Brahmins and Brahminism – Can the two be separated?

02/12/2019

This article is a reply to those sympathisers of Brahmins who at a subconscious level themselves follow Brahminism but give the impression that the two (Brahmins and
Brahminism) can be separated. They seem to think that the followers of any ideology can
continue having the same identity even after rejecting the said ideology. Christians/Muslims/Sikhs/Buddhist etc lose these identities if they reject
Christianity/Islam/Sikhism/Buddhism.

What happens when a Brahmin rejects Brahminism? Does he lose his Brahmin identity or does he retain it?
Yes, it’s possible to be born as a Brahmin and not follow Brahminwad. There is only one test with three questions:
1. Is such a person willing to disassociate himself from everything that identifies him as a
Brahmin, becoming an ex-Brahmin?
2. Does s/he agree that the root cause of all social disharmony in India is mainly due to
Brahmins?
3. Will s/he be willing to fight tooth and nail for complete ‘Annihilation of Jati’ (AoJ)?
(The word ‘jati’ or ‘jaat’ is preferred instead of its inaccurate translation, ‘caste’ for ideological reasons. Please see the end of the article for reasons).

What I said about the Brahmin disassociating himself from his Brahmin identity, I say the same about all who have even a slightest bit of emotional attachment left towards any jati they may claim to have forfeited. If you ask a person for his jati (or the jati s/he belonged to) and s/he responds, in any number of sentences, stating a name of a jati, jati has already defeated that person.

Unless jati is annihilated, at least amongst the non-Brahmins, there is no hope for India to
emerge as a great nation, EVER!! This is regardless of how many other social, political,
economic or religious revolutions one may start (I invite anyone who disagree for a sensible dialogue).

All other solutions are merely short-term fixes, including the spread of one’s chosen religion, improving economic status and gaining political power; unless there is AoJ. Annihilation of jati is not the solution to all problems faced by society but without the Annihilation of Jati, social justice will always remain a distant dream. Rather than keep repeating the mantra, “annihilate caste, annihilate caste,” how many are actually working towards its annihilation? I can’t think of a single organisation whose sole aim is annihilation of jati. No wonder we are not any closer to AoJ than how Babasaheb Dr Ambedkar left it.

Babasaheb swept the path and showed us the way. It’s our duty to walk on it. He dug the
foundations, it’s our job to build on it. The Brahmins have thousands of years of experience in protecting the jati system without anyone even realising how cunningly and subtlety he’s done it, until Dr. Ambedkar came along.

The Brahmin can even be seen to fight against caste in the form of anti ‘caste discrimination’ but in the process strengthen it because anti ‘Caste Discrimination’ does not mean anti ‘caste’. Fighting for equality in castes is counterproductive to the annihilation of caste because desiring such equality further strengthens one’s belief in the caste s/he is trying to uplift. In order to annihilate jati, we need a complete 180 degree paradigm shift in the way it is viewed. The Brahmin feels secure knowing this to be true.

Babasaheb realised that it is better to forget educating the Brahmins regarding reformation. It’s not going to work unless they become ex-Brahmins, the chances of which are negligible. It’s time to abandon them. It time for dhammantra. It’s time for conversion. Forget educating the Brahmins. Educate all others. That means there is hardly any point fighting with the Brahmins. Their influence will automatically be zeroed as soon as the masses awaken and leave the Hindu-fold. This reminds me of a quote by Bruce Lee in the film ‘Enter the Dragon’, “My style is the art of fighting without fighting.” Many moderates, left-wingers and academics think and say (and the Brahmin surely loves it), “Babasaheb was against Brahminism, not Brahmins.” The implication is that it’s ok to trust and befriend Brahmins.

NO!
What Babasaheb meant was there’s no use educating the Brahmins. Nor is a direct confrontation of any sort beneficial unless it is to educate the non-Brahmins. ‘No war’ does not mean ‘no enemy’. Very often one may have an enemy but strategically decide not to fight, for example when it is known that there is a better way to permanently disable the enemy. In our case permanently disable the enemy by vaporising his deadliest weapon, the jati. Annihilate the jati that was forced upon your ancestors and subconsciously accepted by you.

