sufis whom they seldom patronized and
often persecuted as potential spokesmen of the poor. An unabashed instigator of
proselytization, the historian Ziauddin Barni (1285 - 1357) advised the
Sultanate to target the Brahmin intelligentsia to be cowed into submission and
conversion.
Louis-Frederic, French Indologist, author of L'lnde de l'Islam,
frequently mentions forced conversions, massacres and temple demolitions.
On pages 42-49 he writes:
“Mohammed Ghori had the Hindu temples of Ajmer demolished and killed every
brahmin within it, ordered the construction of mosques and Quran schools on
their runins…He plundered Kanauj and Kashi and destroyed their temples killed
Brahmins.”
Muhammad Bakhtyar Khilji, In Odantpuri, in 1202, he massacred
two thousand Brahmins. great plunder fell into the hands of the victors. Most of the
inhabitants were Brahmins with shaven heads. They were put to death. Large
number of books were found…..but none could explain their contents as all the
men had been killed, the whole fort and city being a place of study.”
Meanwhile, back in Delhi: “This Quwwat-ul-Islam (Might of Islam) was
built in a hurry using the debris, chiefly sculpted pillars, of twenty-seven
dismantled Hindu temples. Massacred every Brahmin of Delhi” Thirty
years later, “Iltutmish did not forget that he was a Muslim conqueror. He
showed himself to be very pious, never forgetting to do his five devotional
daily….He likewise showed himself totally intolerant vis-à-vis the Hindus who
refused to convert, destroying their temples and annihilating Brahmin
communities.”
Firuz Shah Tughlaq was the third ruler of the Tughlaq
dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate. The "Tarikh-i-Firuz Shah" is a
historical record written during his reign that attests to the systematic
persecution of Hindus under his rule.
In
particular, it records atrocities committed against Hindu Brahmin priests who
refused to convert to Islam:
An
order was accordingly given to the Brahman and was brought before Sultan. The
true faith was declared to the Brahman and the right course pointed out. but he
refused to accept it. A pile was risen on which the Kaffir with his hands and
legs tied was thrown into and the wooden tablet on the top. The pile was lit at
two places his head and his feet. The fire first reached him in the feet and
drew from him a cry and then fire completely enveloped him. Behold Sultan for
his strict adherence to law and rectitude.
British Historian Mr. Vincent Smith says:
"Great
quantities of plunder were obtained, and the slaughter of the 'shaven headed
Brahmans".
“
One pathetic case is mentioned in the time of the reign of Firoz Shaha (A.D.
1351-1388). An old Brahmin of Delhi was burnt to death for refusing to give up
his faith.”
During Auranzeb reign, the viceroy of Kashmir Iftikhar
Khan took to the task of forcibly converting the Hindu population to Islam by
the sword. The Hindu Brahmin Pandits of Kashmir were among the most highly
learned and orthodox of the Hindu leadership. Aurangzeb felt if they could be
converted, the rest of the country would easily follow. He did not want to see
the talik (holy mark on the forehead) or janaeu (sacred thread) on any of his
subjects. Given this ultimatum, a large delegation of 500 Kashmiri Pandits
decided to journey to Anandpur Sahib to seek the help of Guru Tegh
Bahadur.
Aurangzeb massacred lakhs of Brahmins and their families during destruction
of temples in Haridwar and Kashi. He made a mountain of skull of Brahmins
and make pile of janeu of Brahmins and burn them which lit out after
many days.
In 1788, Tipu ordered his governor
in Calicut Sher Khan to begin the process of converting Hindus to
Islam, and in July of that year, 200 Brahmins were forcibly converted and made
to eat beef.
Sultãn Sikandar Butshikan of Kashmir (AD 1389–1413) is often considered the
worst of these. Historians have recorded many of his atrocities. The Tarikh-i-Firishta records that Sikandar persecuted the
Hindus and issued orders proscribing the residency of any other than Muslims in
Kashmir. He also ordered the breaking of all "golden and silver
images". The Tarikh-i-Firishta further states: "Many of the Brahmins,
rather than abandon their religion or their country, poisoned themselves; some
emigrated from their native homes, while a few escaped the evil of banishment
by becoming Mahomedans. After the emigration of the Bramins, Sikundur ordered
all the temples in Kashmir to be thrown down. Having broken all the images in
Kashmeer, (Sikandar) acquired the title of ‘Destroyer of Idols’"
After Is;amic onslaught comes the British, another plunder for Brahmins.
