Brahmins and Dalits (was : Jnanasambandar:)

[Samar Abbas]

> On 7 Dec 1999, Rajarshi Banerjee wrote: " Brahmins cannot be accused
> of direct exploitation genocide, enslavement and stealing wealth."

I once harboured such views, and also used to consider Brahmins as
`the treasurers of ancient Indian learning' until I read an (apparently
factual) book which seems to prove that the converse was the case -

  `Brahmin Gold' by Prof. Shankar Nadar (full book)
  http://dalitstan.org/journal/brahman/b_gold/b_gold.html

 Those who propagate the view of the `poor learned Brahmin' of Manu must
refute all the points raised in Prof. Nadar's book. There are too many to
be discussed in a single post, but perhaps the most forceful ones made
are:

- The Magadhan spy system and forced labor camps of Pandit Kautilya on
  the lines of the later Soviet Union seem to have killed millions.

- The Muslim `invaders' discovered huge quantities of gold hidden in
  Brahmanic temples. This `Brahmin Gold' was the prime source of the
  astronomic wealth of early Indo-Muslim courts; ie. wealth seems to have
  been concentrated in the hands of Brahmins at ca. 1000 AD.

- The famines during Anglo-Brahmin rule killed millions.

> nanda chandran wrote: "Instead of letting the brahmin enjoy his
> 'explotation', [Manu] condemns him to a life of poverty and strife."

This is a good point. But Prof. Nadar seems to show that it was Pandit
Kautilya who was more to be blamed. For recent exploitation, it seems
Pandit Nehru and his descendants are at fault.

> nanda chandran : " The so called persecution by the brahmins is itself a
> Marxist innovation "

But was not Pandit Kautilya the founder of Communism ? Is not Marxism in
India itself mainly supported by upper castes ?

> nanda chandran : "And the Muslim interest in this whole affair is that
> they don't want the Hindus to come together and turn on them for all
> their past atrocities."

Here Mr. Nanda seem to consider the Brahmins as `Hindus'. I remember some
time back Mr. Nanda was trying to show that Dravidian temples were built
by Brahmins instead of Tamils by citing some Adivasi tribes who lived in
forests, ate meat and practiced cannibalism. Both things are not possible:

1. Either Brahmins are `Hindus' and are also part of the cannibalism,
flesh-eating and wine-drinking practiced by Adivasi `Hindus', but not
guilty of `oppression',

2. Or Brahmins are separate from Dravidians, Adivasis etc. and, whilst not
guilty of cannibalism, would thence be automatically guilty of some
historical crimes of oppression.

This choice is theirs alone. From physiognomy and personal experience, I
think Brahmins are Brahmins. The only way to counter the charges of
oppression is to find similar instances of crimes against Brahmins, and to
show that it was not a one-sided affair. Are there any such cases of `mass
murders of Brahmins' ?

> Irene Maradei: "[Reservation] also may produce a feeling of injustice
> and frustration, when equally good brahmin sons/daughters fail to get
> the place.

 I can understand the frustration, and it is highly unfortunate that the
present generation is blamed for historic wrongs. Once again, since
reservations occurred in the 1990s, this is outside the scope of Indology.
Indology is a science, reservations are politics. Let us stick to
Indology and the purely academic question of history.

Samar.