Rohith Vemula suicide and Anti-Brahminism: Brahmin: Tyrant or Oppressed

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 18^th century and Anti-Brahminism originated in 19^th 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?