Social science debate in India has been hijacked by thestruggle between secularism and Hindutva for decades now. Usually the SanghParivar is blamed for this turn of events. However, it could well be arguedthat the Hindutva ideologues simply adopted the stance of thesecularists. Perhaps the best illustration is the case of anti-Brahminism.
To be against "Brahminism" is part and parcel of the political correctness ofprogressive scholars in twenty-first-century India, much like being againstMuslims is part of the message of their Hindutva colleagues. Thisindicates that something is very wrong with the Indian academic debate.Promotion of animosity towards a religious tradition or its followers is notacceptable today, but it becomes truly perverse when the intelligentsia endorsesit.
In Europe, it took horrendous events to put an end to the propaganda ofanti-Semitism, which had penetrated the media and intelligentsia. It requireddecades of incessant campaigning before anti-Semitism was relegated to the realmof intellectual and political bankruptcy. In India, anti-Brahminism is still theproud slogan of many political parties and the credential of the radicalintellectual.
Some may find this parallel between anti-Brahminism andanti-Semitism ill-advised. Nevertheless, it has strong grounds.
First, there are striking similarities between the stereotypes about Brahminsin India and those about Jews in the West. Jews have been described as deviousconnivers, who would do anything for personal gain. They were said to besecretive 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 ahistorical conspiracy in which they had supposedly exploited European societies.To this day, the stories about a Jewish conspiracy against humanity prevail. Theanti-Brahminical stories sound much the same, but have the Brahmins plottingagainst the oppressed classes in Indian society.
In both cases, historians have claimed to produce "evidence" that cannot beconsidered so by any standard. Typical of the ideologues of anti-Brahminism isthe addition of ad hoc ploys whenever their stories are challenged byfacts. When it is pointed out that the Brahmins have not been all that powerfulin most parts of the country, or that they were poor in many regions, onereverts to the image of the Brahmin manipulating kings and politicians behindthe scene. We cannot find empirical evidence, it is said, because of thesecretive way in which Brahminism works.
Third, both in anti-Semitic Europe and anti-Brahminical India, this goestogether with the interpretation of contemporary events in terms of thesestories. One does not really analyse social tragedies and injustices, butapproaches them as confirmations of the ideological stories. All that goes wrongin society is blamed on the minority in question. Violence against Muslims? Itmust be the "Brahmins" of the Sangh Parivar. Opposition against Christianmissionaries and the approval of anti-conversion laws? "Ah, the Brahmins fearthat Christianity will empower the lower castes." Members of a scheduled casteare killed? "The Brahmin wants to show the Dalit his true place in the castehierarchy." An OBC member loses his job; a lower caste girl is raped? "The uppercastes must be behind it." So the story goes.
This leads to a fourth parallel: in both cases, resentment against theminority in question is systematically created and reinforced among themajority. 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 tobelieve that it was time "to take back what was rightfully theirs." In Indiaalso, movements have come into being that want to set right "the historicalinjustices of Brahminical oppression." Some have even begun to call upon theirfollowers to "exterminate the Brahmins."
In Europe, state policies were implemented that expressed the discriminationagainst Jews. For a very long time, they could not hold certain jobs andparticipate in many social and economic activities. In India, one seems to begoing this way with policies that claim to correct "the historical exploitationby the upper castes." It is becoming increasingly difficult for Brahmins to getaccess to certain jobs. In both cases, these policies have been justified interms of a flawed ideological story that passes for social science.
The fifth parallel is that both anti-Semitism and anti-Brahminism have deeproots in Christian theology. In the case of Judaism, its continuing vitality asa tradition was a threat to Christianity’s claim to be the fulfilment of theJewish prophecies about the Messiah. The refusal of Jews to join the religion ofChrist (the true Messiah, according to Christians) was seen as an unacceptabledenial of the truth of Christianity. Saint Augustine even wrote that the Jewshad to continue to exist, but only to show that Christians had not fabricatedthe prophesies about Christ and to confirm that some would not follow Christ andbe damned for it.
The contemporary stereotypes about Brahmins and the story about Brahminismalso originate in Christian theology. They reproduce Protestant images of thepriests of false religion. When European missionaries and merchants began totravel to India in great numbers, they held two certainties that came fromChristian theology: false religion would exist in India; and false religionrevolved around evil priests who had fabricated all kinds of laws, doctrines andrites in order to bully the innocent believers into submission. In this way, thepriests of the devil abused religion for worldly goals. The European story aboutBrahminism and the caste system simply reproduced this Protestant image of falsereligion. The colonials identified the Brahmins as the priests and Brahminism asthe foundation of false religion in India. This is how the dominant image of "theHindu religion" came into being.
The sixth parallel lies in the fact that Christian theology penetrated andshaped the "secular" discourse about Judaism and Brahminism. The theologicalcriticism became part of common sense and was reproduced as scientific truth. InIndia, 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 minoritycommunity have internalised these stories about themselves. Some Jews began tobelieve that they were to blame for what happened during the Holocaust; manyeducated Brahmins now feel that they are guilty of historical atrocities againstother groups. In some cases, this has led to a kind of identity crisis in whichthey vilify "Brahminism" in English-language academic debate, but continue theirtraditions. In other cases, the desire to "defend" these same traditions hasinspired Brahmins to aggressively support Hindutva.
In twentieth-century Europe, we have seen how dangerous anti-Semitism was andwhat consequences it could have in society. Tragically, unimaginable sufferingwas needed before it was relegated to the realm of unacceptable positions. InIndia, anti-Brahminism was adopted from Protestant missionaries by colonialscholars who then passed it on to the secularists and Dalit intellectuals. Theycreated the climate which allowed the Sangh Parivar to continue hijackingthe social sciences for petty political purposes.
The question that India has to raise in the twenty-first century is this: Dowe need bloodshed, before we will realise that the reproduction of anti-Brahminismis as harmful as anti-Muslim propaganda? What is needed to realise that the Hindutvamovement has simply taken its cue from the secularists? Do we need a new victoryof fascism, before we will admit that pernicious ideologies should not be soldas social science?
Jakob De Roover is a postdoctoral fellow of the Research Foundation (FWO)Flanders at the Research Centre VergelijkendeCultuurwetenschap, Ghent University, Belgium
