 | This articlehas an unclearcitation style. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style ofcitation andfootnoting.(December 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Anti-Brahminism is a term used in opposition tocaste basedhierarchal social order which placesBrahmins at its highest position.[1][2] Initial expressions of Anti-Brahminism emerged from instances of pre-colonial opposition to thecaste system in India, ideological influences during the colonial period,[3] and from a colonialist Protestant Christian understanding of religion in the 19th century, which viewed "Brahminism" as a corrupted religion imposed on the Indian population.[4]
Ambedkar and some Hindu Reformists structured their criticism along similar lines following the 19th century criticism of "Brahminism,"[4] opposing the dominant position Brahmins had acquired by the time of British rule in the 19th century.
However, anti-Brahminism has also manifested as an anti-Brahmin sentiment, notably during theDravidian movement and theSelf-Respect Movement in the 20th century, and even in the 21st century among some followers ofPeriyar.
"Brahminism" refers both to the historicalBrahmanical tradition and ideology of the lateVedic period (ca.1100-500 BCE), as to
...a sociopolitical ideology that encodes a memory of an ideal past and a vision of society in the future, one in which Brahmins occupy the highest place [...] their superior position in society and their superior knowledge stems from birth. This makes them naturally, intrinsically superior to all other humans [...] Brahmanism then is the most perfect form of conservatism, a status quoist ideology par excellence, entirely suitable to elites who wish to perpetuate their social status, power and privilege.[2]
"Anti-Brahminism" or "Non-Brahminism" is a movement in opposition to caste based discrimination and hierarchical social order which placesBrahmins at its highest position.[1][2]B. R. Ambedkar stated:
By Brahmanism, I do not mean the power, privileges and interests of Brahmins as a community. That is not the sense in which I am using the word. By Brahmanism, I mean the negation of the spirit of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.[5]
According to Novetzke, initial expressions of Anti-Brahminism emerged from instances of pre-colonial opposition to the caste system, ideological influences during the colonial period.[3]
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg) | This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding to itadding to it ormaking an edit request.(July 2021) |
According to Gelders and Delders, the structure of present-day anti-Brahminism has its roots in 19th century India and colonial views on the position and influence of Brahmins. 19th century colonial rulers viewed India's culture as corrupt and degenerate, and its population irrational. In this view, derived from a Protestant Christian understanding of religion, rooted in the Protestant opposition against the Catholic Church, the original "God-given religion" was corrupted by (Catholic) priests, which was extended by comparison to the Brahmins in India, and the Brahmin-dominated type ofHinduism, for which the term "Brahminism" was used, was supposedly imposed on the Indian population.[4]
In the late 19th and early 20th century, with the rise of nationalist and rationalist movements, criticism against Brahminism came from both Brahmins and from low-caste Hindu communities. Ambedkar along with Hindu Reformists, structured their criticism along similar lines following the 19th century criticism of "Brahminism."[4]
According to Beteille, inTamil Nadu the traditional position of Brahmins had been enforced with the beginning of British rule, profiting from western education and turning to an urban lifestyle.[6] They monopolized the new urban jobs and entered theIndian Civil Service, gaining strongholds in government and bureaucracy,[6] and also dominated theCongress Party.[7] This widened the gap between Brahmins and non-Brahmins, but opposition quickly mounted.[7] Anti-Brahminism became organized with the formation of theJustice Party in late 1916 in Tamil Nadu. This party was composed of non-Brahmins (who were typically part of either thefeudal castes, land-owning agricultural castes, or merchant castes) and was committed to enhancing the opportunities for non-Brahmins.[8] With the dawn of the 20th century, and the rapid penetration of western education and western ideas, there was a rise in consciousness amongst the lower castes who felt that rights which were legitimately theirs were being denied to them.[7] In 1920, when theJustice Party came to power, Brahmins occupied about 70 percent of the high level posts in the government.[9] After reservation was introduced by the Justice Party, it reversed this trend, allowing non-Brahmins to rise in the government of theMadras Presidency.[citation needed] In the 1930s, anti-Brahmanism was disseminated among the masses by theSelf-Respect Movement.[10]
One of the most prominent proponents of Anti-Brahminism wasDalit leaderB. R. Ambedkar. Another prominent proponent was Dravidian leaderPeriyar E. V. Ramasamy.[citation needed]
Periyar called on both Brahmins and non-Brahmins to shun Brahminism.[11] However, Ramaswamy did make incendiary statements towards the encouragement of violence against the Brahmin community: "Pambaium parpanaium partha parpanai adi" — If you see a snake and a Brahmin, beat the Brahmin.[12][13][14] Ramasamy also claimed, on several occasions, that to eliminate the caste system, driving away the Brahmins was crucial.[15][16]
In October 1957, he supposedly called upon his followers to kill Brahmins and set fire to their houses.[17] On 3 November 1957, Dravidar Kazhagam held a convention in Thanjavur under Ramasamy's leadership and demanded that the Government of India delete provisions from the Constitution dealing with religious freedom (which, they believed, gave protection to the caste system and particularly to Brahmins), and if they failed to do so the copies of the Constitution would be burnt, and portraits and statues of Mahatma Gandhi would be broken; if it produced no results, the Dravidar Kazhagam members would be asked to kill Brahmins and burn their residential localities. These statements prompted the thenPrime Minister of India,Jawaharlal Nehru to write toK. Kamaraj who was theChief Minister of Madras State (Tamil Nadu) at that time, urging him to deal with this matter without delay.[18] The Dravidian nationalist's call to "kill Tamil Brahmins" at a 1973 speech in Karaikudi is still echoed in the 21st century by regional parties.[19]
Anyone who consents to, endorses or justifies this hierarchical order, regardless of his caste, creed or gender, is then a 'Brahmanist'.
