---------- Forwarded message ----------
COUNTERPOINT *The Indian Jews* *To be against "Brahminism" is part
and parcel of the political correctness of progressive scholars in
twenty-first-century India, much like being against Muslims is part of the
message of their Hindutva colleagues.* [image:
...]<http://www.outlookindia.com/dossiersind.asp?id=861> Jakob
De Roover | e-mail | one page format | feedback: send -
read<http://www.outlookindia.com/rantsmag.asp?fodname=20080620&fname=jakob&sid=1>
|
Social science debate in India has been hijacked by the struggle between
secularism and *Hindutva *for decades now. Usually the *Sangh Parivar* is
blamed for this turn of events. However, it could well be argued that the *
Hindutva* ideologues simply adopted the stance of the secularists. Perhaps
the best illustration is the case of anti-Brahminism.
To be against "Brahminism" is part and parcel of the political correctness
of progressive scholars in twenty-first-century India, much like being
against Muslims is part of the message of their *Hindutva* colleagues. 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.
Some may find this parallel between anti-Brahminism 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-Brahminical 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-Brahminism
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 Brahminism works.
Third, both in anti-Semitic Europe and anti-Brahminical 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 "Brahmins" of the 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 upper castes must be behind it." So the story goes.
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 Brahminical 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-Brahminism 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 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 sixth parallel lies in the fact that Christian theology penetrated and
shaped the "secular" discourse about Judaism and Brahminism. 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.
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. 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 other cases, the desire
to "defend" these same traditions has inspired Brahmins to aggressively
support *Hindutva*.
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.They created the climate which allowed the *Sangh
Parivar* to continue hijacking the social sciences for petty political
purposes.
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 is as harmful as anti-Muslim propaganda? What is needed to
realise that the *Hindutva* movement has simply taken its cue from the
secularists? Do we need a new victory of fascism, before we will admit that
pernicious ideologies should not be sold as social science?
------------------------------
Jakob De Roover is a postdoctoral fellow of the Research Foundation (FWO)
Flanders at the Research Centre *Vergelijkende
Cultuurwetenschap<http://www.cultuurwetenschap.be/>
*, Ghent University, Belgium
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20080620&fname=jakob&sid=1&pn=2
