Hey..
I know that Iam inviting trouble (and maybe traffic) with this post. I would like to state for the record that this blog was not triggered by the discussion among Neeraja, Raman and Eshwar in Raman's blog.
So how can one be considered a brahmin ? There are a hundred thousand definitions as an aswer. There are maybe a million rules, guidelines and responsibilities to one being a brahmin. But in my point of view By BIRTH is definitely not one of them.
Hundreds of years ago when the class system originated for whatever reason, it made sense for those yesteryear folks to segregate people based on their profession and continue to tag classes based on birth because most often anybody ended up continuing the family business - preaching, warring, selling, common-chores... there werent too many businesses anyway. However, this classification tended to have a negative impact as people were forced into doing something just because they were born in that class. And the situation became worse when there were priorities and importance and grades attached to the classes
As centuries passed by and there were industrial, economic & political revolutions, society in general and class system in particular adjusted themselves as appropriate - and formed a strong caste system. And today our Hindu religion boasts of thousands of castes - something that we definitely done have to be proud about. Caste is still a sensitive topic and thousands die over it. Caste riots have become common and even a way of life. Caste is the base for politics, personality building, voter base, educational oppurtunities, workplace oppurtunities and a whole bunch of stuff.
A higher degree of education, science, technology, exposure to various cultures, traditions, historical facts, overseas travels, falling in love, devotion, faith & religiousness - all this get nullfied by a five letter word - CASTE. And to believe that that birth dictates a class/caste affinity after all this is even more surprising.
It is important to differentiate the brahmin-caste and a brahmin-class. A definition of a true brahmin (of the brahmin class) is always something like this. Just being born into a brahmin family/caste does not qualify anyone to become a brahmin. The learnings, responsibilities, duties and lifestyle dictate that much better. A parentage and sacred thread are not sufficient enough to certify someone to be a brahmin. Any person good at heart and satisfies the criteria of education, devotion, humility, helping tendencies can become one, irrespective of parentage & genes.
So coming to Shankar's portrayal of Iyer/Iyengar as a social reformer in his movies Anniyan/Gentleman is maybe more to prove the point any person who takes an avatar to do good & propogate goodness is definitely a brahmin. And as on the other side, if someone claims to be a brahmin, he/she needs to do what it takes to propogate what is good and help eradicate the evil. (If I recall correct, in Gentleman, Arjun is not a brahmin by birth, but by his actions & thought).
(there is so much running in my head and I cant seem to organize my thoughts. Will do it better the next time).
Also visit: the origins of class
Chao...
I know that Iam inviting trouble (and maybe traffic) with this post. I would like to state for the record that this blog was not triggered by the discussion among Neeraja, Raman and Eshwar in Raman's blog.
So how can one be considered a brahmin ? There are a hundred thousand definitions as an aswer. There are maybe a million rules, guidelines and responsibilities to one being a brahmin. But in my point of view By BIRTH is definitely not one of them.
Hundreds of years ago when the class system originated for whatever reason, it made sense for those yesteryear folks to segregate people based on their profession and continue to tag classes based on birth because most often anybody ended up continuing the family business - preaching, warring, selling, common-chores... there werent too many businesses anyway. However, this classification tended to have a negative impact as people were forced into doing something just because they were born in that class. And the situation became worse when there were priorities and importance and grades attached to the classes
As centuries passed by and there were industrial, economic & political revolutions, society in general and class system in particular adjusted themselves as appropriate - and formed a strong caste system. And today our Hindu religion boasts of thousands of castes - something that we definitely done have to be proud about. Caste is still a sensitive topic and thousands die over it. Caste riots have become common and even a way of life. Caste is the base for politics, personality building, voter base, educational oppurtunities, workplace oppurtunities and a whole bunch of stuff.
A higher degree of education, science, technology, exposure to various cultures, traditions, historical facts, overseas travels, falling in love, devotion, faith & religiousness - all this get nullfied by a five letter word - CASTE. And to believe that that birth dictates a class/caste affinity after all this is even more surprising.
It is important to differentiate the brahmin-caste and a brahmin-class. A definition of a true brahmin (of the brahmin class) is always something like this. Just being born into a brahmin family/caste does not qualify anyone to become a brahmin. The learnings, responsibilities, duties and lifestyle dictate that much better. A parentage and sacred thread are not sufficient enough to certify someone to be a brahmin. Any person good at heart and satisfies the criteria of education, devotion, humility, helping tendencies can become one, irrespective of parentage & genes.
So coming to Shankar's portrayal of Iyer/Iyengar as a social reformer in his movies Anniyan/Gentleman is maybe more to prove the point any person who takes an avatar to do good & propogate goodness is definitely a brahmin. And as on the other side, if someone claims to be a brahmin, he/she needs to do what it takes to propogate what is good and help eradicate the evil. (If I recall correct, in Gentleman, Arjun is not a brahmin by birth, but by his actions & thought).
(there is so much running in my head and I cant seem to organize my thoughts. Will do it better the next time).
Also visit: the origins of class
Chao...
4 comments:
http://raapi.blogspot.com/2005/06/shankar-s-anniyan.html
I ve mirrored your views there.
-Raapi
Shiva...I agree.
Though the modern definition of brahmin should reflect the times in which we live in.
But what pisses me off is the attempt by so called "reformers" to completely blame on this community every caste systemic evil that pervades india.
Its like saying that this community single-handedly contributed to india's caste system vows. And this simply is illogical.
Its akin to a certain community being blamed for germany's vows in the early 20th century pre WW-II.
rajesh - thanks.. (and thatz a cool pic of yours!!)
eshwar - right on the reformers - blaming part. No single man or a community can be blamed for a social system.But isnt it that this community is blamed more for suppression & superiority than the existence of caste system as is ?
Suppression ?? I am not sure where this has come from. But lets take some of the "evils" of society that existed pre-independence and some continue post-independence too :
1. Sati : This has been abolished. But you can hardly blame this community for this.
2. Caste discremenation : This exists even today. Constitutionally recognized in some form or the other. Present system of reservation is holier than thou for some of castist orgs. Well, this community is at the receiving end but again who cares.
3. Untouchability : It was widely prevelant all over the country pre-independence but its practice has been waving much in the south. In the north, its still practiced in some places. Point to note is that though this community did practice untouchability, they were among the first to question this and seek its removal during the framing of the constitution. And this community was not the only one practicing it. It was practiced many more communities but somehow those dont find mention anywhere. This community seems to be the target group, more so from within than without !
Segeragation : People of lower casts were prevented from entering temples. But these were temples run by the upper casts. Its not like they were barred from entering all temples all over. Each community had their own temple or place of worship. The upper casts which included the priestly class joined in to keep them away. Again here the whole blame cannot be laid on this community alone.
I am not sure what the population count of this community is to the whole of india. But i am sure it will be miniscule. To annoint this entire community as the "dark side", is sheer political opportunism.
And its shameful that there is nobody to question it.
Post a Comment