We don’t need to spend time and energy educating the Brahmins to stop being casteists. We just need to educate the non-Brahmins and leave the Brahmin alone. All alone! Caste cannot be annihilated whilst staying in the Hindu-fold so you must LEAVE Hinduism and leave the Brahmin all alone. The Brahmin will soon be finished when there is no one left to control. Similarly, those who may replace Brahmins will too be finished.

So, there is no need to fight the Brahmin but there is a desperate need to root out the final traces of Brahminism/Jatism that is deeply rooted in our psyche. We need to rid ourselves of caste behaviour. We need to be careful with the words we use and how they are used, focusing on the meaning.

There are many sayings of the type, “it’s not the thief who is wrong but the system that turned him into a thief.” Does that really mean that the thief is not wrong and it okay to befriend and trust him?

In the same manner, look at the phrase, “I am not against Brahmins but their system,
Brahminism.” Does that mean, one is not against Brahmins? No it does not. You must educate the victims of mental slavery about Brahmins and their control mechanism,
Brahmanism/Jatism. Simply annihilate Jati from within yourself first and then propagate the same. Annihilation of Jati means shedding all traces of Jati identity as much as is practically possible.

The mistake that Ashoka-the-great and his descendents made was; they failed to fully recognise the cunningness of their greatest enemy who had a secret weapon, the wicked jati. They failed to annihilate jati, resulting in the enemy gaining super strength. Can Brahminism be annihilated from within the Brahmin without annihilating the Brahmin identity?
Would anyone ever say:
“I’m against Buddhism, not Buddhists”?
OR
“I’m against Sikhism not the Sikhs?”
OR
“I’m against Islam, not the Muslims.”
If No, why not?
(Think about it a bit before you read further).

Does it make sense to say, “I’m against Buddhism, not Buddhists”?
Now apply similar reasoning in the case of ‘Brahminism and Brahmins’.
Does it make sense to say, “I’m against Brahminism not Brahmins”?

For the same reasons, it does not make sense when we make ANY of the above statements; it does not make sense saying, “I’m against Brahminism and not against Brahmins.”
If saying the words, “I love the Brahmins but I hate Brahminism” makes sense to you; then
saying the words, “I love the Buddhists but I hate Buddhism” can surely make sense to the
Brahmin. If you rightly think that it doesn’t make sense a Brahmin saying, “I’m against Buddhism but not against Buddhists”, then nor does it make sense you saying, “I’m against Brahminism but not against Brahmins”

Furthermore, if there were no Muslims/Buddhists/Sikhs then there would not have been a
spread of Islam/Buddhism/Sikhism. Similarly, if there were no Brahmins, there wouldn’t have been a spread of Brahmanism.

Just as Nazism is the philosophy/way of life of the Nazis, so is Brahmanism a philosophy/way of life of the Brahmins. It cannot be anything else.

There is no such person as a Muslim/Sikh/Buddhists who hates Islam/Sikhism/Buddhism. So there cannot be a Brahmin who hates Brahminism. That surely mean, “Brahminism cannot be separated from Brahmins unless they become ex-Brahmins” The fact that someone calls himself a Brahmin (or any other varna or jati) means that she/he is a casteist. If they truly are not casteists, they wouldn’t identify themselves as Brahmins (or any other varna/jati). Thats how they control the masses, by making their lot believe that they are Brahmins (i.e. superior) and by making others believe that they have a jati/caste.

Interestingly, jati is a scientific term used in Hindi medium schools in biology lessons when
teaching classification of living things. The exact meaning of jati in the English language is
species, not caste. According to the Brahmanic texts, humans are classified into four Varnas and many jatis/species and sub jatis or subspecies. The so-called untouchables were the outcastes. This means they didn’t fall under the human caste/jati/species as they were non- human. They weren’t even worth keeping as slaves, for then there would have been that risk of touching them. The use of the word ‘caste’ lessens the negative connotations attached the word JATI and gives the jatists an excuse to say, “caste is a foreign construct.”

The understanding of what has been said so far is the first step towards annihilation of Jati,
otherwise, it’s impossible to do so. There are forces out there quietly brainwashing the innocent because they don’t want anyone knowing this. Don’t be fooled.
Author – Shekhar-Bodhakar

Shekhar Bodhakar is a London based Ambedkarite thinker and anti-caste activist. He is the Composer of Buddha Taal and has also worked as Head of Mathematics department in a London college in the past.

https://www.quora.com/profile/Shekhar-Bodhakar