According to Meenakshi Jain:
"The British were not wrong in their distrust of educated Brahmins in
whom they saw a potential threat to their supremacy in India. For instance, in
1879 the Collector of Tanjore in a communication to Sir James Caird,
member of the Famine Commission, stated that "there was no class
(except Brahmins ) which was so hostile to the English." The
predominance of the Brahmins in the freedom movement confirmed the worst
British suspicions of the community. Innumerable CID reports of the period
commented on Brahmin participation at all levels of the nationalist movement.
In the words of an observer, "If any community could claim credit for
driving the British out of the country, it was the Brahmin community.
Seventy per cent of those who were felled by British bullets were
Brahmins".
To counter what they perceived, a Brahminical
challenge, the British launched
on the one hand a major ideological attack on the Brahmins and, on the other incited non-Brahmin
caste Hindus to press for preferential treatment, a ploy that was to prove
equally successful vis-à-vis the Muslims.
In the attempt to rewrite Indian history, Brahmins began to be portrayed as
oppressors and tyrants who willfully kept down the rest of the populace. Their
role in the development of Indian society was deliberately slighted. In ancient
times, for example, Brahmins played a major part in the spread of new methods
of cultivation (especially the use of the plough and manure) in backward and
aboriginal areas. The Krsi-parasara,
compiled during this period, is testimony to their contribution in this field.
Apart from misrepresenting the Indian past, the British actively encouraged
anti-Brahmin sentiments. Apart from
misrepresenting the Indian past, the British actively encouraged anti-Brahmin
sentiments. A number of scholars
have commented on their involvement in the anti-Brahmin movement in South
India. As a result of their machinations non-Brahmins turned on the Brahmins
with a ferocity that has few parallels in Indian history. This was all the more
surprising in that for centuries Brahmins and non-Brahmins had been active
partners and collaborators in the task of political and social
management.
The Brahmins were identified as the
‘clergy’ or the priests of Hinduism. An
explicit hostility towards the heathen priesthood was not helped by the
inability of the messengers of God’s word to convert Brahmins to Christianity. In Brahmins, they came across a
literate group, which was able to read, write, do arithmetic, conduct
‘theological’ discussions, etc. During the first hundred years or so, this
group was the only source of information about India as far as the missionaries
were concerned. Schooled to perform many administrative tasks, the Brahmins
were mostly the only ones well-versed in the European languages – enough to
communicate with the Europeans. In short, they appeared both to be the
intellectual group and the most influential social layer in the Indian social
organization. Conversion of the
heathens of India, as the missions painfully discovered, did not depend so much
on winning the allegiance of the prince or the king as it did on converting the
Brahmins.
As Francis Xavier saw the Brahmins: "If there
were no Brahmans in the area, all the Hindus would accept conversion to our
faith." Millions of Brahmins persecuted during Goa
inquisition.
The myth of Brahmin oppression, the
myth of the economical motives for the Muslim conquests and destruction, the
myth of the non-existence of an indigenous and nation-wide Hindu culture, the
myth of the social reforms brought by Islam, the myth of Hindu-Muslim amity,
the myth of Nehru and of India as a a nation in the making, the myth of the
Composite Culture, the myth that communalism is a British creation, all these
myths are bound to give way once a substantial number of Hindu intellectuals
apply their minds to them in a serious and scientific way, and then use the
available channels to speak out.
Anti-Brahminism have deep roots in Christian theology
To be against "Brahminism" is part and parcel of the political
correctness of progressive scholars in twenty-first-century India. This
indicates that something is very wrong with the Indian academic debate.
Promotion of animosity towards a religious tradition or its followers 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-Brahminism is still the proud slogan of
many political parties and the credential of the radical intellectual.
Both anti-Semitism and anti-Brahminism have deep roots in Christian
theology. The contemporary stereotypes about Brahmins and the story about
Brahminism 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 Brahminism and the
caste system simply reproduced this Protestant image of false religion. The
colonials identified the Brahmins as the priests and Brahminism as the
foundation of false religion in India . This is how the dominant
image of "the Hindu religion" came into being. 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 "Brahminism" as the worst thing that ever happened to humanity.
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. In some cases, this has led to a
kind of identity crisis in which they vilify "Brahminism" in
English-language academic debate, but continue their traditions. In
twentieth-century Europe , we have seen how dangerous anti-Semitism
was and what consequences it could have in society. Tragically, unimaginable
suffering was needed before it was relegated to the realm of unacceptable
positions. In India , anti-Brahminism was adopted from Protestant
missionaries by colonial scholars who then passed it on to the secularists and
Dalit intellectuals. 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-Brahminism?
